VAT Revisited -- An alternative

As the Democratically controlled house and Senate root around for new methods of raising revenue without violating the Presidents promise not to raise taxes on the middle class, they have begun to visit the European idea of a Value Added Tax (VAT). The VAT is a tax, much like a national sales tax on each point in the manufacturing and sales process. In theory, this tax makes some sense if it replaces the national and state income taxes and current state sales taxes. Unfortunately, the house and senate are proposing to add the VAT as an additional tax. This will truly cripple business, industry and the pocketbooks of all Americans, middle class included.

Fortunately, there is an alternative. This alternative is easy to incorporate nationally, eliminates the avoidance of taxes by the underground economy and actually puts more money into the pockets of business, industry and all American citizens. This tax will also encourage saving rather than spending.

An additional benefit would be the automatic payment of taxes at the point of sale, so there will be no need to file a tax return. America would therefore eliminate the need for the IRS and potentially save more than 100 Billion annually.

What is this wonderful tax? How is such a thing possible? The tax is the Automatic Payment transaction Tax (APT tax) and it can be incorporated into the economy with equipment already in operation across the width and breadth of the country.

The APTT (http://www.apttax.com/) is a small, uniform tax on all economic transactions which replaces the personal income tax, the corporate income tax, the state income tax, capital gains taxes, gift taxes, estate taxes, excise taxes and sales taxes. The APT approach would extend the tax base from income, consumption and wealth to all transactions. Such a uniform tax might not, on its face, look progressive, but would be since the volume of taxed transactions rise disproportionately with personal income.

Most importantly, the APTT takes away from our legislators the one thing that the legislators appreciate the most and the average American appreciates the least -- Governments ability to use the tax code to manipulate public policy. By instituting the APTT, our legislators will no longer be able to use the tax code as a weapon to punish segments of business and industry and direct investment from one type of business to another. Every area of the operation of the American economy will operate on an even playing field.

The APT tax is designed to avoid the contentious issue of how large the government should be by conceiving it as a revenue neutral tax that would replace other taxes. Simplicity is achieved by requiring that all final party transactions be taxed, and at the same rate. The APT tax .can be viewed as a public brokerage fee accessed by the government to pay for the provision of the monetary, legal and political institutions that protect private property rights and facilitate market trade and commerce.

An Interesting Corollary

Recently videos have surfaced of a speech made this past June by White House Communications Director Anita Dunn. During her speech, Ms. Dunn made the point that "In 1947, when Mao Tse Tung was being challenged within his own party on his plan to basically take China over, Chiang Kai-Shek and the nationalist Chinese held the cities, they had the army. They had the air force. They had everything on their side, and people said, ‘How can you win? How can you do this?’ …and Mao Tse Tung said, ‘You know, you fight your war, and I’ll fight mine.’”

Here's an interesting corollary to ponder -- today the majority of the United States, by geographic area, is populated by conservative, God-Fearing, responsible Americans. The Democratic party controls the populations generally living in and controlling the cities and the Universities. The White House controls the Army and Air force. Hell, they even control the media. They have everything on their side. Note the similarity?

How will we, the responsible Americans win? We will get energized and fight our own war. I think America is about to witness the rise in the true majority of Americans who will fight our own war to ensure that an America “of the people, by the people and for the people, shall not perish from the earth“. We will work to ensure that our country can never be replaced by an America “of the government, by the government and for the government”.

I predict we will win.

Remember When

Remember when the government decided to help protect us from the huge incr4eases in price and the decreasing supply of oil availability back in the early 70’s? Remember what happened? We got higher prices, shortages so bad we had rationing and the creation of the DOE -- All because we were importing 20% of the oil we consumed.

How are things different today? The government has returned oil allocation to the open market, and we have regular supplies at higher, but manageable costs. The government continues to regulate the development of domestic oil production which results in more than 16 BILLION DOLLARS per year being spent to operate the DOE and we import more than 68% of the oil we consume, in spite of the fact that known domestic reserves have increased by a huge margin since the time the DOE was created.

Consider the Cable/Satellite Television companies, as soon as the government took action to make everyone conform to a digital system, the price and complexity of access became much more expensive.

Take a look at your cell phone or other communications bills and you will see more charges and taxes for governmental regulations than you will for the service you are buying.

Let’s move forward to early this year, admittedly due to communications and computer advancements, the result of government actions occur at much greater speed, but we can already see the effect of this administration’s policy actions. Take for instance the legislation which was passed to protect the American public from the "vulturistic" actions of the credit card issuers. Within 30 days of the regulation being implemented, credit rates began to climb, credit lines began to shrink and niggling charges began to increase.

Consider the residential property value implosion, the government has spent BILLIONS and wants to spend BILLIONS more to help modify mortgages for those who shouldn’t have received them in the first place. This at a time when executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have stated that not only do only between 30 and 40 percent of the applicants will ever qualify, but of those that do, 58% will fall back into default inside of 6 months. And of course the problem was caused by interfering government regulation to begin with.

Now, the government is going to help protect us from the rising cost of health care in America. In order to accomplish this and to make “affordable” health care available to the approximately 30 Million people who do not have health care, the CBO has estimated that the taxpayer cost over the next ten years will be somewhere north of 829 BILLION DOLLARS. Another report states that at the point the projected reforms are fully implemented there will still be between 30 and 53 million Americans without insurance. Also, as we enter the open enrollment period for health care plans, we are being told to expect “shockingly higher” costs for our health insurance plans -- in anticipation of the huge cost increases insurers are expected to incur as a result of this protective legislation.

Those who are proponents of the health care reform site the fact that they will be able to offset this cost by eliminating more than 500 BILLION DOLLARS of waste and fraud from the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Do I need to remind anyone that Medicare and Medicaid are Government conceived and operated programs? Who is in charge of and polices the program which has “more than 500 BILLION DOLLARS of waste and fraud”?

I could go on and on. In my lifetime I cannot recall a program created and operated by the government which came in under budget and operated efficiently. Considering that the government has such a sterling history of being so successful protecting our interests, does anyone really want our legislators to pass and implement a health care reform bill? Do we really need the government to protect us from ourselves with such proven efficiency and at such a cost? REALLY?

We’re broke, time for a new tax

In the past week we have heard that our government is broke, that the deficit is now projected to be 1.4 TRILLION DOLLARS this year alone and that we can expect increasing deficits over the next ten years.

Our legislators are preparing a “Health Care” reform bill generally known as “ObamaCare”, which according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) will cost over 829 BILLION DOLLARS or according to Harry Reid, upwards of 2 TRILLION DOLLARS.

We, the community of American citizens, are suffering an unemployment rate hovering around 10%. Of course we were told, the application of more than 700 BILLION DOLLARS of our money would guarantee to keep it below 8%. Our legislators are discussing another round of stimulus appropriations as a remedy. Even at this early stage of the Obama administration, it is apparent that taxes must increase. Good money after bad it seems.

The President made and has repeated two promises -- First, not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250K per year and Second -- not to sign a health care bill which “adds to the deficit by one dollar, now or in the future”.

In order to protect the Presidents pledge not to raise taxes, the house is proposing a Value Added Tax (VAT). Of course this is an additional tax and one which will absolutely affect those making less than $250K per year, but since it is not a direct income tax it is somehow considered to be acceptable, regardless of the effect on the middle class.

Don’t even consider promise number 2, this is such an absolute lie that only the most ardent and stupid supporters of Obama believe it.

Yet the class of professional politicians which has evolved over the past 50 years continues to run interference for Obama. They don’t pay attention to us because history has shown that we continue to vote for them regardless of their actions
 

We, the responsible citizens of the United States of America, must pay attention, become active and stay active or we will find ourselves devoting the majority of our working lives to support the government. We can start by paying attention to what is happening in Washington. Let our representatives know that we are watching. Regularly tell them that your vote will reflect their actions. We the citizens of this country, the responsible majority, those of us who have been sitting on the sidelines, must get out and break down the wall.

A comparison

I didn't like Bush's policies with regard to Iraq, I think that is fairly well known, but at least he didn't hide his agenda. Most of the following was sent to me unattributed, but the points in BOLD are mine. Many have made the statement that they appreciate Obama being elected because at least he is "smart" -- For those of you, consider the following. R----


If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter
installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have
laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is
really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved? By the way, a Marine friend told me that the true cost for the trip with all the supporting personnel, aircraft, vehicles and lodging amounted to over $562K

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia , would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

If George W Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in less than one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

If George Bush would have excluded Democrats from debating the largest and most expansive legislative issues of his first year and then directed the Republican leadership to create the legislation behind closed doors without Democratic input, would you approve?

I may not agree with the "birthers" out there, but if there was a question about George Bush's or even John McCain's birthplace and either of them refused to produce sealed original documents, would you approve?

If instead, Bush or McCain dismissed the inquiries and spent enormous sums of money to keep their school and legislative records sealed from the public, would you approve?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 10 months -- so you'll have three years and two months to come up with an answer. I really hope you are happy with this decision.

Now we have Sonia Sotomayor as a newly installed SC Justist and a second Jurist sitting on the SCOTUS who is sick and aging rapidly. Looks like our President is going to get to seat at least one more SC Justice in his first year in office. Do you approve of his take over of the SCOTUS?

Now we get ObamaCare rapidly moving through the nSenate which will cost taxpayers a minimum of $829 BILLION DOLLARS. If I remember correctly, many of you claimed we didn't have to worry about ObamaCare because it probably wouldn't happen, that I was being irresonsible in my criticism. Really? Is it time to get off the bench yet? -- Just asking!

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 5 months -- so you'll have three years and seven months to come up with an answer. I really hope you are happy with this decision.

Gun Control

My network was down all day yesterday and didn't come back up until this morning, so I am really backed up with work and the Blog. I will try to catch up over the next few days. Keep coming back. I promise to catch up.

Note today's (Saturday) thought. I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Jefferson and will add that this has never been more pertinent in America than right now. Even though HR-45 is a dead issue, the Chicago handgun ban case before the SCOTUS could be the beginning of another slide down the slippery slope of enormous restriction against the legal ownership of firearms.

Referring to the Chicago case before him, Judge Frank Easterbrook said that "the Constitution establishes a federal republic where local differences are to be cherished as elements of liberty rather than extirpated in order to produce a single, nationally applicable rule." "Federalism is an older and more deeply rooted tradition than is a right to carry any particular kind of weapon."

I don’t agree with Judge Easterbrook. Our country is not governed by a Federalist Democracy, we are governed by a Constitutional Republic. Judge Easterbrook’s is the type of attitude which will strip our rights. Not only the right to carry a firearm, but many other rights delineated in the Constitution.

The further we allow progressives to move us away from the core values guaranteed under the constitution, the weaker we become as a nation. Gun control is only one of the headline issues.

Many have stated and the basis for the Chicago ban is an increasing incidence of murder with handguns in the inner city. This is true, but it is not indicative of improper control, there are more than enough laws and regulations on the use of firearms. I will opine that this is much more indicative of the criminality of the inner city residents, who have since the time President Johnson’s “Great Society” program was initiated, been living in single female head of households and have lost their moral center. Not having a strong father figure, or any father figure for that matter, is the real problem. If there is no one to teach that violence is not the answer, if there is no one to teach the work ethic, then violence becomes a more accepted action.

Let’s take a look at Americas large cities which have the most stringent gun control laws -- DC, Chicago, New York and Philadelphia are in the top ten in America.. Now consider the Cities which have the highest rates of single female head of households -- DC, Chicago, New York and Philadelphia, again -- in the top ten.. Finally, consider the cities with the highest rates of firearm violence --DC, Chicago, New York and Philadelphia -- low and behold, top ten again.

Are you beginning to get the picture? Do you see the correlation? Guns aren’t the problem, moral upbringing and character is the problem. Our professional politicians shouldn't react to violence so much as the root cause of the violence. Our national policy should be to turn forty years of slipping down the moral slope around and begin the climb back to rebuilding two party households with a strong father figure in the inner cities.

TARP Recipient Ownership Trust Act of 2009

I received the following announcement from Senator Mark Warner today. I may not agree that the economy is beginning to improve, but I do think this is very good policy and I applaud him for proposing it:

October 8, 2009
While there are recent promising signs that our country's economy is beginning to improve, I share the concerns of many Virginians about the federal government's role in assuming significant ownership stakes in several private companies -- namely General Motors, Chrysler, AIG and Citigroup.Taxpayers are understandably worried about how much of their initial investment they can expect to get back.

I believe more immediate action is necessary to enforce some "rules of the road" on the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, that would more fully protect the taxpayer -- removing any hint of politics from the federal government's temporary ownership stake in these companies -- and provide a clear strategy for selling taxpayer ownership of these companies.That's why I have introduced, along with Sen. Bob Corker, a Republican colleague from Tennessee, the TARP Recipient Ownership Trust Act of 2009. Here is what our bipartisan proposal will do:

If the government owns more than 10 percent of a private company, this ownership stake would be placed in an independent trust supervised by three trustees, appointed by the President, with a responsibility to maximize the return-on-investment for the taxpayers.
These three trustees should be neutral, respected business executives, with recognized records of accomplishment, and with the skills and knowledge to maximize taxpayer returns on our ownership stake.

The trust will have a responsibility to sell these assets by the end of 2011. That should give taxpayers confidence that they will not still own a significant share of stocks in these companies five, 10 or even 20 years from now. This week, I was pleased that the Washington Post editorial board endorsed our proposal, and the Wall Street Journal's Dow Jones Newswire wrote about our efforts to design a responsible strategy for ending our ownership in these companies.This is just one aspect of financial reform we must tackle – and sooner rather than later. Other critical issues include taking steps to prevent any institution from becoming “too big to fail,” putting our entire system at risk -- updating our disjointed system of bank regulation -- and consideration of improved consumer protection tools. I can assure you that we will continue to work in a responsible and bipartisan way to address these challenges.

Regards,

Mark Warner

Obama Case Update --

I recently received this "birther" commentary from a very smart and admired friend. This is about the 5th time I have received this since the beginning of the year. I would like to state for the record that this is, IMHO, another hysterial and reactionary piece which uses innuendo and half truth as though they are facts. There are too many holes in this document to seriously consider it, but I will say that the Occidental College transcripts were never released as claimed, and even if they were, the one thing they wouldn't have shown is that Barak Obama -received, under any name, a FullBright Scholarship to attend Occidental as an undergraduate. FullBright Scholarships are only granted to grad students.

There are many valid questions surrounding President Obama and the issue of his birth. They are currently being adjudicated in California and we should see a ruling inside a week. It won't resolve the issue and is sure to be appealed regardless of the ruling, but it is active.

I think the more pertinent issue is that both the President and the Speaker of the House have claimed they will operate the most transparent government in history, yet to date, the President has not only refused to allow transparency surrounding his personal records, but has spent a huge amount of money to keep them blocked. Where is the transparency he promised? Why is it OK to question McCain's citizenship credentials but not candidate/President Obama's? Why is it fine for Obama, a public figure by choice, to hide his personal records and writings from public scrutiny?

More important, what happens if and when the actual Hawaii birth certificate comes to light? Does the question of what he wrote in his Columbia thesis and the Harvard Law Review automatically become moot? Do the questions of why he sealed them go away? Do the sealed records of his actions as a legislator in the state of Illinois no longer matter? Do we no longer have a right to transparency in matters of Obama's public life?

I think these issues do matter and think they are the true smoking gun. This is my concern -- He uses the "birther" controversy to divert attention away from his true feelings and writings which may show that his beliefs are diametrically opposed to those of the majority of Americans. I think that if his University writings come to light, he will be bounced out of office in a heart beat. I think he is using this birth certificate issue to divert attention from the important inquiries into his past.

Meet the Soetoros

Lolo Soetoro, Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro,baby Maya Soetoro, and 9 year old Barry Soetoro

This registration document, made available on Jan.. 24, 2007, by the Fransiskus Assisi school in Jakarta, Indonesia, shows the registration of Barack Obama under the name Barry Soetoro made by his step-father, Lolo Soetoro.

Name: Barry Soetoro
Religion: ...... Islam
Nationality: ...... Indonesian How did little INDONESIAN, Barry Soetoro, (A.K.A. Barack Obama) get around the issue of nationality to become president?
Someone who tells lies is a L __ __ r?

PART 2:
In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama's qualifications for the presidency, the group
"Americans for Freedom of Information" has released copies of President Obama's college transcripts from Occidental College .Released today, the transcript indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school.

The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California.

The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program.
To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship.This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama's detractors have been seeking.

Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim.

The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama's legitimacy and qualification to serve as president.

When reached for comment in London , where he has been in meetings with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Obama smiled but refused comment on the issue.Britain 's Daily Mail has also carried the story in a front-page article titled, "Obama Eligibility Questioned,"
leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama's first official visit to the U.K.In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama's legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey . This lawsuit claims Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president.

Donofrio's case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama's citizenship or qualifications to serve as president.Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama's campaign spending.

This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records.Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still on-going but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter.

Virginia Road Tax Increase

This morning, the Washington Post ran an editorial titled "Taxes or Traffic In Virginia, a plea for one to fix the other". The writer reported on the report issued by a coalition of 17 Northern Virginia businesses which proclaimed that it is necessary for the state to raise taxes to address the poor road infrastructure and resulting gridlock. See a link to the article in sidebar.

Virginia wouldn't need to increase road or any other taxes if the state didn't throw transportation funding to the embedded transportation industry. As an example, the budget for 22 miles of above ground public transportation from West F.C. to Dulles is projected to approach $2.7 Billion dollars before cost overruns. This amounts to more than $127 million dollars per mile!

There is an alternative which costs the state Zero dollars, can be built in a fraction of the time, will operate on demand, 24/7/365 and is expandable at will. This alternative is the Personal Rapid Transit System called SkyTran which has been developed by the Uni-Modal Corporation. Uni Modal (www.unimodal.com) is a company founded and operated by a group of ex-NASA rocket scientists. They know what they are doing and are willing to put their money where their mouth is to build and operate 21st century mass transit systems. This is a perfect answer for the Dulles corridor and for the transportation issues affecting Northern Virginia, especially in light of the recessionary climate in the country.

Simply put, why wouldn’t the state of Virginia want a no-cost, on demand, modern transportation system as the centerpiece for it’s gateway into DC?

Why doesn't the state of Virginia consider this -- lobbying and enormous political contributions from the likes of Bechtel who have a vested financial interest in seeing the enormously expensive system installed. Get rid of the graft and the state won’t need a tax increase.

Decrease the size of the federal government and there won’t be so much pressure for people to move into the area and overburden the traffic infrastructure. But that will be the subject of a future posting.

California Obama Eligibility Case

For those who haven't been updated, Judge Carter held his motion to dismiss hearing in the Santa Ana, California case of Obama's eligibility question. After more than 3 hours of argument, the good judge took the matter under advisement, said he will review them and make a decision at a later date.

From the blog sites tracking this case, the majority who observed the arguments believe that Judge Carter was intending to dismiss until the plaintiffs lawyers made "impassioned" pleas to allow the case to go forward. After the lawyers made their pleas, the judge chose to defer his decision until after he had the time to review the cited cases.

It again seems that the case is revolving around standing. The main argument from the justice department lawyers is that the court in California does not have standing for a "quo warrento" case which should more appropriately be heard in the District of Columbia which hears constitutional issues.

The judge will review the arguments and make his ruling at an unspecified time in the future. I find it interesting that he made the statement to the lawyers for both sides that he expected an appeal regardless of his decision and that they should begin preparing their arguments.

I will also note that the judge discussed scheduling for the case to proceed and in doing so, continued his stay on the motion for discovery until such time as he makes his final ruling.

98 Banks Fail

At the beginning of this year, after reviewing the number of banks which failed last year and the state of the economy, I predicted that we would suffer between 125 and 150 bank failures in 2009. So far, after 3/4's of the year have passed, we have reached 98 failures. I assume that we will see a few more fail before the end of the year. See the artilce I attached under the pertinent articles section for further detail.

I note this, not to pat myself on the back, but to point out that regardless of how the Federal government may spin it, our economy is not improving. We are still suffering through a serious recession which is expanding, not diminishing. The government response -- utilizing a 700+ Billion Dollar bailout plan followed by a 700+ Billion Dollar stimulus plan, is neither bailing out nor stimulating the economy into productivity.

The banks are not lending any more than they were before the bailout and the number of American citizens who are losing their jobs and careers is not decreasing. In addition, the FDIC is being pushed to the breaking point and is about to go the way of AIG and Fannie and Freddie without additional capitalization.

When will it end and the economy turn around? In my opinion, when the government stops artificially propping up selected segments of business. We must let those that are not efficient, fail and be replaced by those which operate profitably. This is common sense business 101.

Will this hurt in the short term? Quite likely, but we're already hurting. Better to have the pain be short term and lead to a stronger and more stable economy. At least I believe this to be preferrable to the long term pain of an ailing economy which is artificially propped up by the government use of our tax dollars in an inefficient manner.

Shariah Law is a danger to Democracy

Last weekend I read the article "Shariah Law is the enemy, not Afghanistan" by Diana West. I found it interesting enough to create a link to the article which you can find in the "pertinent articles"section of this blog.

Ms. West's premise, to which I agree, is that the mission in Afghanistan is pointless. We are not and should not be fighting a war to instill democracy in Afghanistan any more than we should have been fighting a war for democracy in Iraq. Afghanistan and Iraq are not "Wars against Terrorism". The "War against Terrorism" is a war, not against a specific country or a specific leader, but against a culture and the culture is one of Shariah Law.

We as a country must understand that we need to protect our shores from the creeping tenacles of a culture which is intent on destroying our way of life in favor of their regressive autocracy.

Until we stop allowing the infiltration of the Shariah advocates, our American form of government, a constitutional Republic, will continue to fade at an ever increasing rate.