I put to you a parable:
There were two men running for president. The candidates were hardly comparable. The first candidate had served in the Senate for 12 years, the second candidate had been the mayor of his hometown of 7,000 for the past 4 years. The first had successfully owned and operated a multi-industry, multimillion dollar business, the second had been employed at a regional paper mill, from which he as laid off. The first had a proven track record improving education and healthcare in his own state and surrounding states while reducing taxes and eliminating budget deficits, the second had no such track record, and struggled to make ends meet as the mayor of his hometown. The first was loved by almost every major world leader and had been asked to visit by several, the second had said some inflammatory comments about a beloved ally. The first was married, had never been divorced, and had three children. The second was divorced and remarried with two step-children. The first was a member of the biggest evangelical church on the east coast, the second was an atheist. The first was a fiscal conservative, the second was a fiscal liberal. The first candidate seemed to be the obvious choice. Anyone could see that he was perfect in every respect. Every respect, except one. As a Senator, the first candidate supported legislation that made legal the murder of two-year-old boys and girls by consenting parents, and was still running on that platform. The second candidate did not support this legislation and was running on a platform that opposed the murder of two-year-old boys and girls.
Now, let me ask you a question. Would it be right to overlook this singular issue and vote instead on the basis of the other issues? What person could stand by and not vote with vehemence against such a candidate in support of such evil legislation?
Connect the dots. Get out and vote.