Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Romney Says Obama Has "Fought Agasint Religin"

I know. I promised that the last article was the alst on religion tonight. Obama has shown me that promises are made to be broken. Besides,t his is more abut IRONY than about religion.

Yuo should have gotten ththe message from my prior articles that Romney supporters, and the mainstream media, are tringt o make Santourm all about RELIGOIN and "social issues'. Uh-huh. So much for that attempted SMEAR.

Yep. The aboe headline is NOT mine. It is the present headline foro mthe desicable Associated Press now "featured" on my Yahoo "news"/AT&T "default" page. I guarantee youy that the mainstream mdiea wiill NOT like Romney CORREECTLY, if belatedly, attacking President Obama as a President who has "fought religon". The questin, of curse (wich has to occur to even the mainstream media) is whether you can "fight religoin" and still be a "Christian". In other wrods, Romney can probably expet to be asked by CNN whether he believes Obama is a Christian. Even if he is not asked, CNN and the mainstream media can hardly attack Santourm as being so mcuh diffferent from Romney, when ROMNEY is out there saying the same things Santorum and gingirch have beeni saying about Obama (correct things, by the way).

This shows how DANGEROUS these attacks on Santrum ON RELIGION are. That is the other message I triied to give today. Can Romney really afford to atttack Santorum on religon, or even have his supporters do it? Does it not just make Romney look ridiculous, as Romney attacks Obama from the Santourm pont of view? Romney really HAS to get out his ONW affirmative message. The game of "attack politicas", along with an "adjusting" message to polls, is NOT gong to work for Romney. Does Romney HAVE a CORE? That is his haleenge right now: to show that he does, as his claim to be the "only" GOP candidate who can defeat Obama fades into memoray. The polls (ridiculous polls at this date) today had Romney and Santourm doing the SaME against Obama (both a TIE).

Then there was this OTHER story on yahoo "news": "Protestant colleges show contraceptive issue not just about Caholics, as they threaten to drop student health coverage"

Now the questin is WHY. Are Protestant religionsgenerally the same as teh Catholic religoin on pre-conceopcion contraceptives? I don't think so. BUT, many Protestant religions are jsut as frim as the Caholic religon on ABORTION. Agani, I repeat that this is NOT about religion at all. It is aobut CONCNSCIENCE and FREEDOM. Why should the FEderal Government have the power to ORDER what will be covered in health insurance policies? Why should "contraceptive" care get more lPREFERENCE than even cancer caere? This is a matter of FREEDOM and unconstitutional usurpation of power, and really has little ot do with religon (except as a subset of the bigger issue). And why should I, who am jstu as much agaisnt the "morning After" pill as any Catholic, be FORCED to viiolate MY conscience if I am an emplyer.

Then there is the issue of COST. Insurance prremiums HAVE to go up. Taht, of ocurse, is true of all of ObamaCare, but this is an OBVIOUS case. SOME "Protestatn" colleges may even object to making contraceptives "free", for fear of ENCOURAGING promiscuous sex. Whatever you think of this argumetn, it is another element of religious conscience and FREEDOM.

In anty event, it is more proof that both Romney and Santou;rm are irght about Obama's "fight" against religion. Our President, as theis blog has said, has no diea of what a real "religious conscience" is all about.

Just how far can Obama and his media supporters go in this STRATEGY of making this electoin AbOUT Obam'as "war on relgion", in oder to both deflect from tghe economy and get--ast hey believe--tghe "women's vote"? At what pnt does this BACKFIRE on both Obama and the anti-Christian medai? Are not MOST PEOPLE gong to get TIRD of his WAR ON RELGION?--not to mention this OBSESSION with religon? Can the media keep getting away with being the ones who belive these things are so important, and yet balming the GOP for theri own obsession?

No comments: