The Weather Channel’s Misleading Spin on Trump’s Reference to Solyndra

Featured

Politics is in the air….. and on the air everywhere.  Looking to check on the latest long range forecast today, I came across Carl Parker of the Weather Channel discussing the economics of the federal government promoting renewable energy.  This must have been in response to last night’s debate when Donald Trump replied to Hillary Clinton’s comments on how the federal government needs to continue its push for renewable energy.  Trump answered with the financial debacle of when our government gave funds to assist in a solar panel start-up.  While he did not mention Solyndra specifically, he reminded the audience of the $500 million the failed start-up cost taxpayers a few years ago.1

Mr. Parker countered that federal expenditures have amounted to $34.2 billion for all renewable energy sources.  He pointed out that defaults have amounted to a very low 2.28%.  He added that revenue from all of these projects has put the federal government in the black by $30 million.

The tone in which it was presented and the tendency of many viewers to hear data without scrutiny made it sound as though this has been a good thing for us citizens.

But is it really?  Earning $30 million on $34.2 billion over several years amounts to a total return of just under 0.9%…. How many civilian companies, not to mention financial firms, would have a chance of staying in business with that rate of return over just one year?  Perhaps as the Republicans have suggested for a long time:  when it comes to advancing new technologies, leave it to the entrepreneurs and don’t allow the government to try to pick winners.

 

1 – “Why the Solyndra mistake is still important to remember,”  by Katie Fehrenbacher, http://fortune.com/2015/08/27/remember-solyndra-mistake/, 8/27/2015.

Is Trump Correct — Putin a “Stronger” Leader than Obama?

Featured

Poor Democrats.  They hang on to every word spoken by Donald Trump hoping to catch something they can exploit.  A recent episode involved Trump saying they Vladimir Putin has been a stronger leader in Russia than Barack Obama has been in the United States.  Trump also said that he doesn’t like the Russian form of government.1  Nevertheless, the Democrats are ignoring that last comment and staunchly maintain that Putin was being complimented by Trump as they rush to defend the “savior” of our nation.2

But we’ll go along with the Democrats, disregard the important qualifier and stick to analyzing the “stronger” part.

Yes,  Putin  Does  Get  His  Way

When it comes to national leaders, “strong” implies getting what you want.  Putin has pushed his weight around by withholding important natural gas to several countries.3  He has also acquired the Crimea unjustly and is taking advantage of Obama’s unwillingness to enforce the infamous “red line in the sand” in Syria by doing whatever he feels like.4

Score one for Trump.

….  But  So  Did  Obama  with  “Obamacare”

So, has Obama been denied at home? Sadly, very rarely.

He was able to have “Obamacare” approved by Congress even though its chief proponents admittedly didn’t know much about it.5  This legislation controls the health industry which is 1/6 of our entire economy!6  That qualifies as a major impact.  Sorry, one point against Trump.

Oh, by the way, since Obama got his way on this one, insurance companies are losing money and pulling out of many states.7  Premiums  are skyrocketing even though the President said they would decrease.  Many are losing their doctors and even insurance coverage — something the President promised would not happen.8

Obama has been very strong in this issue… The trouble is, it has also made our nation weaker with regard to insurance and health care. Hmm, looks like being a strong leader can be very detrimental.

Pushed  Common  Core  with  Misleading  Origins  and  Purpose

With his administration’s support, Common Core has made intrusions into many states education under the guise of being “developed by the teachers and the states” when it wasn’t.9  It also claims to raise education standards when it’s really a disguised opportunity for social engineering.10

Yes, Obama has a strong administration whose apparent goal is for a less informed electorate which means a more impressionable and vulnerable citizenry.

We have been warned about this.

“Convinced that the people are the only safe depositories of their own liberty, and that they are not safe unless enlightened to a certain degree, I have looked on our present state of liberty as a short-lived possession unless the mass of the people could be informed to a certain degree.” –Thomas Jefferson to Littleton Waller Tazewell, 1805.”11

Sure, Obama is stronger, but it makes our future weaker. Trump missed this one, too, but we don’t gain from it.

Then  There’s  the  Benghazi  Lie  Many  Believed

The President, along with Hillary Clinton’s cooperation, made enough people believe the lie that  Benghazi was a result of a video.  This helped to protect his thinning lead in the 2012 election by covering up his faulty assertion that he was defeating terrorism.  Yes, a very strong-willed leader who makes it more dangerous for U.S. citizens abroad.  This is a good thing, Democrats?

Federal  Debt  Driven  to  Perilous  Heights

Obama called George W. Bush unpatriotic for the $4.3 trillion increase in the federal debt during his two terms — yet Obama has pushed the debt $9 trillion12 and his adoring supporters say he’s doing a fine job as President.  Obama’s not just strong, he’s stiff-arming our entire country into insolvency!

Other  Examples  of  Obaminations

We can skip the disgraceful fact that Obama likes to deny that there are: problems with the Veterans Administration, examples of unethical behavior toward conservatives by the IRS, racist motivations in the agenda of Black Lives Matter, etc. etc. which prove that Trump was wrong.

Obama is a strong leader who is taking our nation to even new lows.

Hillary’s  Stiff-Arming  is  Legendary,  Too

We should not despair.  If elected, Hillary Clinton will continue the same “strong leader” philosophy.  She has a long track record to prove this. Highlights include stiff-arming those women who accused her President husband of improprieties to the background.13

She was instrumental in securing the 2012 election for her political rival Obama via the Benghazi travesty.

Approximately 55% of her non-governmental visitors to the State Department were Clinton foundation contributors.14  That’s knowing how to take care of personal business with national impact.

Of course, her crowning achievement is the maneuvering she and husband Bill pulled off to make FBI Director James Comey petrified of indicting her.  And we can’t forget Hillary Clinton’s influence  with Attorney General Loretta Young who arbitrarily decided not to follow the advice of three FBI groups to investigate her further.  Obama and Ms. Clinton are seriously strong.

Putin  Doesn’t  Have  the  Patent  on  Strong-Armed  Leadership… Unfortunately

It’s now obvious that “strong” does not always mean “good” just as “change” doesn’t always mean “improvement.”

Vladimir Putin and his Soviet ancestors (excluding the respectable Mikhail Gorbachev) might actually consider it a compliment being associated with those two.

 

 

1 – “Mike Pence defends Donald Trump comments on Vladimir Putin: ‘inarguable’,” by Tal Kopan, http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/08/politics/mike-pence-on-donald-trump-vladimir-putin/, 9/9/2016.

2 – “In the pre-recorded program that was broadcast Sunday night on BET, Foxx urges the audience to ‘first of all, give an honor to God — and our Lord and savior, Barack Obama!’”
“The audience responds with cheers as Foxx shouts the president’s name again and urges them to ‘stand up.’  From “Jamie Foxx takes heat for calling Obama ‘our Lord and Savior’” by Isaac Brekken, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jamie-foxx-takes-heat-for-calling-obama-our-lord-and-savior/, 11/27/2012.

3 – “Concern about a European energy crisis stems from the disputebetween Russia and Ukraine over Crimea and eastern Ukraine. This prompted Moscow to halt gas supplies to Ukraine in June and talks to settle the dispute have since broken down…”

“Reports claim Russian gas deliveries to Poland dropped by 45 per cent on Wednesday, the third day of decreases.”

“Russia has this week, by threatening to reduce exports to the EU, to prevent ‘reverse flows’ to Ukraine, meaning Ukraine may be forced to siphon off gas flowing through the country to European destinations. Against this backdrop, analysts fear Russia could halt all supplies to and through the Ukraine as in 2006 and 2009…”

“Finland is the next most at-risk because it gets all of its gas from Russia and has no other supply options, while Poland, Turkey and Bulgaria are the next most exposed, according to a new report from Cologne University’s Institute of Energy Economics.”

From “Fear over Russian gas switch-off sees EU states stockpile supplies,” by Tom Bawden, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/fear-over-russian-gas-switch-off-sees-eu-states-stockpile-supplies-9727466.html, 9/11/2014.

4 – “Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Tuesday said President Obama damaged U.S. credibility, when he decided not to take military action against Syrian leader Bashar Assad, despite drawing a ‘red line’ against the use of chemical weapons.”

From “Panetta: Obama’s ‘red line’ on Syria damaged US credibility,” by Justin Sink, http://thehill.com/policy/international/219984-panetta-obamas-red-line-on-syria-damaged-us-credibility, 10/7/2014.

5 – “Pelosi adds: ‘But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.’”
From “Texas GOP says Speaker Nancy Pelosi said people will know contents of terrible health-care plan after it passes,” by W. Gardner Selby, http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/mar/15/republican-party-texas/texas-gop-says-speaker-nancy-pelosi-said-people-wi/, 3/15/2010.

6 – “The increase will bump up the health share of the economy from 17.5 percent in 2014…”
From “Health Care Expenditures Heading Toward 20 Percent of Economy,” by Caitlin Owens, https://morningconsult.com/2016/07/13/health-care-expenditures-heading-toward-20-percent-economy/, 7/13/2016.

7 – “On Monday evening, Aetna, one of the nation’s largest insurers, announced it is pulling out of the Obamacare insurance exchanges in 11 of the 15 states it currently operates.  According to Business Insider, Aetna ‘determined that the nearly $300 million in pretax loss it was sustaining on an annual basis was not worth the business.’ Which is an understatement, to put it mildly.”

“Two other top-five insurers already announced plans to pull out of Obamacare earlier this year.  In July, Humana said that next year it ‘will only offer individual plans in 156 counties in 11 states, down from 1,351 counties across 19 states this year.’  And the CEO of the nation’s largest insurer, United Healthcare, announced in April ‘we will remain in only a handful of states.’  United Healthcare had previously said that it lost $475 million last year on its policies in the Obamacare exchanges.”  From “After $300 Million Loss, Another Major Insurer Pulls Out Of Obamacare,” by Mark Hemingway, http://www.weeklystandard.com/after-300-million-loss-another-major-insurer-pulls-out-of-obamacare/article/2003852, 8/16/2016.

8 – “’If you like your health care plan, you can keep it,’ President Barack Obama said — many times — of his landmark new law.”

“But the promise was impossible to keep.”
“So this fall, as cancellation letters were going out to approximately 4 million Americans, the public realized Obama’s breezy assurances were wrong.”
From “Lie of the Year: ‘If you like your health care plan, you can keep it’,” by Angie Drobnic Holan, http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/, 12/12/2013.

9 – “Common Core claims that “The federal government was NOT involved in the development of the standards.”  Technically, yes, but that’s a half-truth to be discussed later in this section. Nevertheless, the CCSS also did not come from the states as implied.

According to Diane Ravitch, former assistant U.S. secretary of education under presidents George H. W. Bush and Clinton:

“They were developed by an organization called Achieve and the National Governors Association, both of which were generously funded by the Gates Foundation. There was minimal public engagement in the development of Common Core.  Their creation was neither grassroots nor did it emanate from the states.”

 From “Common Core: Slingshot to Progress or Spider Web? Part 2 of 5 [Creation of the Standards and Comparison with those of the States],”  by Tony Rubio and posted by the Ohio Conservative Review, http://ohioconservativereview.com/2015/03/17/common-core-slingshot-to-progress-or-spider-web-part-2-of-5-creation-of-the-standards-and-comparison-with-those-of-the-states/, 3/17/2015.

10 – “Finally, the gravity of the CCSS movement is described by an Arizona teacher (Brad McQueen, 5th grade) who was asked by his state’s board of education to participate in CCSS review in Chicago of the ELA standards. It’s what could be called a modern day version of “thought-crime” — a mere thirty years after Orwell’s book.

“‘My turning point came when in answer to questions I had about a student writing sample, my Common Core handler blurted out, “We don’t ever care what the kids’ opinions are. If they write what they think or put forth their opinion then they will fail the test.””

“‘I have always taught my students to think for themselves. They are to study multiple views on a given topic, then take their own position and support it with evidence. “That is the old way of writing, “my Common Core handler sighed. “We want students to repeat the opinions of the ‘experts’ that we expose them to on the test. This is the ‘new’ way of writing with the Common Core.’”

“‘I discovered later that this was not just some irritated, rogue Common Core handler, rather this was a philosophy I heard repeated again and again. I pointed out that this was not the way that teachers teach in the classroom. She retorted that, “We expect that when the test comes out the teachers in the classroom will imitate the skills emphasized on the test (teach to the test) and employ this new way of writing and thinking.’”This was a complete kick in the stomach moment for me.’”

“The Left’s agenda is coming through loud and clear.”

From “Common Core: Slingshot to Progress or Spider Web? Part 4 of 5 [The probability of a national curriculum and a not-so-hidden agenda],” by Tony Rubio, posted 3/21/2015 on the Ohio Conservative Review, http://ohioconservativereview.com/2015/03/21/common-core-slingshot-to-progress-or-spider-web-part-4-of-5-the-probability-of-a-national-curriculum-and-a-not-so-hidden-agenda/

11http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/thomasjefferson/jeff1350.htm

12 – https://cartaremi.wordpress.com/2016/08/31/jeremiah-was-criticized-for-speaking-truth-of-bad-state-of-affairs-trump-knows-how-he-felt/

13 – “’90s Scandals Threaten to Erode Hillary Clinton’s Strength With Women,” by Amy Chozick, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/us/politics/90s-scandals-threaten-to-erode-hillary-clintons-strength-with-women.html?_r=0, 1/20/2016.

14 – “Hillary camp launches desperate ‘cherry-picking’ defense after her calendars reveal Clinton Foundation donors got face-time when she was secretary of state, “ by David Martosko, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3756447/Hillary-camp-launches-desperate-cherry-picking-defense-calendars-reveal-Clinton-Foundation-donors-got-face-time-secretary-state.html, 8/24/2016.

“Catholic” VP Candidate Kaine Doesn’t Understand Church’s Doctrine on Marriage, the Book of Genesis and Pope’s Statement

Featured

In his desire to remain relevant in a capricious society, Tim Kaine said the Catholic Church may one day allow same-sex “marriages.”

“Kaine, who attends a primarily African-American Catholic parish in Richmond, Virginia, acknowledged that his “’unconditional support for marriage equality is at odds with the current doctrine of the church I still attend.’…”

The Democratic VP candidate, a self- proclaimed Catholic, not only approves of such impossible unions, but he doesn’t understand the basics of his faith as evidenced by:

“’But I think that’s going to change, too,’ he said to applause, invoking both the Bible and Pope Francis as reasons why he thinks the church could alter its doctrine on marriage.”1

But  Church  Doctrine  Can’t  Change

But, Mr. Kaine, doctrine is in unchangeable.  Practices may change over the years, but doctrine is permanent.

For example, the doctrine of Jesus’ “hypostatic union”2 of the divine and human has always been true despite the Arian heresy (arising around AD 300) which “was willing to grant Out Lord every kind of honor and majesty just short of the full nature of the Godhead… He was granted, one might say (paradoxically), all the divine attributes – except divinity.”3

Also, the Church knows that Jesus is present body, soul and divinity in the Eucharist4 starting with the Last Supper and no Christian revolution can change that reality.5

Doctrine is in unchangeable.6

The same goes for marriage.  That it can only be between one man and one woman goes back to its very beginning.  It was not invented by humans and thus cannot be redefined by humans.

Kaine  Forgets  About  the  Reality  of  Sin  as  well  as  the  Definition  of  a  Family

” ‘I think it’s going to change because my church also teaches me about a creator in the first chapter of Genesis who surveys the entire world including mankind and said it is very good, it is very good,’ he said.”1

Yes, God saw that His creation was good.  Then, two human beings threw a wrench into this wonderful situation by introducing sin into the world.  Some sins are “disordered behavior”7 and homosexual acts are in this category.  God’s creation is good, but some human actions are not.

Like most errors, Kaine took a verse from Genesis out of context in order  to justify his acceptance of same-sex “marriage” plus the way he came to that conclusion: “‘My three children helped me see the issue of marriage equality as what it was really about, treating every family equally under the law,’ he said.1

He summarized with: “‘To that I want to add, who am I to challenge God for the beautiful diversity of the human family?’ Kaine asked. ‘I think we’re supposed to celebrate it, not challenge it.’“1

The family, a very nice sentiment.  However, to suggest that we can invent a family headed by two homosexual men or women is flawed because the “arrangements of two men or two women are incapable of such witness and present motherhood and fatherhood as disposable.”  [ For the complete answer to the question of single parents vs. two homosexual heads of household, see footnote 8]

Kaine,  Like  Many  Others,  Takes  “Who  am  I  to  judge?”  Out  of  Context

He concluded his argument for same-sex marriage by saying, “Pope Francis famously said, ‘Who am I to judge? ‘ Kaine continued, referencing the pope’s 2013 comment when asked about gay priests in the church.”

One would expect the secular new media to take comments from a religious leader out of context, but a self-proclaimed Catholic like Tim Kaine?

Here’s a good summary of the issue: “When the Pope said, ‘Who am I to Judge’, he was not talking about a situation where an active and unrepentant homosexual was the subject of discussion. In the Pope’s own words, he was talking about a person who had, ‘experienced a conversion’, has gone to confession and ‘seeks the Lord’… “

“When they cannot take one of his statements out of context and when they cannot twist their interpretation to somehow support progressivism, they ignore it completely. This is why you do not see major news outlets reporting that Pope Francis calls on Catholics to defend marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman….”

“You will not see the NBC Nightly News reporting the Pope’s recent speeches and homilies in the Philippines, such as:

‘The family is also threatened by growing efforts on the part of some to redefine the very institution of marriage, by relativism, by the culture of the ephemeral, by a lack of openness to life.’9

Case closed.

Conclusion

This much can be said about Tim Kaine.  If he were to be elected Vice-President, there is no doubt he could continue the error-riddled legacy of the current pseudo-Catholic in that same office, Joe Biden.

If Kaine believes the Church will someday change the definition of marriage, he needs to be prepared for an endless wait!

 

 

 1 – “VP Candidate Tim Kaine Says Catholic Church Will Accept Marriage Equality,” from “Bondings 2.0” reposting a newwaysministryblog, https://wordpress.com/read/blogs/29908851/posts/38582

2 – “The union in one person, or hypostasis, of the divine and human natures. Jesus Christ is both God and man in virtue of the hypostatic union, a mystery of faith in the strict sense… Although he is God and man, he is not two but one Christ. And he is one, not because his divinity was changed into flesh, but because His humanity was assumed to God. He is one, not at all because of a mingling of substances, but because he is one person…”  From New Catholic Encyclopedia, copyright 2003, http://www.encyclopedia.com/article-1G2-3407705521/hypostatic-union.html

3 – “The Great Heresies,” by Hilaire Belloc, TAN Books and Publishers, Inc.; Rockford, Illinois, republished in 1991 (first published in 1938 by Sheed and Ward, London).

 4 –“The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist.  Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.”  Paragraph 1377 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 25th printing; November , 2013.

5 – “It was above all on ‘the first day of the week,’ Sunday, the day of Jesus resurrection, that the Christians met ‘to break bread.’From that time on down to our own day the celebration of the Eucharist has been continued so that today we encounter it everywhere in the Church with the same fundamental structure.  It remains the center of the Church’s life.”  Paragraph 1343, Ibid.  A – Acts 20:7.

6 – “In catechesis, ‘Christ, the Incarnate Word and Son of God,…is taught – everything else is taught with reference to him – and it is Christ alone who teaches – anyone else teaches to the extent that he is Christ’s spokeman, enabling Christ to teach with his lips… Every catechist should be able to apply to himself the mysterious words of Christ: ‘My teaching is not mine, bu his who sent me.’”  Paragraph 427, Ibid.

7 – “… Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravityB, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’C  They are contrary to the natural law… Under no circumstances can they be approved.”  Sections of Paragraph 2357, Ibid.

8 – “What about single parents? These families lack a father or a mother, just like households headed by two men or two women.
A child is meant to be raised by his or her own, married father and mother. But there are times when, due to family tragedies or other unfortunate circumstances, this ideal cannot be realized. The Church acknowledges the difficulties faced by single parents and seeks to support them in their often heroic response to meet the needs of their children. There is a big difference, however, between dealing with the unintended reality of single parenthood and approving the formation of “alternative families” that deliberately deprive a child of a father or a mother, such as arrangements headed by two men or two women. Undesired single parenthood can still witness to the importance of sexual difference by acknowledging the challenges faced by single parents and their children due to the lack of a father or mother. In contrast, arrangements of two men or two women are incapable of such witness and present motherhood and fatherhood as disposable. These arrangements of themselves contradict the conjugal and generative reality of marriage and are never acceptable. Children deserve to have their need for a father and a mother respected and protected in law.”  http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/marriage/promotion-and-defense-of-marriage/frequently-asked-questions-on-defense-of-marriage.cfm

9 – “Did You Hear What Pope Francis Said?” by Bob Sullivan, http://bsullivan.org/did-you-hear-what-pope-francis-said/

Same-Sex “Marriage,” Civil Rights for African-Americans, Abortion and Slavery

Featured

This title is a lead-in to discussing the “up is down and down is up” positions of U.S. liberals.  Given an opportunity to evaluate these, the Left would undoubtedly assert that three of the four are acceptable and desirable.

Yet in Judeo-Christian reality, the reverse is true. Three out of four are strongly unacceptable.

The first difficulty with the liberal position is the fallacy that “marriage equality” for the homosexual community is equivalent to racial civil rights.  Being African-American is not disordered behavior.  It is one of several genetic expressions of the human race — everyone of whom has inalienable rights.

The disordered condition of homosexuality1, whether innate or acquired2,3, requires the same compassion as due every other human situation.4  However, marriage is not an inalienable/ civil right and it cannot be viewed as equivalent to the racial civil rights cause.5  There is no justification that it be extended to everyone by civil jurisdictions who have no authority over the definition of this non-secular institution.6

At least most U.S. citizens agree that slavery is despicable.  For some reason, however, the evil of abortion is not as readily recognized as similarly heinous.  Perhaps it’s because the fallible Supreme Court erred seriously erred in deciding that the killing of the most vulnerable human beings was legal.  The era of convenience ushered in by the 1973 decision is so contrary to Judeo-Christian beliefs that it defies logic.7

Given the reversed vision of the Left, why should we trust them to issues like national security, honest elections, the federal debt, religious freedom and wages?

With their inclinations, they are likely to want unvetted immigration from terrorist hot spots, to declare that photo ID’s are more important for boarding a plane or buying alcohol than for voting, to think we can spend ourselves out of economic stagnation without slowing our economy further8, to prosecute those who believe marriage is between one man and one woman and believe that a federal minimum wage is appropriate even though the cost of living in the least expensive state is 38% less than in the most.9

Wouldn’t this be an insane world if the current generation of liberals had their way?

 

1 – “Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman.  In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion.  Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.”  Paragraph 2360 from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition; Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 25th printing, November 2013.

2 – “Being homosexual is only partly due to gay gene, research finds,” by Sarah Knapton, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10637532/Being-homosexual-is-only-partly-due-to-gay-gene-research-finds.html, 2/13/2014.

3 – “Homosexuality is learned behavior,” by Manin Brown, http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-755425, 2/29/2012.

 4 – “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible.  This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.  They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.  Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.”  Paragraph 2358 from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition; Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 25th printing, November 2013.

5 – “But to examine this question further – while a civil right is meant to guarantee equality in particular points of law, that is only one half of the picture.  There is an old saying that goes back to Plato – equality for equals, inequality for unequals. In other words, when a right is applied equally to everyone in a given class, it is because it presupposes there are no essential distinctions within that class that would preclude the right from being equally applied.  To take an example the same-sex crowd always brings up, this is why the old Jim Crow laws against interracial marriage were struck down as civil rights violations.  It was recognized that men were men, and women were women; race is not intrinsic to sexuality, therefore there is no compelling distinction between the races that would preclude them from freely entering into the married state.  Essentially, the overturning of the old prohibitions on interracial marriage supports traditional marriage because the law recognized that any man can marry any woman.  Therefore the racist Jim Crow marriage laws were true instances of civil inequality because they were proposing distinctions in the application of rights which were in fact irrelevant; any man is capable of entering into marriage with any woman, and the right for any man to enter into the married state with any woman could not be infringed…”

“… Any person can enter into the married state, but not under any circumstances they may choose. The question is not one of civil rights but of the definition of marriage, which is what homosexual activists contest. Since gender difference and sexual intercourse is intrinsic to understanding the institution of marriage, it is no discrimination of civil rights to say that the married state cannot be conferred on those whose relationships do not involve sexual intercourse.”  From “Homosexual Marriage is not a Civil Right,” http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/social-teaching/moral-issues/93-social-teaching/moral-issues/445-homosexual-marriage-is-not-a-civil-right.html

6 – “’The intimate community of life and love which constitutes the married state has been established by the Creator and endowed by him with its own proper laws. . . . God himself is the author of marriage.’A  The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator.  Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures, and spiritual attitudes.  These differences should not cause us to forget its common and permanent characteristics. Although the dignity of this institution is not transparent everywhere with the same clarity,B some sense of the greatness of the matrimonial union exists in all cultures.  ‘The well-being of the individual person and of both human and Christian society is closely bound up with the healthy state of conjugal and family life.’”

A ,B– From the papal encyclical, “Gaudium at spes,” (“Joy and Hope”) section 48 paragraph 1 and section 47 paragraph 2 respectively, published 12/7/1965.

(Paragraph 1603 from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition; Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 25th printing, November 2013.)

7 – “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.  From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life… Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion.  This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable… The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation…” Excerpts from Paragraphs 2270, 2271 and 2271, Ibid.

8https://cartaremi.wordpress.com/2016/08/31/jeremiah-was-criticized-for-speaking-truth-of-bad-state-of-affairs-trump-knows-how-he-felt/

9https://cartaremi.wordpress.com/2016/04/25/why-a-national-15-hour-minimum-wage-makes-no-sense/