Wednesday, November 12, 2014


The Flipside
Fixing the Republican Party

Today: A solid 4.25 out of 5

Ralph Wiggum cake

Rodge, I need a project that will add some meaning to my life.  Any suggestions? - Joan from Chicago

Net Brutality

The Obamissariat 

'Obamacare for the Internet'

Video: Ted Cruz declares the 'era of Obama lawlessness is over'

Really?  Let's first wait for the results of this PET scan:

That was President Barack Obama's November 10 take on who gets to decide whether new rules governing so-called "net neutrality" — regulating broadband Internet providers as "common carriers" under the Communications Act of 1934 — gets implemented.
[...] "Unfortunately, the court ultimately struck down the rules — not because it disagreed with the need to protect net neutrality, but because it believed the FCC had taken the wrong legal approach," Obama claimed in his statement.

Which may be putting it mildly. To wit, the court said "Given that the Commission has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers, the Communications Act expressly prohibits the Commission from nonetheless regulating them as such. Because the Commission has failed to establish that the anti-discrimination and anti-blocking rules do not impose per se common carrier obligations, we vacate those portions of the Open Internet Order."

In other words, under the 1996 Telecommunications Act, Internet service providers were exempted from being treated under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 as common carriers. Instead, they were be treated as exempt "information services" providers by the FCC in an initial 2002 determination.

Because of that, the FCC cannot now go back and treat them as if they were common carriers, said the court. That is, not without the FCC going back and reversing its determination.

Which is exactly what Obama wants the agency to do: "I believe the FCC should reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act."

But that is untested. Can the FCC just change its mind? [Obama skips Congress on ‘net neutrality’]

I don't think Obamunism can go into remission, anymore than totalitarianism.  Each occurrence must be surgically removed.

Soul Reasons

Agnus Dei


Not all those who claim to be Christians really are, said Pope Francis Friday morning. Some are Christians “in name only,” he said. “They bear the name of Christians but live a life of pagans.”

In his homily at Mass, the Pope that there have always been two types of Christian, those who truly followed Christ and those who only pretended to. At the time of Saint Paul, there were “worldly Christians, Christians in name only, with two or three Christian features, but nothing more.” The Pope called this sort of people “Pagan Christians,” whom St. Paul called “enemies of the cross of Christ.”

In Paul’s time, the Pope said, the two groups of Christians “were in church together, went to Mass on Sunday, praised the Lord, and were called Christians.” So what was the difference? He asked. The second were “enemies of the cross of Christ.”

The Pope went on to say that “even today there are many! We must be careful not to slip into the way of pagan Christians.” These are the ones, he said, who are “pagans painted over with two brush strokes of Christianity, so they look like Christians, but are really pagans.” (continued)



Burke has been one of the most outspoken opponents of Kasper’s proposal, saying it is not Catholic, threatens the indissolubility of marriage, and is therefore unacceptable. “The Church must do everything she can when, once again, the integrity of marriage is under attack,” he told the Viennese audience.

The Vatican prelate was speaking in Vienna Tuesday, at the launch of the German translation of Remaining in the Truth of Christ, a book to which he contributed. The work is a response to Cardinal Walter Kasper’s proposal to allow some remarried divorcees to have access to holy Communion. The Catholic Church has always barred such a possibility, based on Christ’s teaching that remarrying after divorce constitutes adultery.
He said he “often heard” prelates at last month’s two-week Synod on the Family in Rome say that because the culture has changed “so radically,” the Church “cannot teach as we had in the past.” But Burke responded by saying such a view betrays a “loss of hope in Jesus Christ, Who alone is the salvation of the world.” He acknowledged that the culture is “very corrupt” but added that doesn’t mean “we go chasing after it, but rather bring to the culture that which will save it and be full of hope.”

Talk of possible schism has increased in the Catholic Church after the recent synod appeared to be leading the Church in a more “progressive” direction on moral issues. A controversial document issued by bishops midway through the meeting (which Burke called a “total disaster”) pointed to radical changes in the area of homosexuals, divorce, and remarriage among other things, but the proposals were largely toned down or failed to reach a consensus in the final report.

Questioned about whether there is a genuine risk the Church might split, Burke said if, in the runup to a second synod on the family next October, bishops are seen to move “contrary to the constant teaching and practice of the Church, there is a risk because these are unchanging and unchangeable truths.” He also pointed out that the head of the synod of bishops, Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, has “identified himself very strongly” with Kasper’s thesis and “subscribes to that school.”

Warning that this battle will continue, he called on Catholics to “speak up and act.” [Full]

The Catholic Church's guiding principle may be summed up, I think, with this.  Jesus Christ said what he meant and meant what he said. 

Posted without further comment.