ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel


Updated on February 13, 2012

Let the church be specific.

Politics, already being dirty, had to be made dirtier on the Sunday news programs, yesterday; as the so called specialists, gurus and indefatigable "one sided" analysts hurled insults and criticisms on President Barack Obama.

They were attacking him on two fronts; first for his contraception ruling in women's health care that has infuriated the religious sector, especially the Catholic Church, which was not at all surprising.

However, isn't it about time that church leaders tell the rest of us, why contraception, and particularly, abortion are contrary to their core beliefs.

The revelation of the secrecy of what happened in the Garden of Eden was long overdue, that Adam and Eve, with the help of_____, had committed murder in the garden, and that was why humanity was suffering ever since that time.

The death of Jesus was the Creator sending his son to atone for that crime; therefore people of faith would never accept abortion or even contraception, which was only the prevention of pregnancy.

No one would then subject them to issues of that nature. Until the real truth was told, the church would be forced to adhere to some secular rulings in the health care laws meant for all of society, which the church was an intrinsic section.

Secondly, the president's decision to involve his campaign in accepting large contributions from Wall Street corporations and individual tycoons has become something that the Sunday programs were happy to term as a flip flop on his part.

The fact was that the president predicted the PAC (Political Action Committees) idea, and said that it would adversely affect "our Democracy," The Republican Party was taking advantage of it, and as such, the sky was the limit, as far as political contributions were concerned.

The practice of the PACs, of large donations coming in to support any candidate would set a pattern detrimental to campaigns, as that would mar the notion of equilibrium in American politics.

It would fatten the war chest of one candidate against a less fortunate one, and only the wealthy and the well-to-do would be able to run for any type of office; and that was what the president was drawing attention to.

The Sunday news programs made a mockery of it, accusing the president of making an about turn on his word and on the issue.

It was not that one wanted to defend the president in any way; but when the media showed a clear hand in politics, as supporting one side of the political spectrum against the other, then where was their "fair, balanced and unafraid" theory? Or "We report; you decide," a phrase that they usually use to finish their sentences at the end of a program; that could have no tangible meaning.

In view of that, one would be forced to defend the president, and to expose the dirty tricks that the media played in mucking up things for the candidate they disliked; by deliberately throwing their support behind another candidate to please their masters on Wall Street and their minions on Madison Avenue.

The general public mostly saw through those tricks and acted differently, due to the fact that it (public) realized that they (media) were patronizing someone, who would cater to their interests, because that someone was rich and a member of the WS elite. .

Let us hope that would happen that way again in the 2012 presidential election


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • steveso profile image

      Steve 5 years ago from Brockport, NY

      Nicely written Hub.