, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

francis-farrellYour humble blogger has been following the Dubia Process. Before we get to the meat of the matter, I would just like to draw your attention to two short, yet very concise posts that provide the “lay of the land” in the above mentioned Dubia Process. These posts appeared on the AKA Catholic blog and can we link to here and here.

The two posts will set the proper CONTEXT for the following pieces of information.

This piece of information comes via the Life Site News blog (see here). In the post, we are informed that the soon to be FrancisCardinal, one Bishop Kevin Farrell attempts to “rebut” the ORDER OF BUSINESS that comprise the Dubia Documents. It would also appear that this “rebuttal” is a concerted effort whereby Francis’ underlings are trying to deflect the REQUSITE reply that Francis MUST MAKE.

In this post, which is an interview with Bishop Farrell’s argumentation contained, we are informed of the following:

“I think that is what our Holy Father is speaking about, is when we talk about accompanying, it is not a decision that is made irrespective of the couple,” he said, adding that while there is an “objective moral law” you will never find two couples who have the same reason for being divorced and remarried.

I don’t know how someone, who is supposedly intelligent, can make such a contradictory statement. If there is an “OBJECTIVE” moral law, then it IS A DECISION that is made not only irrespective of the couple, but irrespective of all couples. And for the simple reason that the definition of what constitutes OBJECTIVE demands this.

In other words, that’s what the word OBJECTIVE means. Here is a “fuller” definition:


  • based on facts rather than feelings or opinions : not influenced by feelings

  • philosophy : existing outside of the mind : existing in the real world

  • grammar : relating to nouns, noun phrases, or pronouns that are the objects of verbs or prepositions


Now, if a law is OBJECTIVE, it exists “outside of the mind” and is “not influenced by feelings”. 

Simple, no?

Next, think: Second of the three classic laws of thought, i.e. contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions “A is B” and “A is not B” are mutually exclusive.

But I guess this concept has eluded the future FrancisCardinal. This episode also suggests that this wanton disregard for the law of non-contradicition might be a prerequisite for becoming a FrancisCardinal.

One wonders what he was doing when he as in the seminary? But I digress…

What makes the situation a bit more onerous though, rather then just your typical sad or funny, is the fact that the FrancisBishop of Rome appears to have instigated a new “office” behind the “Sacred Vatican Walls”. This new “office” has the task of making sure that the self-contradictory logic, that is contained in the “Apostolic Exhortation” Joy of Sex, and exhibited above by the future FrancisCardinal will be the norm. Here is that information via Sandro Magister and the Rorate Caeli website: (see here)

You will not believe the ridiculousness of it all, but Bergoglioland has finally reached full Banana Republic status. Pope Francis, the Anastasio Somoza of Adultery, the Papa Doc of Sinful Cohabitation, has under him now a Secret “Police”, the Osservatorio per l’Attuazione della Riforma della Chiesa di Papa Francesco (OARCPF – Observatory for the Implementation of the Church Reform of Pope Francis) sending our e-mail letters of official tone to professors in Roman institutions demanding them to teach Amoris Laetitia according to the mind of the Pope (that is, Holy Communion to public adulterers and fornicators) — or (the threat is obviously implied) to face expulsion.

In other words, and to borrow a Soviet Russian concept, the FrancisBishop of Rome has created his very own Cheka. (see here)

Which should not surprise anyone since this is all the rage in the neo-Modernist world at present. From the other side of the Atlantic, we find out that a budding new Cheka is springing up in the postObamanana Republic on the Potomac.

News coming out at present, documents such interesting PHENOMENA as social network media platforms indiscriminately blocking users who they SUBJECTIVELY disagree with. (see here) Furthermore, there are plans to deprive these alternative media platforms of the income that comes from the traffic generated by their users. (see here)

And if that is not all, we find out now that there are plans afoot to “define” what constitutes “real news” and “fake news”. But the funniest, or scariest part, depending on how one looks at it, is that it is the documented and self admitted purveyors of “fake news”OBJECTIVELY SPEAKING, who are the ones who will be deciding just what in fact constitutes “fake news”. And just to allay any worries, they will not classify their product as “fake news”. (see here)

Below I am reproducing a post from the catholic Zero Hedge website. It would appear that Zero Hedge is also categorizes as a “fake news” website. That being as it may, in the Zero Hedge post, several examples, i.e. OBJECTIVE FACTS are given to document the “fakeness” of the “news” that the defenders of “real news” produce.

And tying it into the FrancisBishop of Rome, what is interesting to observe is the parallel PROCESSES  taking place in both these neo-Modernist camps. Notice the same mentality… mindset at work. A mentality that spans both geography and time. It is as if these folks have learned NOTHING from history.

So this being the case, it is easy for a soon to be FrancisCardinal Farrell or a associate professor Melissa “Mish” Zimdars to slip into the proverbial boots of a Felix Dzerzhinski, the original Chekist and start the next iteration of this familiar PROCESS rolling.

And all one can say is:

Meet the new Chekists, same as the old Chekist!



Zero Hedge Targeted On Liberal Professor’s List of “Fake News” Sources (see here)

censorshipWe have a confession to make, everything we’ve said over the past ~7 years has been fake.  Well, not really, but that’s what the ultra-liberal, Assistant Professor of Communications at Merrimack College, Melissa “Mish” Zimdars, would like for you to believe.

While it’s unclear exactly what prompted Zimdars to publish a list of “fake news” sources, we have a sneaking suspicion it was a coping mechnism cleverly employed by the New England, liberal arts snowflake to deal with the stunning defeat of her chosen Presidential candidate.  Or, perhaps she was simply trying to help the folks at Google and Facebook who have vowed to censor “fake news” sources by cutting off their access to advertising.

But, no matter the reason, below is the full list of information resources that Zimdars, the ultimate arbiter of credibility, has deemed “fake.”  Notice that while the list includes numerous conservative news sources like Breitbart, Infowars, Twitchy, The Blaze and Bizpac Review, it excludes the beacon of impartiality known as The Huffington Post.

Moreover, Zimdars even provided the following helpful categorization guidelines to help you determine the level of “fakeness” exhibited by each site.  Zero Hedge has not yet been assigned a category, which we find kind of hurtful.

CATEGORY 1: Below is a list of fake, false, or regularly misleading websites that are shared on Facebook and social media. Some of these websites may rely on “outrage” by using distorted headlines and decontextualized or dubious information in order to generate likes, shares, and profits. These websites are categorized with the number 1 next to them.

CATEGORY 2: Some websites on this list may circulate misleading and/or potentially unreliable information, and they are marked with a 2.

CATEGORY 3: Other websites on this list sometimes use clickbait-y headlines and social media descriptions, and they are marked with a 3.

CATEGORY 4: Other sources on this list are purposefully fake with the intent of satire/comedy, which can offer important critical commentary on politics and society, but have the potential to be shared as actual/literal news. I’m including them here, for now, because 1.) they have the potential to perpetuate misinformation based on different audience (mis)interpretations and 2.) to make sure anyone who reads a story by The Onion, for example, understands its purpose. If you think this is unnecessary, please see Literally Unbelievable.


Perhaps Zimdars missed this John Podesta email exposing Arianna Huffington blatantly colluding with the Hillary campaign to “echo their message without any perceived conflicts.”  Or, maybe this was just dismissed as useless Russian propaganda?

“She is enthusiastic abt the project but asks if she’s more useful to us not being on the Board and, instead, using Huffpo to echo our message without any perceived conflicts. She has a point.”


In any event, the ever helpful Zimdars also provides the following “tips for analyzing news sources”:

Avoid websites that end in “lo” ex: Newslo (above). These sites take pieces of accurate information and then packaging that information with other false or misleading “facts” (sometimes for the purposes of satire or comedy).

Watch out for websites that end in “.com.co” as they are often fake versions of real news sources

Watch out if known/reputable news sites are not also reporting on the story. Sometimes lack of coverage is the result of corporate media bias and other factors, but there should typically be more than one source reporting on a topic or event.

Odd domain names generally equal odd and rarely truthful news.

Lack of author attribution may, but not always, signify that the news story is suspect and requires verification.

Some news organizations are also letting bloggers post under the banner of particular news brands; however, many of these posts do not go through the same editing process (ex: BuzzFeed Community Posts, Kinja blogs, Forbes blogs).

Check the “About Us” tab on websites or look up the website on Snopes or Wikipedia for more information about the source.

Bad web design and use of ALL CAPS can also be a sign that the source you’re looking at should be verified and/or read in conjunction with other sources.

If the story makes you REALLY ANGRY it’s probably a good idea to keep reading about the topic via other sources to make sure the story you read wasn’t purposefully trying to make you angry (with potentially misleading or false information) in order to generate shares and ad revenue.

While we suspect that Zimdars doesn’t understand half of what we write and objected to our factual coverage of the WikiLeaks emails along with Hillary’s FBI investigation and many other scandals, we welcome her readership to the extent she ever wishes to expand her chosen sources of enlightenment beyond the Rachel Maddow Show.

Finally, we leave it to @MattTturner4L to perfectly sum up the hypocrisy…