Time REALLY wants to see Giuliani nominated

This blog isn't a Time Magazine watchdog or anything like that, but when you look at an article in one issue and then see other articles in other issues that seem to be related, its hard to leave them alone.

Its evident from Time Magazine's last few issues that they really want to see Rudy Giuliani win the Republican nominee for president. The issue that came out over a week ago with Reagan crying on the cover had a caption near an image of Giuliani that described him as "antiabortion". That's completely misleading since Giuliani may be antiabortion "personally", but not when it comes to using the power of his political office. He's a pro-abort in reality as evidenced by his actions.

In this last issue of Time is a glowing 4 page piece about Giuliani titled Why Is Rudy Smiling? The goal of this article is obvious - to encourage the alleged Christian Conservative media and leadership to consider Giuliani as the most electable and most suitable Republican nominee for president.

Of course, the "Christian talk radio" segment that thinks Giuliani is a good candidate argue for him in a different way then the secular segment does. Hewitt, Prager, McCullough and the others think Giuliani would be a good pick to run for president because he is more likely to put judges on the Supreme Court who are "originalists" or "strict constructionists". You know, the kind of judges that the pro-life, Christian voters "want" to see nominated.

Forget the fact that we currently have a big, fat goose egg when it comes to the number of pro-life judges on the Supreme Court. That's right, not one of the judges are pro-life judges. At best, they believe as Scalia does that the decision on whether to legalize killing innocent babies should be given to the states. The most we can say is that some of the judges are pro-choice state-by-state while the others are solid pro-aborts. Sam Alito even wrote 6 pro-abortion opinions during his time on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, yet the majority of the pro-life Christian Conservative community supported his nomination to the Supreme Court.

Scalia's (and apparently Alito's) belief that the state government can decide to legalize murder is vile because NO GOVERNMENT AT ANY LEVEL has the leeway to legalize any crime, especially a capital crime such as murder! We, the Body of Christ, need to make the political parties (i.e. the GOP) and the candidates running for office aware of this fact.

Oh man, its 4 minutes before 3 and I just heard a Giuliani for president add on Rush Limbaugh's show. Thanks a bunch Rush :(

"We ought to obey God rather than men" Acts 5:29

Three cheers for Missouri Governor Matt Blunt!

Praise is due for the actions of Missouri Governor Matt Blunt who ended state funding for Planned Parenthood and directed those funds to clinics that do not encourage the slaughter of innocent babies.

I am very happy that he took this action, but AP reporter James A. Finley who wrote a piece for Time Magazine against Blunt's action, isn't happy at all. According to Finley, Blunt is "playing politics with cancer sccreening". HA!! As if the world of government-funded health care is not subject to "politics"!

Finley wrote

For fifteen years, Planned Parenthood of Southwest Missouri clinics in Joplin and Springfield have offered free breast and cervical cancer screenings as part of the state's "Show Me Healthy Women" program. Now Governor Matt Blunt has announced that he will cut off all program funding to Planned Parenthood and redirect it to other health clinics. "Patients should not have to go to an abortion clinic to access life-saving tests," Blunt declared. Refusing to fund cancer screening at the clinics, he said, "ensures women may access important preventative care without contributing to abortion providers' goal of facilitating the destruction of innocent life."

Clearly, Matt Blunt doesn't want to take the funds from pro-life tax payers in his state and direct them to pro-abort groups such as Planned Barrenhood. That's a good thing, since most people don't want the government to pay for or encourage slaughtering babies. And much more importantly, its evil and wrong for a government to fund the killing of the innocent. The government does not have the right/option to legalize killing the innocent.

Here is what Finley wrote immediately after he wrote the above paragraph in order to justify his claim that Blunt is "playing politics with cancer screening".

Here's the twist: The clinics in question do not provide abortion services, though they will discuss the procedure and make referrals.

HA! As if that gets Planned Parenthood off the hook! Finley does not understand that encouraging moms to murder their babies and helping them to rationalize committing such an evil act is actually worse than the act of killing their innocent babies. Why? Because apart from the encouragement to kill their baby the killing is unlikely to occur. Without the Planned Parenthood rationale in their head, the baby killing process is stunted.

And that is why, folks, we must oppose Planned Parenthood and any other organization or group that promotes the baby-killing rationale. And that includes the LARGEST supporter of the abortion holocaust in America - the public school system.

Public school counselors (who are largely pro-aborts) can talk to your children and help them to get an abortion without your knowing! So, get your children out of the public school system before something like this happens.

"We ought to obey God rather than men" Acts 5:29