THE SUNDAY NEWS PROGRAMS.

The Sunday political talk shows were leaving the door open for the media to be impartial in political campaigns now, more than ever.

They were attacking President Barack Obama from two different points of view; one about his Contraception Rule, that has antagonized the religious sector, particularly, the Catholic Church, and made him to look like he was against religion.

The general public would be spared the aggravation, if the bishops and cardinals would tell the truth about why contraception, and abortion per se, were contrary to their core belief, that murder took place in the Garden of Eden; hence the suffering in the world from thence to the present.

The explanation of that would be quite lengthy, but it was now ripe for people to know the truth about the fact that Jesus had to shed his blood for humanity, because Adam and Eve, through the help of ____, have initiated the act of murder in the Garden of Eden.

The Creator could not go against His own laws, and He had no alternative but to send his son to die to expiate what had taken place; and that was blood for blood.

That would enable people to know more about their beliefs and teachings; and they would also not be subjected to laws that dealt with contraception and abortion.

The second criticism of the media, in the Sunday programs, was the unlimited and unhindered amounts of money going to the so called PACs (Political Action Committees), which has overflowed the war chests of Republican Party candidates running against the president.

They were saying that he had made a turn around from his previous statement, that huge amounts of cash from corporations and Wall Street moguls was a "threat to our Democracy," and he has now decided that he would involve his campaign in the practice. That, they emphasized, was a flip flop on the president's part.

It should not be that one would want to defend the president, but in all honesty, when the media was directly taking sides in politics, it made no sense to believe their fairness, as in "fair, balanced and unafraid" theory; and that would force one to go to his defence.

What the president did was to predict the occurrence of money being used to "buy" elections; and if that should be the case, then only the wealthy and the affluent in society would have the opportunity to choose and back a candidate to protect their interests against another candidate, who had lesser resources.

He never said that he or anyone else should desist from participating in the PAC idea. He only pointed out the dangers of what huge sums of money being pumped into campaigns would present. It would make attaining office at any level difficult for the majority of the people.

That was what the Sunday news programs should have had their contributors and analysts discussing.

Instead, they chose to attack the president; but the public always saw through their dirty tricks, and the majority eventually did the right thing.

Hopefully it (public) would do the same this time around.