On numerous occasions, I have heard Democrats mock President Bush’s speaking ability. Clearly, the man is not the world’s greatest public speaker. I do not know if he has an actual speech impediment or if he just does not care about the way he sounds, or if some mis-guided analyst focus-grouped things and came up with the idea that he should not worry about the way he sounds. It really does not matter.

What is truly bizarre though is that Democrats think they can dismiss his ideas, policies, and even measure his intelligence from this. I am not sure when medical science proved that everyone who mispronounces words and occasionally stutters is mentally deficient, but I have apparently missed the report.

I am further not sure when such a blatant ad hominem attack became an acceptable way to refute someone’s ideas. For the record, if you lower yourself to such an attack, you have, in my eyes, demonstrated that you must have nothing meaningful to say against the ideas he presents, stands for, and works to achieve. You must be so utterly blown away that you cannot even begin to defend your own position. You posit that he is right, and that you are wrong, but you just do not care.

That is why I have not really mentioned it ever, though I disagree with the man on immigration, education, and a number of other issues. I think that I can hold my own, and that my ideas are worth considering, are in fact better. I do not need to attack the man and hope that doing so causes people to forget his ideas.

Do you really think our public schools are doing a good job? Keep in mind that most of the teacher’s union dollars go to the Democratic party.

Do you really want to see our medical system go the way of Canada or the UK? Keep in mind that 1/4 children in the UK cannot see a dentist because the nationalized health care there is floundering. Or that a far greater percentage of those who have strokes there die than here, because they cannot get the drugs that would save their lives. Or a host of other examples.

I am all for handling social issues. I just do not think that the democratic party’s notions of nationalizing everything will by any stretch of the imagination help. It is a waste of money, and worse, gets in the way of really solving problems.

But it is beyond that. Both Democratic candidates are 100% in favor of killing babies. This is not hyperbole, it is not fiction. Both will work to expand funding for abortion, help ensure that attempts to restrict it are impossible. Both will work to export our insanity to other countries such as poor African nations. Both will make it harder to make people aware of the reality of the choice they are making - to kill their unborn baby.

HOW CAN YOU VOTE FOR THAT‽

I simply cannot understand how you can worry about health care or education and sleep nights knowing that you have, with your vote, helped ensure that 1.37 Million¹ babies will be killed next year.

I am sorry that having that child might impact that mother. It might reduce her standard of living, remind her of things in her past, change her career plans, or whatever else. BUT THAT CHILD DESERVES TO LIVE. Keep that in mind when you proclaim yourself pro-choice, that the child has none.

And yes, he or she is a child. He or she is not a mass of tissue. We can keep him or her alive without the mother for months before natural birth. He or she has a soul and a life of his or her own, one that is just as important, but a whole lot more defenseless, than that of the mother whose “rights” you are so passionately defending.

Worse though, I think, is if you somehow think that something can be more important than this. The idea of claiming to be pro-life, but voting democratic sickens me with the thought of that much hypocrisy.