President 2008: Polar Bears or Aborted Children?
The presidential candidates have yet to impress me. With more than a year to go, they still have time.
You see, I already have my religion, so I don't need the substitute religion of Global Warming. I've got a handsome husband so I don't need a charismatic personality to woo my vote. And because I'm wary of cult members, I won't be voting for Mitt Romney.
Someone once accused me of being a "one-issue voter." Like this is a bad thing. Apparently, I'm narrow-minded because I care about the wholesale slaughter of unborn children.
But being enraged over the shrinking number of polar bears due to global warming? Now that's being open-minded. Because polar bears, not children, are our future!
It's not surprising, really. For the past 30-something years, liberals have downplayed abortion, instead preaching the doctrine of universal preschool, universal healthcare or universal-whatever-trendy-entitlement happens to be popular.
So, instead of my being angry over the murder of innocents, I'm supposed to demand that my tax dollars pay for illegal immigrants to get early-intervention English in universal preschool? I guess fighting for the rights of illegal immigrant children is more noble than letting them be born in the first place.
But I'm not allowed to say that's hypocritical. Because the word "hypocrite" belongs exclusively to liberals. Not that I blame them.
If all you stand for is reducing carbon emissions, then failing to dig a compost pile isn't all that scandalous. Nobody is going to picket your house with signs reading "keep your hands off your plastics."
But if you take a stand on a substantive moral issue like abortion, be sure of one thing: it's only a matter of time before someone starts calling you a hypocrite, a bigot, or a one-issue voter. They may even leave nasty comments on your blog.
I do recycle my plastics. But I'll never consider it of greater moral gravity than the lives of unborn children.
Any candidate who does is not worth my vote.