My name is Brent Garner. I live in Lawrence, KS. For background purposes I have two college degrees: a B.S. and an M.A. So, you see I have at least some education.
The following is an explanation why I can't vote for Obama, and, frankly, should be reasons no one should vote for Obama.
First, Obama's friends and associates.
Presumably, when you were growing up, your mother warned you about hanging around with certain individuals because they were known trouble makers and if you were seen with them, people would assume you were just like them. Well, that bit of age old motherly wisdom has some truth in it.
Obama himself states that his mentor is one Frank Davis. Now a mentor is someone who guides you. A mentor is someone who shapes your life. A mentor may even be someone you seek to emulate. So, who was Frank Davis? Frank Davis was a self-avowed member of the Communist movement, a member of the Communist Party in the United States, and, according to the FBI, a suspected Soviet intelligence operative. This was no social communist but a man who actively worked for the overthrow of the US government and its replacement with a communist one. Again, according to the FBI, Frank Davis was on the FBI's security index. This is a list of people who must be detained should the US be attacked by a foreign power. This is a list of people who are suspected of being agents of a hostile foreign government and who would, during war, commit acts of espionage or sabotage. Another of Obama's associates was the infamous William Ayers. According to no less than the New York Times, this was hardly a casual relationship. Obama actively sought out Ayers. Obama was invited by Ayers to participate in various organizations. Obama helped distribute money for Ayers. Ayers is a self-identified member of the Weather underground, an organization responsible for violent and lethal acts against US government offices during the Vietnam War. In fact, Ayers is much like Frank Davis. Ayers admit to admiring the Soviet Union and seeking a communist state here in the US. There is also Obama's study of Saul Alinsky. Mr. Alinsky is another communist sympathizing individual who admits he sought a communist state here in the US. Obama studied Mr. Alinsky for, among other reasons, Mr. Alinsky's tactics on creating and using pressure groups. Then there is Rev. Wright. I bring him in only because he is such a proponent of something called liberation theology. Do you know where liberation theology came from? It was an effort by Castro's Cuba where the communists mingled Marxist doctrine with Catholicism. The aim was to radicalize Catholic priests working with the poor throughout Central and South America and get them to support Marxist revolution in those areas. It was somewhat successful. Rev. Wright, and others, modified liberation theology to argue for an overthrow of what they called a racist state here in the US. Mr. Obama claims to have been a member of that church for 20 years and yet also claims to have never heard these things mentioned in church. I don't know about you, but if I had attended the same church for 20 years, even if only sporadically, I think other church members might have mentioned to me what the minister had said on Sunday. Don't you?
Now, why does this matter? I spent 10 years serving in the USAF. I was required to pass a security screening and earn a security clearance. My history, from my birth to the present at the time, was asked for and verified. I had to list people I knew and who had influenced me. These were investigated. If I had listed people like Obama's mentor, his associate Ayers, or his Rev. Wright, I would have been denied a security clearance simply because of my association with individuals deemed security risks to the United States. In other words, Obama could not today pass obtain a security clearance. Yet we are proposing putting him in charge of all of our nation's secrets?
Further, going back to what our age old motherly advice says, if these were the people he chose to influence him how can we be certain he is not like them? Particularly telling is Obama's comment to the now famous Joe the Plumber. I refer to Obama wanting to "spread the wealth around". If you have read the Communist Manifesto, and I have, Obama's language parallels Marx's "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" in frightening detail. So, is Obama a closet Marxist? Given what Marxists seek to achieve planet wide: totalitarianism, end of freedom, one party systems, government ownership and control of everything including yourselves, is it worth the risk to elect Obama and then hope he really isn't like his associates? I think not.
Second, let's talk about Obama's tax plan.
One of the things I have found amazing over the years is the difference between how liberals and leftists differ from conservatives on taxes. Liberals and leftists assume that individuals and companies will simply stand there and absorb taxes without any effort to mitigate the impact, while conservatives assume that individuals and companies will indeed react to and seek to mitigate tax impacts. If you were a business owner, whether small or large doesn't matter, if something or someone increased your costs what would you do? First, you might try passing on those costs to your customers. This is the first line of approach for business. Why? Because the business owner does not want his or her income or the companies' income to decline. As a result, if the business can, the price of the good or service they provide will increase. You, the consumer, have no such resort. You simply can either buy less of it, or make some other adjustment, but again, you will react instead of just standing there and absorbing the increase. What if the economic environment is such that a price increase is not possible? Then the business owner may make other adjustments. These may include laying-off employees, reducing production, reducing services, cutting operating hours, moving out of the high tax area. Let's look closely at that last: moving out of the high tax area. Bloomberg.com and The Wall Street Journal have both confirmed an interesting fact. Europe is known for its socialist governments and high taxes needed to support those programs. This has, in the past, led to somewhat stagnant economies there. However, in recent years these socialist states have tried a new trick. They have not reduced individual income taxes but they have reduced corporate income taxes. Why? Companies do not care what the tax rate of their employees is. That may sound cruel but it is true. Ask yourself, does your employer care how much tax you pay? No! Companies and their owners only care about how much tax they pay. If you look up corporate tax rates you will find a disturbing little fact. Canada, Mexico, Europe, and many others now have corporate tax rates lower than those in the US. We have been complaining about US jobs going overseas. Think about it. If a company can move from the US to Mexico or Canada or Europe and reduce their taxes by a third, wouldn't that be a big inducement to move? Think about your local area. Has your city lost out on or won a new employer based at least somewhat on your local property tax rate? So, if Obama is elected and he carries out his promise to raise taxes on the wealthy and on companies here is what we might expect. First, higher prices as companies who can pass along those taxes to us, the consumers. Second, greater job losses as companies lay-off employees to mitigate tax impacts or as they move out of the US to avoid the higher taxes all together. I don't think this is a good idea so I can't vote for the man promoting this idea.
Third, let's talk about barbarity.
First, what is barbarity? A dictionary I consulted gave this definition: 1. Brutal or inhuman conduct; cruelty. 2. An act or instance of cruelty or inhumanity. 3. Crudity of style, taste, expression, etc. For the purposes of this explanation I will draw on the first two definitions.
Now, as fair warning, this is going to be about abortion. No, I am not going to argue whether or not abortion should be legal, but abortion is going to be involved. I am referring to situations that occurred in Illinois while Obama was in that state's legislature. I am sure similar situations occur elsewhere. What I am referring to is the occurrence of a live birth during a late term abortion procedure. In these circumstances the fetus exits the womb and is "born alive". The practice in many abortion clinics in Illinois was to set this unwanted child aside and allow them to die. No medical care was extended. No effort was made to save their lives. They were simply allowed to cry and die. Many were placed in closets out of the way so that the plaintive cries of these infants could not be heard and thus disturb people in the abortion clinic. To me, this is barbaric! If a parent were to leave their newborn child unattended – abandoned – wouldn't the local authorities view that as a crime? If that abandoned newborn were found in time, wouldn't every effort be made to save that child's life and to find that child a home? Further, wouldn't we all agree that in that circumstance the uncaring adult involved should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and that we would all feel good if the newborn were saved and placed in a good home? I certainly hope the majority of you reading this said "yes". Otherwise, I fear for some things.
Legislation was proposed in the Illinois legislature that would require abortion clinics, hospitals, and other medical providers performing abortions that should the fetus exit the womb during the procedure and be alive that they, the medical personnel present would be required to give all due medical care to this "accidentally born" infant. The legislation would have outlawed "cry and die". In the Illinois legislature Obama opposed this basic humane legislation. He also spoke against it in the US Senate where it passed.99-0. Obama abstained.
Now, notice I have not stated whether or not abortion is good or evil. I won't go there. What I am disturbed by is Obama's refusal to support even basic medical care for infants born in these circumstances. To me it is barbarous and repulsive to allow a newborn infant to cry and die without having done anything to aid that little person. Consequently I am led to ask this question. If Obama is this barbaric, if Obama is this lacking in compassion, is he really the person we want in the White House? I don't think so.
Ok, there you have it. Those are the three main reasons why I cannot and will not vote for Obama. You have heard my opinion. I am sure you have yours. Consult your conscience and decide.
Your fellow citizen,
Brent Garner
Lawrence, KS