Doug Kmiec Jumps Shark

Friday, January 24, AD 2014

For Wales.



Richard Rich Doug Kmiec, who betrayed the pro-life cause in 2008 by endorsing the most pro-abort President in our nation’s history, is back in the news.  Following his resignation from his Malta ambassadorship, his 30 pieces of silver from Obama for his support in 2008, after being criticized in a State Department report for spending his time on private writing instead of his ambassadorial duties, Doug has apparently taken leave of his senses.  The Weekly Standard gives us the details:

Last week, Kmiec took to his Facebook page (where all the old folks go on the Internet these days) and announced that he’s running for Congress. Kmiec has targeted California’s 26th district, where freshman Democrat Julia Brownley won a reasonably narrow victory in 2012. The district had been represented by David Dreier for the preceeding decade, so it’s not crazy for Kmiec to think a Republican might have a shot to unseat her. But Kmiec isn’t running as a Republican. He’s running as an independent. Still, not entirely crazy. This is California, after all. Stranger things have happened.

No, the crazy comes when Kmiec explained to the Pepperdine student newspaper exactly why he’s running. He was inspired to run, he said, by Pope Francis. But don’t worry, his candidacy won’t make him some kind of congressional holy roller. Because, as he further explained, he merely sees the House of Representatives as a stepping stone to, well, let’s let Kmiec explain:

Kmiec said that if he wins the election, he would hope to be considered as an option to become the vice-president in Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. “I see it as an outside possibility. .  .  . The idea of running for Congress is to put myself in a position where I’m able to both lead in the interim while she’s running for president and be ready for greater responsibility should that be God’s blessing and his wisdom,” he said. Kmiec’s blog further explains how the U.S., in his opinion, is “Ready for Hillary.”

Continue reading...

28 Responses to Doug Kmiec Jumps Shark

  • I once lived in what is now California’s 26th congressional district. I expect Kmiec will be Krushed after the June primary.

    P.S. The Archdiocese of Los Angeles, in which Ventura County is trapped, should be broken up.

  • Kmiec’s marriage of 40 years ended in divorce last year. He is 62 years of age. I seem to recall that Sandra Day O’Connor’s husband began losing his reason at age 59 and Gov. Carroll Campbell at age 61. Something is not right with him.

    Remember Jeffrey Hart, the retired Dartmouth English professor, erstwhile cog in Richard Nixon’s public relations apparat, and contributor at National Review? He went on a binge of conspirazoid musings conjoined to pseudo-Burkean ramblings during the period running from 2004 to 2008 which culminated with an endorsement of Barack Obama as the ‘real conservative’. As far as I can tell, the man has not published a word in nearly three years and has said very little in the last five years and change. You think maybe his children took charge of him?

  • My only comment:

    Asinus Maximus

    No translation required.

  • Don

    The Ambassorship of Malta is worth about one piece of silver. Maybe he is trying to get the other twentynine.

  • Donald McClarey’s bilious ad hominem against Professor Kmiec–and the other comments that follow– is dense with conservative boiler plate and uncommonly weak with regard to any intellectual content. Conservatives wedded to the idea that President Obama is somehow “pro-abortion” will never acknowledge the data that now shows abortions falling significantly faster under Obama than under his Republican predecessor. Doug Kmiec is too much a gentleman to ridicule the errant musings of his conservative critics. But he is one of the country’s few great “public Catholics.” I think the kind of criticism of him that we are seeing in the blogosphere now fits squarely in the category of the blather described well by Jonathan Swift when he said, “When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.”

  • I am now confirmed in my previous assessment regarding the worthless of degrees from today’s Academia.

    A more sterling example of Judas Iscariot than Doug Kmiec cannot be had. If this is American Catholicism then get ready for God to raise up sons to Abraham from the stones themselves.

    As for Obama, he had best beware lest as he follows his predecessor King Manasseh in infanticide he also follows him into captivity. God’s justice will not be indefinitely delayed. God save the President from himself!

  • “Donald McClarey’s bilious ad hominem against Professor Kmiec”

    Oh surely a Harvard MD Phd can do better than that.

    “Conservatives wedded to the idea that President Obama is somehow “pro-abortion””

    Why the scare quotes about pro-abortion Doc? I am sure that Obama would embrace it, based upon his statement celebrating Roe this week:

    “Today, as we reflect on the 41st anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, we recommit ourselves to the decision’s guiding principle: that every woman should be able to make her own choices about her body and her health. We reaffirm our steadfast commitment to protecting a woman’s access to safe, affordable health care and her constitutional right to privacy, including the right to reproductive freedom. And we resolve to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, support maternal and child health, and continue to build safe and healthy communities for all our children.

    Because this is a country where everyone deserves the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams.”

    “will never acknowledge the data that now shows abortions falling significantly faster under Obama than under his Republican predecessor.”

    Nice try Doc. The abortion rate has been declining since 1990, no thanks to pro-abort fanatics like Obama:

    “But he is one of the country’s few great “public Catholics.””

    Because he supported the most pro-abort President in our history? What a warped view you must have of greatness and of Catholicism.

    In regard to Swift, I have always regarded his A Modest Proposal as the perfect satire of the pro-abortion, better living through mass death, mentality.

  • Whelan presumably showed up because he and Kmiec are associated with a group called Catholic Democrats which supported Obama:

    Supporting the slaying of a million innocents a year is small potatoes for “Catholic” Democrats like Whelan and Kmiec so long as they can pull the lever for the party of the Jackass.

    Go to the link below for background info on Catholic Democrats and other fake Catholic groups of the left.

  • Patrick just admit you voted for a guy who doesn’t have a qualm about doctors crushing the skulls of preborn children at any point of gestation. You may have some impressive letters after your name, but you’re still slimy.

  • The Jonathan Swift quote used above can certainly be understood in the opposite of its intended use. Sad to see that the content of the post was taken as ‘intellectual’ divorced from any moral underpinning.

  • “When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.”
    I am not against him. I am only against the devil and the evil he does: enabling and supporting human sacrifice, Benghazi, unnatural cohabitation, leaving us without a prayer and at Christmas time, taxation without representation, overturning the will of the people, and legally castrating every American male, not to mention the lies about keeping one’s own insurance.

  • Donald McClarey’s bilious ad hominem against Professor Kmiec–and the other comments that follow

    Can someone tell the rheumatologist who ‘writes on medical ethics’ that the term ‘ad hominem’ does not mean what he thinks it means?

  • Dr. Whalen states, ““When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.”
    Amazing how full of yourself you are Patrick Whalen….so conceited and oafish in your craven effort to be counted among the politically correct that you betray your own Faith. Remember who you are and where you came from.
    Mr. Kmiec’s support of an abortion advocate makes him no genius; merely a weak and little man lacking in the fortitude necessary to stand firm against those who support the horrific act of child murder that is abortion.
    I stand proudly among those you label as “dunces” who oppose Mr. Kmiec actions ansd who are remarkably unimpressed by you.

  • I keep hearing that “abortion rates are falling.” I looked at that website and I’m not exactly impressed by how much it has fallen. I also wonder if the abortion rates have fallen due to 1) increased abstinence/chastity among some populations,2) increase in infertility due to STDs and multiple abortions, 2) and aging population. Don’t get me wrong–the modest declines we’ve had is a good thing, but we’ve a l.o.n.g. to go for anyone celebrates. And yes, Obama is a very strong supporter of abortion.

  • Normally I would say that Art may have been a bit out of line, then I followed the link in the update, and yeah, something is not right. I mean Kmiek has always been a social climber, thus why he took the CUA gig in the first place, but that’s just way out there.

    -Paul Zummo, BA, Ph. D. PGK, DD

  • “I am now confirmed in my previous assessment regarding the worthlessness of degrees from today’s Academia.”

    Fun fact: Kmiec has the somewhat dubious honor of teaching in the same law program from which former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (long before Kmiec’s tenure) earned his law degree, and where Blago famously boasted of having only earned a C in his constitutional law class.

  • “the data that now shows abortions falling significantly faster under Obama than under his Republican predecessor. ” Hmm . . . an ever-quickening rate of falling abortion rates has anything to do with who’s in the White House? Harvard must have stopped teaching Logic 101 to its PhDs.

    “There are more bears in the California woods that ever before, and look how much acreage is burning! We need to stop these pyromaniac bears!”

  • @WK Aiken:

    PhD = Piled Higher and Deeper.

    I have been a nuclear training instructor for decades and have received into my initial training classes the most abominably ignorant college degreed people from Academia to train. Give me a Navy nuke tech or operator any day of the week over arrogant self-filled PhD’s from today’s godless liberal Academia.

  • Pingback: More on Andrew Cuomo's Bigotry -
  • Just because Hilary is the early favorite does not mean she will even win the Democratic nomination. She has too little charisma and a long record with too many blemishes.

  • I am suggesting that Doug Kmiec apply for the position of valet for Le Roi Soleil – His Royal Highness of the Kingdom of the Empire State of New York. They have much in common in their profound understanding of and practice of Catholicism. Kmiec, Obama, Sibelius, Pelosi, Brown, and the rest of their ilk would be laughable if they were not so dangerous. Recommended reading for this crowd: The Divine Comedy.

  • “Just because Hilary is the early favorite does not mean she will even win the Democratic nomination. She has too little charisma and a long record with too many blemishes.”
    That is what ambition without principle does. Hillary Clinton tried to steal the White House china with the presidential seal on it. I say “tried” because she was caught and made to put it back. Then there is Whitewater and Vince Foster, who committed suicide and then walked a quarter of a mile.
    I know too many voters who will unabashedly vote for Hillary because she is a woman and another group who will vote Democratic because their grandparents and parents did. Any money in the campaign spent informing the people of their civil rights is well spent.
    Then there is Bill Clinton who used the office of President of the United States to seduce women, Jennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky but not Hillary. If Bill Clinton did not want Hillary, why should I?

  • Patrick Whelan MD PhD:

    Did your mother not-abort a “normal” whelp?

    FYI. That would be an insult, imbecile.

  • Patrick Whelan MD PhD: God will arrest him.

  • Kmiec was a professor of mine and head of my law school for 1.5 years. He seemed…normal then, and poised to take the law school more Catholic, more conservative, and to stand boldly forth, etc.

    Then he resigned 1.5 years in and went back to Pepperdine…almost 6 months after telling the faculty and students that he was there to stay. There were many rumors as to why that happened. Failure to get a judgeship, wife didn’t like D.C. weather, Pepperdine offered more money….who knows, in the end.

    I am saddened that his life has taken so many problematic turns, and saddened still more that many of them can be laid at his own feet.

  • The video “political ad” that the “genius” Kmiec produced has mysteriously disappeared. Here is how Josh Blackman describes it:

    “Then came this surreal video with some eerie voices touting Kmiec as an “independent voice” in 2014. He is apparently also running for Congress in 2014 before being Hillary’s VP. (I don’t know how many campaign finance laws were ignored here).”

    I saw the video before its untimely demise, and I can tell you that it doesn’t take a confederacy of dunces (or a Harvard M.D. and a PhD) to conclude that it wasn’t produced by someone in his right mind.

  • Tragic. The man is not well.

  • “The abortion rate has been declining since 1990, no thanks to pro-abort fanatics like Obama”

    I wonder about these statistics. Abortion as has always been measured has gone done, but does that mean there are fewer abortions? There are so many ways to kill a child these days that I wonder if the victims of these new methods are counted. Example: The morning after pill is available over the counter. No doctor. No paperwork. How do you count those children not allowed to implant?

Joseph Bottum Goes For “Strange New Respect”

Saturday, August 24, AD 2013

Patron Saint of Opportunists



Former editor of First Things Joseph Bottum, before he got canned in 2010, writes a truly vapid and interminable essay at Commonweal in which he comes out for Gay marriage.  I am not going to link to it.  The writing is atrocious and the thinking behind it worse.  The Henry Luce Foundation that paid for it should demand their 30 pieces of silver back.    Bottum I assume is going for the ever lucrative conservative apostate market.  There are always people willing to reward conservatives who, unafraid not to be able to look square in the mirror when they shave, are ready to give the heave ho to what they purported to believe.  Old friend of this blog Richard Rich Douglas Kmiec, former ambassador to Malta, can perhaps give Joe tips about the rewards that await turncoats.  Damon Linker, until now having cornered the market for First Things apostacy, is no doubt green with envy!

Continue reading...

22 Responses to Joseph Bottum Goes For “Strange New Respect”

  • The two cases are somewhat different.

    It is difficult to believe Linker was aught but a fraud who collected a salary from the Institute on Religion and Public Life while compiling material for a book denouncing that enterprise. If you followed some of the online debates Linker got mixed up in, you got to marvel that a lapsed professor of political theory who had spent four years on the editorial staff of publication not pitched to simpletons was less than deft attempting to argue with obscure professors (Joseph Knippenberg) and assorted laymen. It was difficult to understand what Neuhaus ever saw in him; the Editorial Board reportedly attempted to dissuade Neuhaus from promoting him, to no avail. Linker could never get an academic department to hire him for longer than two years; maybe they got a good idea of his talents. (Rod Dreher fancies he’s a decent chap).

    The Joseph Bottum story is much more obscure. He was rather more a generic Republican than the other editors (he comes from a prominent political family in South Dakota and was employed primarily for Rupert Murdoch’s Weekly Standard) and made some curious editorial choices while editor. After the Institute axed him, he moved to Rapid City – not having lived in South Dakota for a generation – and went about attempting to make a living as a free lance writer. I hope he gets ad copy commissions because it is difficult to figure how you make a living at that otherwise; Joseph Sobran ended his days as a ward of the Commonwealth of Virginia. I suspect that he is, like a great many people, just too bloody other-directed.

  • Don, there’s been a lot of pondering lately as to what has happened in the last five years in particular and 50 years in general that have caused so many to doubt their faith and bedrock beliefs. Some including myself have talked about historical events like elements of the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, Modernism, the 1960s etc. However, while all of this is true, I think our biggest problem is that we live in an era of “disbelief.” We have thrown out dogma and mystery for hyper technology. People line up for days at their local techy store to await some midnight release of this device or that believing it will give them all matter of answers about life. Jesus told us we couldn’t serve two masters and sadly we see another prophetic example of His teachings.

    The faithful need the kind of zeal displayed by hyped up sports fans before a big game. Yet, too many of the faithful (leadership included) are afraid to be disliked so they refuse to take a stand and sadly the people lose their faith and their vision. As I have stated in my various articles and books, I do believe the Church is much better off in 2013 than 1973, even as society grows ever closer to tumbling over the precipice. Prayer and courage are needed lest more people lose their faith.

  • If and when my loved one leaves the “lifestyle” he wiil face the jeering from that side. Many people can only make their own leap back knowing that love is the true mark of a Christian

  • I was saddened to see this. I became acquainted with Jody when be commissioned an article for my book on Doctors in the Movies for the Weekly Standard. Later he was instrumental in the publication of my book on Christians in the Movies by Rowman and Littlefield and wrote an excellent foreword for it. He was very close to Richard Neuhaus. i wonder what Father Neuhaus would have said about his current stance– another of many reasons that he is sorely missed..

  • Well that’s a decade of my life I’m never getting back.

    One wonders if the Luce Foundation pays as much per word as the Wall Street Journal.

    All right, enough snark. That was a depressing read. Bottum’s naivete is particularly galling in light of the fact that this was published days after the New Mexico Supreme Court case. He actually has convinced himself that if we just surrender on this one little issue, then homosexuals and same sex marriage supporters will stop hating the Catholic Church, and we can all just move along now. I wonder what other fairy tales he believes in.

    Also, I must ask in all seriousness – he was an editor? At one point in the article I thought he might start talking about what he ate for breakfast. There’s certainly room for personal anecdotes in such a piece, but couldn’t he have edited down by about half and still made roughly the same point?

  • Never had much use for a grown man who calls himself “Jody” (sort of like a 40-something year old man who still calls himself “Chipper”, but that’s more about me hating the Atlanta Braves than it is anything else).

    But I do have to confess that I very much enjoyed Bottums’ suggestion that Dougie Kmiec do anatomically impossible things to himself in response to Dougie’s self-serving “eulogy” of Fr. Neuhaus.

  • If I had a surname like his I would have chosen a different subject on which to comment.

  • This is one(of scores) reason I wake up each morning and thank God Almighty that I am not an intellectual.

  • I skimmed the article, and it only took me six years, Paul. But at no point does he ever seem to make an argument for gay marriage. He says that the fight is over; he (maybe correctly) cites gay marriage as the “cost” for the Catholic sex abuse scandal. He talks a lot about stuff, boring stuff mostly. He says that the natural law argument is weak (although I don’t remember him pointing to specific weaknesses in it). The subtitle of the article is “A Catholic’s Case for Same-Sex Marriage”, but the article isn’t interested in making the case, only giving up on making the opposing case.

    The only thing I found truly offensive in it is that he thinks that gay marriage may lead to improvements in chastity, love, and family. You can argue the latter two if you want to, although, again, you’d have to actually argue them rather than just walking by them nodding. But that first one: how do you argue that gay marriage might lead to chastity, in any Catholic understanding of the word? It is nearly the exact opposite.

  • The man got a grant from the Luce Foundation to write this article. I guess the ad copy work has dried up.

    Fr. Neuhaus said Midge Decter used to tell him, “You don’t think low enough”.

  • Pingback: Pope Francis and Fatima -
  • People writing as angrily as Mr. McLarey miss at least one (maybe the only) point in Bottom’s essay. He is genuinely pained by the experience of homosexuals regards marriage and the Catholic Church. Some writers are making fun of the sentiment but it appears genuinely held. Attacking a very long (for the web) essay with a paragraph of “atrocious” “turncoat” “pieces of silver” etc. does not come across as serious.

  • “Where we’re going with all this is toward a claim that the thin notions of natural law deployed against same-sex marriage in recent times are unpersuasive, and, what’s more, they deserve to be unpersuasive—for their thinness reflects their lack of rich truth about the spiritual meanings present in this created world.”

    “…after the long hard work of restoring cultural sensitivity to the metaphysical meanings reflected in all of reality, Catholics will have enough experience to decide what measure of the deep spirituality of nuptials, almost absent in present culture, can reside in same-sex unions.”

    “I believe in a thick natural law.”

    I’ll leave my commentary on the intellectual content of his essay to the minnions:

    As for Bottums himself, he appears as either one of two things. He may simply be a confused man who has not thought through the basic positions involved in the subject. He goes part-way in confessing this in the essay. “…I went along with them on same-sex marriage mostly because I lacked the seriousness and strength of mind to work through it for myself.” The arguments, or lack thereof, in this essay show that not much has changed for him.
    He could also be of that sort that knows in his heart what is right, and knows intellectually what the real, non-straw-man arguments are, but doesn’t like their conclusions. Or perhaps it’s the company he would be keeping if he fully embraced those conclusions. You don’t get invited to all the cool parties if all the cool people know you’re a medieval Christian reactionary.
    Whichever his faults, he tucks them nicely under the worn blanket of nuance. With nuance he could be confused, a coward, or both since it yields the same result; not doing the hard things.
    At least Bottums will get invited to all the right cocktail parties now.

  • “does not come across as serious”

    Much more serious than that stream of consciousness drivel that Mr. Bottum inflicted on the reading public ec. His pain is truly newfound since he had no problem defending traditional marriage when he was paid to do it as editor of First Things.

  • “At least Bottums will get invited to all the right cocktail parties now.”

    “I have known a human defended from strong temptations to social ambition by a still stronger taste for tripe and onions.”

    CS Lewis, Screwtape Letters

  • He is genuinely pained by the experience of homosexuals regards marriage and the Catholic Church. Some writers are making fun of the sentiment

    Funny thing about that.

  • “… but for Wales, Richard.”

  • What is very striking is that nowhere in his lengthy article does Mr Bottom touch on the heart of the issue.

    It is a fact that every jurisdiction that has introduced same-sex marriage has also permitted human gametes to be treated as articles of commerce or tolerated a market in babies, bespoke or prêt-à-porter through surrogate gestation, assisted reproduction and joint adoption by same-sex couples.

    In France, the commission established by the National Assembly, “the Mission of Inquiry on the Family and the Rights of Children” (usually referred to as the Pécresse Commission, after its rapporteure) reported in 2006 that “The link between marriage and filiation is so close that the question of making marriage accessible is inseparable from that of making adoption and medically assisted conception accessible. This link was acknowledged by almost all witnesses, whether they were in favour of or opposed to developments in this area.”

    In this, they were prescient; the recent legislation does authorize both SSM and joint adoption by same-sex couples. In that country, opposition to SSM, much of it secular, stemmed from the belief that it would erode the ethical principle, enshrined in the law of France, that children cannot be made the subject and source of a transaction, restricting joint adoption to (opposite-sex) married couples and declaring that the human body, its parts and products cannot be the subject of a patrimonial right. In this, I believe they are absolutely right.

    Mr Bottom could do with a spot of Gallic logic.

  • Fathom the depth, breadth and height of meaning of the human activity known as marital, conjugal, um, nuptial (oh, how many of these adjectives do I need to make my meaning clear?), ‘honest’ sexual intercourse.

    It is the arch between the pillars of the two sexes, each of which “hold up half the sky”. It is the generating driveshaft working mightily between this generation and the next one; thus, between 10,000 generations past, and (God grant) 10,000 generations to come. It is a holy Communion between Heaven and Earth, since by it we obey God’s first command, conjure Eden anew, and invoke upon ourselves His Eden blessings. It is a constitutive element of a holy Sacrament which — in any Creed and even for the creedless — is still a natural covenant recognized, by being solemnized, in every civilization, in every century, on every inhabited continent.

    This intercourse is a connector between male and female generative organs (am I still allowed to say that?) and makes solid, mutually resonating sense of male and female anatomy and physiology. This intercourse breeds — bless it, breeds immortal beings. The close study of its cells, tissues, organs and systems invokes awe; even in videos it thrills our little ones and, alike, their elders on whose laps they rest. Seeing this, we’ve see and sense wonders equal to a billion galaxies: and we sense it in our own flesh!

    Fecund phraseology? Still, you know what I’m talking about.

    It seems to me that one of the sad and disappointing things about homosexual relations is that they reduce the two participants to a kinds of nut/nut or bolt/bolt absurdity. Clunk. Thud-headed. Where’s the sense in this sensation?

    Now speaketh the Bride:
    High must be the chamber –
    Make it high, you builders!
    A bridegroom’s coming –
    Like the War-god himself, the tallest of the tall!

    Same-sex relations take the whole grand architecture of sexual differentiation and divide it by zero.

    “Immanentize the Eschaton,” did somebody say?

    I say, Immanentize the Epithalamion.

  • I probably shouldn’t be but I’m still curious. By what creative mechanism does someone who ought to know better and certainly understands the distinction between prudential judgment and defined moral precepts, one day wake up and decide that prudential judgments are too restrictive for the purview of their conscience? I can understand that when one is outside the Church but once you acknowledge you are not your own vicar then how do you ever arrive at usurping that authority as if it’s open to discussion on a case by case basis? Crazy apostates.

  • echarles1 – Concern for the individual person, homosexual or heterosexual, is a good thing. No one’s faulting Bottum for that. But concern is not an argument, for gay marriage or for anything else. Indeed, concern for the individual should drive him to be more outspoken in defense of the teachings of the Church, because those teachings can steer all of us toward God. His essay muddies things up for the people who are under attack by our messed-up society. Those who would give up some truth out of a sense of love will lose both.

  • Indeed, concern for the individual should drive him to be more outspoken in defense of the teachings of the Church, because those teachings can steer all of us toward God.

    If you suggest someone has to adhere to a standard that requires some discipline and is not defined by the social work/psychotherapeutic trade, you are not feeling their pain. Recall that the exchange between the bourgeois and the homosexual is one of mutual ego satisfactions, affirmation for opportunities for self-congratulation.

Obama Can Count on Kmiec!

Wednesday, September 5, AD 2012



My good friend Jay Anderson is being brilliant again at his blog Pro Ecclesia.  He brings us up to date as to the activities of the former ambassador to Malta Richard Rich Douglas Kmiec:

The Daily Beast is running a story about some of the prominent “conservatives” who crossed over to support Obama in 2008 (i.e. the “Obamacons”), noting that many of them are remaining steadfast in their support for The One. I find it interesting that, with one or two exceptions, most of the folks can no longer be described as “conservative” in their viewpoints, assuming they ever were actually conservatives (a number of them pan Romney, for example, for – of all things – being too conservative). But I’d like to focus in particular on one of the figures profiled in this story – our old “friend” Doug Kmiec.
When last we saw Kmiec, it was shortly after he had penned a break-up letter to his beloved over the HHS Mandate, but after Obama’s feigned “compromise”, he was taken strongly in the arms again of the The One, and he did not remember that he had ever felt the pain of betrayal and separation.
And, so, we fast-forward several months to today, and we find Kmiec quoted in the pages of The Daily Beast clarifying for us, in no uncertain terms, that he is firmly in the camp of the ObamaCaths – nay, the DemoCaths – for whom Catholic teaching is generally an afterthought in relation to the overall Democrat agenda, except insofar as said teaching can be twisted to push said agenda.

Continue reading...

One Response to Obama Can Count on Kmiec!

  • Kmiec’s perversion shocked me in 2008 and this is more absurd with the total lack of any progress and concern for justice not to mention the unborn and marriage.

The Catholic Left Falls Into Line

Wednesday, February 15, AD 2012

It was inevitable that most of the Catholic Left, in any confrontation between the Church and Obama Caesar, would side with the Messiah from Chicago.  A petition making the rounds indicates how quickly this process has played out. 


Today the Obama administration announced an important regulation that will protect the conscience rights of religious organizations and ensure that all women have access to contraception without a co-payment. We applaud the White House for listening carefully to the concerns raised by religious leaders on an issue that has provoked heated and often misinformed debate. This ruling is a major victory for religious liberty and women’s health. President Obama has demonstrated that these core values do not have to be in conflict.


Specifically, this new regulation guarantees that no religiously affiliated institution will have to pay for services that violate its moral beliefs or even refer employees for this coverage. Instead, if a woman’s employer is an objecting university, hospital or other religious institution, her insurer will be required to offer her coverage at no cost. This is a sensible, common-ground solution.


In recent days, sound bites and divisive rhetoric have too often pitted the faith community against sound science and public health.The previous regulations caused an unnecessary conflict between the administration, the Catholic Church and other religious institutions. We are encouraged that the Obama administration has developed a substantive solution that addresses the concerns of the many constituencies involved. We look forward to bringing the same level of passion displayed in this debate to other pressing moral issues that face our nation.

Continue reading...

23 Responses to The Catholic Left Falls Into Line

  • Any people in this list who are Catholic should be publicly excommunicated.

  • These are brilliant and well-educated people but you realize that they’re not the magisterium.

  • Oh I understand that Mike. I am not at all certain that the Catholic signers of this piece of tripe understand that however.

  • These brilliant and well educated people have “been done educated into imbecility.” I realize that’s a quote from Fr. Corapi, and he sadly fell off the wagon as it were. Nevertheless, in this case, it’s correct.

  • Our first acts of civil disobedience should be protesting at the DNC in Charlotte this September.

  • They know what to think.

    They do not know how to think.

    I’m imagining Tokyo Rose propaganda broadcasts . . .

    Peace and justice!

    It’s okay to lie and cheat to advance peace and justice.

    And, to provide political support to those killing 45,000,000 unborn humans . . .

    Peace and justIce!

  • They are not educated.

    They are indoctrinated.

  • Donald, I should have said, “we realize that they’re not the magisterium.”
    Paul, that’s an oldie but a goodie.

  • T Shaw,

    I stand – er, sit – corrected.

    BTW, while I have mentioned this before, perhaps it bears repeating. I know of a very intelligent man who runs a pro-nuclear energy blog site and he is thoroughly liberal (which is oxymoronic given that liberals have fought nuclear energy tooth and nail for 40+ years). He (and most of his readers) know far more about science, engineering, and technology than I ever will. But they BELIEVE in that godless man of sin, Obama, hook, line and sinker. They look at us as hate criminals. The division between “us” and “them” couldn’t be greater. They twist around history to say what they want it to mean. They hate Israel, love Iran, and object to everything the US has done in world affairs since WW II. They openly despise the Church, and where they claim to follow the Gospel of Jesus Christ, it isn’t holiness and righteousness that matter to them but what T. Shaw pointed out: “peace and justice” nonsense. They won’t look at the actual statistics regarding the real reasons for abortion given at Priests for Life or the USCCB web sites. They won’t even consider that life begins at conception, physical evidence be damned. The obviousness that homosexual behavior is contrary to natural law is sneered at. And these are SCIENTISTS of the highest order! I just don’t get it. I never will. How can someone be so smart – far, far smarter than many others at this blog, myself included – and be so abysmally deceived? Despair is a sin and I am sinful.


  • Great! Where do I sign? Second question, why is this pen drawing blood from my hand?

  • This ruling ….

    That says it all, doesn’t it? Presidents are not supposed to rule; kings and Caesars are.

  • I don’t doubt that these are smart folks (both the ones who signed and the one to which Paul alludes). For that reason, I find it very hard to accept that they are duped, indoctrinated, etc. What I do not find hard to accept is that they deliberately ignore these teachings because they simply want contraception/abortion (or whatever). They know; they just don’t care.

  • Now, this “when does life begin thingy” hits close to home.

    Our first grandchild is scheduled to make her debut in early July.

    Our daughter-in-law has emailed us sonogram pictures since early as God Almighty began forming in her mother’s womb our granddaughter.

    That is clearly a human on those pictures.

    Re: the sad social justice crowd. It’s not me. I know next to nothing. My education is clearly lacking. It’s St. Augustine. He dealt with such error in the early 400’s anno domini Rome.

    “The only evils these people recognize are having to endure hunger, disease, and murder. It is as though man’s greatest good were to have everything good, except himself.”

  • I sincerely believe there is an emotional disorder that transcends intelligence or level of education, wherein the victim has an underlying sense of insecurity, bordering on phobia, necessitating a strong political figure in which to invest. This insecurity then blinds the victim to inconsistencies or outright contradictions in his or her belief system, making the inherent synthesis imbalanced and objectively invalid.

    It may be due to lack of a strong father-figure in youth. Perhaps Dad was there, and even loving, but lacked principle and steadfastness. It may be that, as they grew and were being ‘taught,’ that there were no teachers or other intellectual figures of authority that drew out the aspects of critical thinking necessary to make rational decisions that all follow common principle in logical order.

    Regardless of cause, it is quite evident that a foundation of concept and process that produces ideas of a stripe in one area but contradictory ideas elsewhere exists. There needs to be an object within which to rationalize that inequality, so that it can be contained, and that object is then The Leader, who spins fact and fancy into a complex web of duplicitous confusion, allowing the imbalanced person the ability to simply “follow the leader” instead of confronting the intellectual contention within.

    Contradiction is a rock in the shoe of the critical mind and it will be ejected when it becomes intolerable. That such an ejection is not happening in the minds of people like the above signatories, it leads me to believe that they are in fact just stable enough to retain positions of influence, but would crumble if made to explain such inconsistencies in a logical, orderly fashion. Of course that leads to the “subjective truth” tripe that the Left falls upon when challenged, and that’s another conversation.

  • I agree that insecurity and inferiority feelings are the culprits– these are very bright capable people and as we continue to seek the way to evangelize them we need to respect their intellect and their will to do the good– teachers know demeaning a pupil doesn’t work, but building on what is good and enlarging it does–
    we need not to polarize more within our church… and cause our cause to fail– But instead find a way to haul them into the boat (barque) -highlighting contradictions while respecting their intellectual commitment to truth might be a way to do that

  • ANYONE that supports Obama does NOT support being Catholic, or even Christian.
    As I keep stating Where is the Christ in his action? You cannot claim to be Catholic if you are willing to compromise the teachings of the Church, the mandates of the Pope, or the teachings of the Bible. Murder is Murder. no matter what name you give it. Sin is sin no matter how you wish to wrap it. The devil comes in many forms. Sins provides many options. If a criminal was coming to rob you would he ask for in invitation to take your possessions? Your soul is open for the taking once you close it to the will of God!

  • Half of the list doesn’t claim to be Catholic.

    The half claiming to be Catholic here replace Teachings of the Church/objective truth with satanic opinions. That, by definition (look it up, Doogie), is heresy.

    Christ did not come among us to save us from suffering or to create Heaven on Earth.

    Jesus Christ came to save us from our sins, and by His Life, Death and Resurrection to purchase for us the rewards of eternal life.

    I see a couple of them have “S.J.” in their handles. Every one on the list ought to put “S.J.” behind their name: “Society of Judas.”

    While there is time, they must repent, confess, do penance, amend their lives, and through good works glorify God.

    Otherwise, I’m pretty sure none on the list will be getting into Heaven.

  • Well indoctrinated liberals perhaps but brilliant no. Brilliant is when Churchill pithily grasped the criminal folly of the Kaiser:

    “The Germans took a somber decision. Upon the western front they had from the beginning used the most terrible means of offense at their disposal. They had employed poison gas on the largest scale and had invented the ‘Flammenwerfer.’ Nevertheless, it was with a sense of awe that they turned upon Russia the most grisly of weapons. They transported Lenin in a sealed train like a plague bacillus from Switzerland into Russia.”

    Anyone who has thought about this knows that the HHS compromise is nothing but ‘plague bacillus’, even worse than the original requirement, in that it will destroy the moral integrity of the Catholic Church in the US, infecting everything she touches. This is Pharisaic at its worst – the Catholic Church does not accept birth-control and knows that abortion is murder – but is willing to look the other way as insurers, PP and Warren Buffett keep the muck off her hypocritical hands. Obama must be counting on a lot of stupid Catholics.

  • so I guess my idea about trying to evangelize the Catholic Left is right out. : /

  • Some lovely groups represented on that list: Sojourners, NETWORK, Evangelical Partnership, DJAN. These are alynsky progeny and closely working with the DP. I trust they are not receiving CCHD funding but would be curious.

  • Paul, do you remember this Prayer?,,”….I thank You, Father for hiding these things to the learned and revealing them to mere children…..”. “….The Wisdom of God is Foolishness to the World…” These Truths were given to us 2000+ ago and they sure ring true today from what I have just read in this Post.

  • Who was the first “social justice” Christian?

    In other words, who was the first follower of Christ turned his back on the salvation of souls and gave precedence to a worldly agenda?

  • Perhaps the answer to T Shaw’s question is in John 12:1-7:

    1* Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2 There they made him a supper; Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those at table with him. 3 Mary took a pound of costly ointment of pure nard and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the ointment. 4* But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was to betray him), said, 5 “Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii * and given to the poor?” 6* This he said, not that he cared for the poor but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box he used to take what was put into it. 7* Jesus said, “Let her alone, let her keep it for the day of my burial. 8 The poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me.”

Government Health Care Mandate Awakens The Faithful From Their Slumber

Sunday, February 5, AD 2012

Occasionally the haughty and arrogant become so full of themselves, they are deluded into thinking that by their sheer will and intellect they will convince a sizeable part of the populace to give up their beliefs. The current administration illustrated this very point when they announced last month that every group will be forced to abide by the dictates of the governmental health care plan. All employers must provide birth control coverage in their health care plans as well as the morning after abortion pill. (Churches were given an exemption but churches are a small part of church related institutions, such as hospitals, schools, universities etc.)

The prairie fire started by President Barack Obama’s Administration wasn’t immediately reported by the mainstream media. Surely some in the mainstream media must have thought few Catholics would care if a bunch of old bishops read a letter from the pulpit that would go in one ear and out the other. Well of course,  at least the “enlightened Catholic populace” who voted for President Obama would surely come to this conclusion. Those who would care wouldn’t vote for the President anyway, the liberal talking heads surmised. This shows how ill informed many in the mainstream media have become; for since the last 20 years or so increasing numbers of newly appointed bishops and cardinals have been far more orthodox in their beliefs and far less willing to appeal to the whims of the political world.

When I first heard the news, I thought there must be some sort of mistake; surely any freshman majoring in Political Science would realize that rankling the feathers of any major swing state voting bloc especially that of Catholics would make little sense. Yet even after some in the mainstream media awoke from their militant secular slumber, the White House insisted that this dictate would remain because of the “deeply held beliefs of the President.”

This created an opening for the Republican Primary candidates who pounced on the issue, none more than former Speaker Newt Gingrich who called it, “President Obama’s War on The Catholic Church.” Traditional and conservative minded people of all faiths immediately expressed shock at the decision of the White House. Even liberal columnist EJ Dionne wrote a scathing column saying, “The President had thrown him and his fellow Progressive Catholic allies under the bus.” Naturally the liberal media and the likes of Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi rushed to the President’s defense. MSNBC’s Ed Schultz, seemingly unaware of the White House decision, wondered what on earth Newt Gingrich was talking about with “Obama’s War on the  Catholic Church,” which Gingrich stated in his concession speech following the Florida primary. Former Speaker Pelosi did her best Richard Rich imitation saying she “stood firmly with the Obama Administration.”

Continue reading...

7 Responses to Government Health Care Mandate Awakens The Faithful From Their Slumber

  • I am reminded of Jacob Marley’s Ghost – “Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!”

    The trouble with activism is that it is the occupation a narrow spectrum of people – most of which enjoy more leisure than the common man. The rest are engrossed in their lives.

    I am one of them.

    It is difficult to rise from a political slumber when catching an early train, working all day, coming home to dinner, homework review, reading with the children, and spending time with a spouse. “Life” fills each nook and cranny of the day and carving out time to do even routine chores, that don’t require immediate attention, is difficult.

    I am therefore skeptical that even so direct an assault will change much.

    It isn’t that our fellow Catholics are uninterested or unconcerned it is that they are engrossed in the day-to-day.

  • G-Veg, true we all lead busy lives but for too long, too many people have filled their lives with junk and thus you can’t digest the good stuff when it comes. If you have ever eaten too many doritos and cheese puffs before a friend suddenly invites you to a nice dinner, you can’t help but think that what have I done? Believe me I am a big sports and music fan, so I know how to enjoy many things. However, at the end of the day, I hope I know where my priorities lie. Sadly too many people live reality show lives, which lends them to being told what to do and how to think. For them pleasing the “In Crowd” and the “Political whims of the moment” are of the utmost importance.

    Once in a while, we are all awoken from our slumber. In a strange sort of way, the Obama administration unwittingly did the Church a favor by waking the faithful up to see the reality of their second term agenda, which lies far beyond this mandate. It is only a taste of things to come. I will leave you with the words of Patrick Henry who said, “When people forget God, tyrants forge their chains.”

  • The Supreme Court will hear the Obamacare case on March 26-28. Can we Catholics make a pilgrimage to the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception at the Catholic University in Washington, DC?

    I agree with G-Veg–most people are too harried–can we block these three days and come together as a Church to worship, fast and pray for our nation? Perhaps a million Catholics praying for the Supreme Court Justices (6 of whom are Catholic) will make a positive difference in this nation!

  • People are not that busy that they can’t change their voter registration if they wanted to.

    You want to be heard? Catholic Democrats who are offended by Obama’s intentional act against the Catholic Church in violation of our Constitutional First Amendment Rights need only register out of the Democrat Party and become Independents or Declined to State registered voters. When the Democrat Party starts seeing their voter registration numbers declining, they will start paying attention to what is happening and start giving the Church the respect we deserve.

    Just as important to Catholics is our professed belief that God is the giver of life (“I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life….) and our praying for God’s “will be done on earth;” so to the Democrat Party is their belief that they are in the right which is verified by the numbers of people registered in the Democrat Party. The fact is that after 39 years of Roe v Wade and 52,000,000 murdered babies, Catholics still represent the single, largest voting block for the Democrat Party. In addition, 55% of Catholic voters voted in 2008 to elect Obama – the first pro-abortion, pro-infanticide President ever. Finally, Obamacare provides, supposedly, health insurance for illegal aliens, something very important to the Catholic Bishops and Hispanics. The combination of those facts convinces Obama that the majority of Catholics will support his mandating the Church include birth control, etc., in their employees’ health insurance or face millions of dollars in fines every year.

    We’ll see who is right… the Church who thinks Catholics really do believe what they say they believe in their “Profession of Faith” on Sundays and in what they pray for in the Lord’s Prayer; or, Obama, who, based on historical, electoral statistics, believes the majority of Catholics will continue to remain Democrats glad to have free birth control paid for by the Church even if Obama’s order is in violation of the Constitution.

  • Somewhere someone commented, “It’s not so much about birth control. It’s all about control.”

    The remnant of the Holy Catholic Church that is not in the tank for Obama is spiritually safe.

    Wait until they individual mandate you to buy Government Motors Volts.

  • I have to agree with Dave that the Obama regime badly miscalculated this one, which very well should make its re-election chances go up in the smoke of Satan.

William Roper v. Richard Rich

Sunday, October 9, AD 2011

 In good faith, Mr. Rich, I am more sorry for your perjury than mine own peril; and know you that neither I nor any one else to my knowledge ever took you to be a man of such credit as either I or any other could vouchsafe to communicate with you in any matter of importance.

Saint Thomas More


Two arresting scenes from A Man For All Seasons, (1966).  Usually the second scene in the video clip is remembered for the statement by Sir Thomas More that he would give even the devil benefit of the law.  I have written about that statement here.  However there is another interesting facet to the pairing of these two scenes:  a comparison of William Roper and Richard Rich.

Sir Thomas is fond of Roper the suitor of his daughter, and the fondness is obvious in the scene.  However, he will not allow him to marry his daughter because he is a heretic.  More notes that at one time Roper was a passionate churchman and now he is a passionate Lutheran and hopes that when his head stops spinning it will be to the front again.  (Roper did become an orthodox Catholic again and remained one till his death, even under the reign of Bad Queen Bess.)  In spite of Roper being something that Sir Thomas detests, that does not alter either his liking or his high regard for the young man.  Why is this?  Because Roper is obviously seeking after the truth and attempting to do what he thinks is right.  Such good motivation is to be respected even when it reaches erroneous conclusions.

Richard Rich on the other hand lacks such motivation.  More likes him also, but recognizes that he has no character.  Rich will do whatever it takes for him to rise in the world, and if that involves immoral actions, so be it.  Unlike Roper he lacks any good motivation or honest intent.  (The historical Rich was a complete scoundrel and recognized as such at the time.  He specialized in betrayals and making himself useful to whoever was in power at the time.  Under Henry and Edward he persecuted Catholics, under Mary he persecuted Protestants, and under Elizabeth he was whatever she was.  It is a sad commentary on the human condition that such an open, time-serving villain prospered and died in his bed, the founder of an aristocratic dynasty.)

Continue reading...

6 Responses to William Roper v. Richard Rich

  • Well of course “Parliament has not the competence” – it’s Parliament! What possible competence could it have? 😉

  • Those are some pretty interesting thoughts there Don; I had not considered More’s perception of Roper & Rich, but it completely makes sense. Are there any books or other movies on More’s life that you might recommend?

  • There are endless good books on Saint Thomas Kyle!

    William Roper’s life of his father-in-law is the starting point for all More biographers.

    One of the more recent bios is Peter Ackroyd’s Life of Thomas More, which has some of the best recent scholarship on More.

    I have enjoyed The Field is Won by Ernest Edwin Reynolds.

    The late Richard Marius did an interesting, if critical, biography of More in 1984. Marius was editor of the Yale collection of the writings of More, and knew his source material, but his bio was marred by Marius attempting to portray More as troubled by religious doubt. Actually Marius, a fallen away evangelical, was reading his own lack of faith into More. He pulled the same unconvincing analysis in his bio of Luther.

    More biographies are endless, and in his case it is always “More the merrier!”

  • One thing about the line about giving the devil benefit of law for his own safety:
    The law didn’t keep him safe did it? St. Thomas lost his life because a legal proceeding warped by the perjury of someone who didn’t respect the law!

  • John Guy’s A Daughter’s Love: Thomas More and His Dearest Meg gives a rather negative portrayal of Roper.

Ambassador to San Marino?

Thursday, June 2, AD 2011

12 Responses to Ambassador to San Marino?

  • Yes! America needs more and longer wars against muslims (the open-ended Gaddaffi cont. op.), higher food and fuel prices, more jihadi Mid East regimes, more job strangling regulations, more under-employment, more weak GDP growth, more people on food stamps, more falling home prices, more bureaucrat-rationed medical care, leaglized gay marriage, National Harvey Milk Day, more condoms for second graders, more abortions soon to be paid with taxes, etc.

    My third kid just graduated from a big name jesuit U. I was mildly impressed with at the first. By the third, the academics waned banal. Or, did I wise up?

  • You do realize that it brings liberals nothing but glee to see conservatives devoting so much time, energy and emotion to bashing conservative dissenters? Conservatism 2012 — smaller and more orthodox! 🙂

  • Considering the election results in 2010 Kurt, and the current dismal state of the economy, I think it is rather liberalism that will find its 20% of the population, as opposed to conservative 40%, diminished at the polls next year. In any case Kmiec ceased to be a conservative when he signed on to be a mouthpiece for Obama’s abortion-uber-alles agenda.

  • I think it is rather liberalism that will find its [itself] diminished at the polls next year.

    And my hope and prayer is that conservatives will keep acting based on that assumption. Go Paul Ryan!!!!!

  • Go Paul Ryan!!!!!

    The first intelligent thing ever written by Kurt!

  • Keep hoping and praying for victory at the polls of the Party of Abortion next year Kurt. While you are at it, you might consider sending Kmiec a fan letter. I doubt if he gets many of those these days.

  • Go Paul Ryan!!!!!

    The first intelligent thing ever written by Kurt!

    Loving every minute of it! 🙂

  • ” . . . glee to see conservatives devoting so much time, energy and emotion to bashing conservative dissenters?”

    KurKommie definition of “conservative”: One who actively campaigned for and voted for Obama; and vows he will do so again.


    Bashing Conservatives Talking Points:

    Vote for Obama!
    Vote for:
    more and longer wars
    higher food and fuel prices
    more bank bail outs – banks that gave him campaign $$$
    More money for Soros – gave him campaign $$$
    more jihadi Mid East regimes
    more job-killing regulations
    more under-employment
    more weak GDP growth
    more people on food stamps
    more falling home prices
    more bureaucrat-rationed medical care
    legalized gay marriage
    National Harvey Milk Day
    more condoms for second graders
    more abortions soon to be paid with taxes
    more tax $$ to PP

    November 2010 NEVER HAPPPENED!!!!!

  • t shaw —

    luv you, dude. Keep on keeping on!

  • Maybe Kmiec could get appointed to Macedonia or Serbia and fill the spot that another notable Pepperdine Law School alumnus, Rod Blagojevich, had hoped to receive?

  • Another reason for Kmiec to again campaign for Obama: the CST preferential option for the poor.

    May 2011 job growth mysteriously decelerated, the Obama Labor Regime reported today. Total nonfarm payrolls weakly increased by 54,000, 57% lower than the anticipated 125,000 Obama propaganda estimate. That is the weakest increase in nonfarm payroll since September 2010. Worse, the unemployment rate unexpectedly deteriorated to 9.1% from 9.0% in the previous month, despite additional obfuscation with the statistic’s denominator, i.e., removing people from the work force.

    Jeff Carter nails it. “The effects of the crony capitalism economy are being seen in unemployment numbers. Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, huge unchecked runaway bureaucracy. Obama created ‘The Great Uncertainty’. We are seeing people get frustrated and drop out of the work force. If you are a history major, check out charts from 1937-40. They might repeat themselves.”

    Obama is making more people poorer!


Richard Rich Quits as Ambassador to Malta

Monday, April 18, AD 2011

Hattip to Creative Minority Report.  Richard Rich,  Douglas Kmiec, in the wake of a state department report declaring that he was pretty much a disaster as Ambassador to Malta, has resigned.  The LA Times has the details:

Kmiec wrote that the inspector general had a “flawed and narrow vision of our diplomatic mission” and said his writings had a “highly positive effect on our diplomatic relations.”

He complained that, as a result of the inspector general’s recommendation that he end that work, “my voice has been prevented from speaking; my pen has been enjoined from writing; and my actions have been confined to the ministerial.”

Kmiec, a devout Roman Catholic and a onetime frequent contributor to The Times opinion pages, held important legal posts under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He has been a prominent figure in the antiabortion movement and in efforts to give greater latitude for religion in public life.

He was also impressed by President Obama’s religious faith and interest in improving relations between religions, and he supported him during the 2008 presidential election campaign.

After Obama was elected, Kmiec was appointed ambassador to Malta, a conservative Catholic island, and White House officials said that one of his roles would be to advance Obama’s views on interfaith dialogue.

But the inspector general’s report, issued in February, says he had an “unconventional approach to his role” and devoted much time to writing on the “interfaith initiative.” It said his official schedule was “uncharacteristically light,” and that he had had “friction with principal officials in Washington, especially over his reluctance to accept their guidance and instructions.”

Continue reading...

15 Responses to Richard Rich Quits as Ambassador to Malta

  • Just in time for him to devote himself full time to getting Obama reelected…

  • The Devil loves useful idiots.

  • I’m sympathetic to Kmiec to this extent: while I would love to visit Malta some day, how much is there for even the American ambassador to do? The Maltese were happy, and so were most of his staff. What else was he supposed to do?

  • Just in time for him to devote himself full time to getting Obama reelected…

    Prof. Kmiec’s account of himself never made much sense. One tends to wonder if he is merely getting goofy with old age, rather like Albert Gore or Jeffrey Hart.

  • I hear that a lot of American forces being used in Libya are staged out of Malta. Right now there might be a lot for him to do. Maybe the embassy work was beginning to take away from his Obama apologetics.

  • The post was supposed to be his reward for being a high profile Catholic for Obama. Needless to say, the Obama administration is not the first to reward supporters who know nothing about diplomacy with an ambassadorial spot. This is a long and dishonorable tradition in American diplomacy. The inexperienced ambassadors often come a cropper and that is what has happened to Kmiec. What is unusual in the Kmiec situation is that he ran into trouble in what should have been the most placid of postings.

  • Phillip raises a good point. The Libya situation probably does magnify the importance of the Malta ambassadorship. It will be interesting to see if the Obama administration goes with a professional diplomat now.

  • If this is any example of the diplomatic back and forth, Kmiec is probably being overwhelmed by the position.

  • I agree with you Phillip. My guess is that Kmiec is probably way out of his depth now in regard to what was supposed to be almost a ceremonial role in a diplomatic backwater, and this resignation could be a face-saving device.

  • Clueless professor meets real world. Real world wins.

  • Malta like Italy or Greece or for that matter any country caught between Islam and the West, knows that her interests will not be protected under the current Western dispensation. The days when the West was led by men of the calibre of Churchill or Nixon, who for all their numerous flaws tried their best to do what is right and in some fashion identified with the interests of Christians are long gone.

  • This news is shocking! I still cant believe it! Kmiec is a Catholic no matter how many times I read it I still have trouble believing it.

  • Devout Roman Catholics – DO NOT – support Pro-Abortionist ! He is a prime example of the anti-dogma, supposedly educated types that have been allowed to infiltrate & take over our once good Catholic Colleges. He publicly disgraced himself in 2008 & automatically excommunicated himself by lying to other Catholics about the godless senator from Ill. The Koran thumper in the oval office duped him & numerous other supposedly highly educated clergy & Catholic theologians !

Richard Rich Pretty Much a Disaster as Ambassador to Malta

Friday, April 8, AD 2011

Hattip to Catholic Key Blog. Richard Rich Douglas Kmiec, who sold out the pro-life movement by supporting the most pro-abortion candidate in our nation’s history for President, Barack Obama, now the most pro-abortion President in our nation’s history, is pretty much a disaster as ambassador to Malta, his equivalent of the going rate for traitors of thirty pieces of silver, according to a State Department Report.

He is respected by Maltese officials and most mission staff, but his unconventional approach to his role as ambassador has created friction with principal officials in Washington, especially over his reluctance to accept their guidance and instructions. Based on a belief that he was given a special mandate to promote President Obama’s interfaith initiatives, he has devoted considerable time to writing articles for publication in the United States as well as in Malta, and to presenting his views on subjects outside the bilateral portfolio. He has been inconsistent in observance of clearance procedures required for publication. He also looks well beyond the bilateral relationship when considering possible events for the mission to host in Malta. His approach has required Department principals, as well as some embassy staff, to spend an inordinate amount of time reviewing his writings, speeches, and other initiatives. His official schedule has been uncharacteristically light for an ambassador at a post of this size, and on average he spends several hours of each work day in the residence, much of which appears to be devoted to his nonofficial writings.

At the same time, he has not focused sufficiently on key management issues within the embassy. . .

. . .The Ambassador advised the inspection team that he intended to discontinue his outside writings and focus on matters that directly pertain to the embassy and priorities outlined in the Mission Strategic and Resource Plan (MSRP). Within weeks of the team’s departure, however, he resumed drafting public essays that addressed subjects outside his purview as Ambassador to Malta and detracted from his core responsibilities. These activities also detracted from the core responsibilities of embassy staff members who devoted time and effort to reviewing and editing the ambassador’s drafts and seeking approvals occasionally after the writings had been submitted for publication from Department officials.

Continue reading...

7 Responses to Richard Rich Pretty Much a Disaster as Ambassador to Malta

Doug Kmiec on the Death of Kennedy

Sunday, August 30, AD 2009

Doug Kmiec, betrayer of the pro-life cause, future ambassador to Malta and spiritual descendant of Richard Rich,  the subject of few posts on this blog, see here, has taken the opportunity of the death of Ted Kennedy to engage in some predictable spaniel like fawning over Obama and ObamaCare.  The ever cogent Erin Manning at her ever readable blog and sometimes tea, fisks the resulting mess here, so you don’t have to.

Continue reading...

10 Responses to Doug Kmiec on the Death of Kennedy

  • I see Cardinal McCarrick has even shared with the world the late senator’s deathbed letter to Pope Benedict–the one that begins with a tribute to Obama’s “deep faith” and ends with a pitch for government health care. The cardinal describes this bit of self-serving political propaganda as “deeply moving.” Richard Rich had almost all the bishops of England on his side; I suspect Doug Kmiec may have the majority of our bishops with him.

  • Ambassador Kmiec is a deeply confused man with the ability to do either great good or great harm to the Church and its values by virtue of his God-given intellect. It’s terribly sad that he has chosen, of late, to turn that intellect against crystal clear teachings related to social issues ranging from abortion to same-sex marriage. We must pray for his re-conversion and may he publicly refute his errors and the damage they have caused to this nation and most especially to the souls of those he has helped lead astray.

  • Pingback: Doug Kmiec on the Death of Kennedy | Pelican Project Pro-Life
  • Cardinal McCarrick brings to mind one of the most intriguing quotes from the Council of Nicaea when debating the Arian heresy.

    Saint Athanasius was quoted as saying, “The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.”

  • This scene from ‘A Man For All Seasons’ is one of my most favorite.

    It’s interesting that Richard Rich doesn’t blink an eye when Sir Thomas quotes the Bible in reference to his Medal-of-Office.

  • I actually thought he seemed rather hesitant throughout the scene Tito. Note that the bailiff had to remind him “So help you God, Sir Richard”. I thought John Hurt played well the role of a man who has subdued his conscience, but still feels faint pangs of shame.

  • I agree that he played the role very well. He could’ve have been grappling within himself and only later realized the gravity of what he had done.

  • I hope both you gentlemen are well aware of the fact that hagiography was not really the intention of the Scriptwriter; indeed, the man himself was actually an atheist.

    I admit that the movie remains top on my list of favourite films; yet, I’d place more historical accuracy in Roper’s own account of More’s life than this, however poetically it depicts More.

  • Actually e, Bolt was an agnostic. He wrote plays and screenplays about characters in conflict with their society. Although he did not share the Faith of More, he obviously greatly admired him and that shines through the play.