Padilla Jury Verdict Fixed

The August 16, 2007 Jose Padilla trial jury verdict has all the classic characteristics of a fixed jury verdict. Picked up in Chicago in 2002 as a “dirty bomber” suspect, Padilla was held without charges in a military brig in South Carolina for 3 ½ years until the Courts ordered him released from military custody. The government then venue shopped for a jurisdiction to conduct a criminal trial, and picked Miami, FL, home of virulent anti-Castro, pro-Bush constituents, to try him. After a 3 month trial, in which the government put on no solid evidence that Jose Padilla, and the two other defendants, did anything other than show some interest in going to Afghanistan, and read some al-Qaeda materials, the jury in Miami took only a day and a half to find each defendant guilty of 3 terrorism conspiracy charges. This, despite the facts that Padilla was tortured, permanently mentally damaged, and the defendants alleged actions caused no one to be directly harmed. Only a jury which predetermined its verdict of guilt, on 3 flimsy concocted charges, would fail to go over the mountain of evidence presented, as necessary in a fair jury deliberation, to determine whether the government had met its burden of proof to find the “presumed innocent” defendants guilty. The jury's verdict was a classic “fixed” decision, an affront to the law, the trial process, and anyone of reasonable intelligence. It was tinged with all the xenophobic racist motivations the government counted on in selecting Miami for the trial. The case will now be appealed to the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta. We'll see if the Constitution has any meaning there too.

Why Supervised Release Should Be Abolished

An element of federal sentencing was raised to a rare level of public awareness, and scrutiny, with the commutation of the prison term portion of the sentence given to Scooter Libby. Suddenly, this normally ignored (and usually misstated by the press) element of federal sentencing is causing the Court and government unease and confusion, in understanding how, if, and when it applies.

Under current federal sentencing procedures, people are subject to, and usually given, 3 separate elements of punishment as part of their "sentence" for each count they are convicted of (violating "double jeopardy"), namely a prison sentence, a monetary fine, and something called supervised release. While Bush commuted Libby's prison term, and Libby then (allegedly) paid the imposed $250,000 fine, the remaining "supervised release" element of his sentence has become a quandary for the sentencing court, and U.S. Attorney, to assess, and agree on how to handle.

"Supervised release" was created from the Sentencing Reform Act (SRA) of 1984, which created the federal Sentencing Guidelines, and ended the federal system of parole and created this new "thing" called supervised release. It was enacted in 1987, and then became part of federal sentences imposed by federal judges.

But supervised release is patently unconstitutional; specifically it violates the Fifth Amendment's "double jeopardy" clause (nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life and limb) and "due process" clause (nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law).

Under the U.S. Constitution, all people (not just citizens) are protected from being subject (by the Government) to multiple punishments for the same offense, as established by the aforementioned "double jeopardy" clause. Before the SRA, a person sentenced to federal prison, after serving a specified length of the prison term, was eligible for parole/probation. The grant of parole was a "privilege", allowing a prisoner to serve the remainder of their prison term outside of prison under the "supervision" of a parole officer. If the parole officer asserted to the sentencing judge the person violated conditions of parole, the judge could choose (or not) to order the person back to prison to serve out the remainder (or part) of the original prison sentence, or until eligible for parole again. However, upon completion of the full imposed prison term, whether served in prison and/or under probation, the person would then be released from custody, and be free, no longer subject to government control, supervision, or other oversight.

Supervised release, as the name explicitly implies, creates an (unconstitutional) system which allows the government to continue to "supervise" (control) people AFTER they have completed their full prison sentences. It also allows for the re-imprisonment of people, in many cases for periods longer than their original prison terms (and the government claims even indefinitely), for actions that aren't even crimes (drinking alcohol, associating with certain people, not working, etc).
People who have short sentences (12-18 months) are routinely given terms of supervised release twice their prison terms (3 years). This means people can be
put back in prison for a longer time (without being convicted of another crime) for an alleged violation of "supervised release" than their original criminal conviction.

To be clear, supervised release, ONLY takes affect, AFTER a person has served their full federal prison term AND then released from prison. Again, this is different from parole/probation (which is still the system used by the states), which only exposes people to a one time period of the loss of "liberty." With the creation of supervised release, people are now exposed to a second term of restrictions on their "liberty" and placed in jeopardy of being imprisoned again, based on only one conviction of a crime, in clear violation of the "double jeopardy' clause.

Also, the administration of supervised release violates the due process clause, because people can be re-imprisoned for non-criminal conduct other people can freely engage in. Under supervised release, people are routinely restricted from engaging in non-criminal activities, like drinking alcohol. If found to have violated this otherwise completely legal activity, they could be put back in prison to serve a new prison term. Even now, if the same person illegally consumed alcohol while serving the original federal prison term, the term could not be increased (though potentially not decreased via 'good time'). Additionally under the former federal parole system, a violation of parole could also not increase the prison term, it could just make the person serve more of the term inside of prison, than outside.

Also, now some courts have interpreted that supervised release can be reimposed on people who were put in prison for violations of their original supervised release, creating a revolving door of continuous control by the courts. And more insidious, the government asserts it can indefinitely keep people in prison after their prisons terms have expired, if they don't first agree to adhere to terms of supervised release.

But Libby's commutation has unintentionally exposed another legal flaw in the structure of "supervised release" (though most media still erroneously refer to it as parole or probation). Since supervised release ONLY takes affect AFTER a full prison term is (first) completed, does supervised release have any legal meaning, and can it be imposed or enforced, on a person who hasn't (first) completed a federal prison sentence? That is the question Libby's sentencing Judge Reggie Walton posed to the government. So, it looks like Scooter Libby is completely free now, outside the control of the Court and additional "supervision."

Of course, Libby is an aberration of the system, never an intended victim. It was not intended to generally apply to people of his race, gender, and class.

Supervised release emanated from the racist/fascist mindset of a determined band of primarily southern congressmen, facing the social emergence and power of Blacks, Gays, and Women from the struggles of the 60's and 70's, taking years in the making, to use the criminalization apparatus of government to control people in a manner the Constitution explicitly denies. The Constitution gives the Government NO POWER to "supervise" people. Our Government is not supposed to be the Masters of We The People, rather, it's supposed to be Our Servant. It can punish people for violating (valid) laws ONCE, but not concoct repetitive denials of people's "liberty." And "liberty" is the most important freedom we have, for without it we can exercise no others.

So supervised release has served its intended purpose to keep as many people as possible in prison, and under the control of government for as long as possible, most of whom are Black, Brown, and poor. At any one time, reports state anywhere from 20-35% of people are in federal prison because of violations of supervised release, overcrowding the prisons for non-criminal acts after release from prison (who were mostly there initially for non-violent offenses in the first place), people who otherwise would have been free prior to the SRA. And since 1980, when about 20,000 people were federally imprisoned, now there are about 120,000, and minimally 5-6 times more under supervised release outside of prison (most for a minimum of 3 years).

But for the supporters of these documented oppressive sentencing policies, which have nothing to do with crime abatement, or the interests of justice, even these policies are not harsh enough. In fact they are moving to, in a de facto manner, create a societal structure as close to de jure slavery (and fascism) as they can get away with. And mostly, everyone else is sitting on the sidelines letting it happen, oblivious to the devious details of how it's being done.

Supervised release should be abolished and replaced with an enlightened and humane system of parole/probation. Instead of trying to increase the (world's highest) number of people in prison and under supervision/control by the Government, we must work to make the protections of the Constitution real, and promote the idea that "liberty" is something that is an inalienable Right All People possess, and not to be abused and denied by a small group of people who currently control the apparatus of Government.

Supervised release must end as an element of federal sentencing, and people who truly believe in Freedom and Justice should become involved in eliminating this unconstitutional element of federal sentencing.

Poor IRS

Poor IRS! :<(

What's a despotic, corrupt, despised and hated government agency to do when its loses its tyrannical mojo? Like the lion who looses its teeth, it dies a slow death from starvation, no longer able to inject fear into its once terrorized prey. Poor IRS.

While its true that for most people, the letters IRS, still invoke fear, anxiety, and loathing, but for a growing enlightened, confident, and pissed off set of people, its fighting time!

For example, take the case of Vernice Kuglin, a FedEx pilot. This native of Memphis, TN, at least minimally intelligent enough to become an airline pilot, started to apply that intelligence to the study of the so-called “income” tax system. Airline pilots make a lot of money, compared to most people, and the IRS would like them to just handover a large portion of it. But like many before her (and many more since) from her studies Kuglin came to the conclusion that she couldn't find a law that said she had to do this, so she stopped withholding from coming out of her wages, and stopped filing. This the IRS did not like! And as it sometimes feels necessary to do, to keep the rest of the slaves from running off the plantation, they concocted a criminal indictment against her. But instead of copping a plea, and asking for mercy, Kuglin stood her ground and went to trial.

And lo and behold, on August 8, 2003 a Memphis jury of her peers, in the case, IRS v. Kuglin, found her innocent of all the alleged criminal charges the IRS brought against her. In shock, the US Attorney, stunned and taken aback by the temerity of the jury to render this verdict, screamed at the judge to order Kuglin to file and pay her taxes anyway, upon which the judge is stated to have uttered, “Sir, I don't work for the IRS.” Oh my, oh my.....Poor IRS! :<(

Read about her case here: www.sierratimes.com/03/08/10/ar_IRS_vs._KUGLIN.htm
www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Update08-09-03.htm

Next, there was the 'et tu Brute' case of Joe Banister, a former CID (Criminal Investigation Division) agent of the IRS. Banister was fired after presenting his research to his superiors that he couldn't find a statutory basis for the “income” tax, though his job required he investigate people to help criminally prosecute them for violating said alleged laws. For discovering this truth, and then counseling others about it, he was criminally charged with conspiracy to commit tax fraud. But on June 23, 2005, a Sacramento, CA jury of his peers found him Not Guilty too of all charges in his trial.

Read more about him here: www.freedomabovefortune.com
www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44956

And then there are the activities of the We The People (WTP) Foundation, and its intrepid leader Bob Schulz.

You see, Bob Schulz and WTP, fed up with years of having its inquiries about the statutory basis of the "income" tax ignored by the IRS/DOJ, in July 2004 filed a federal class action lawsuit (We The People, et al v. United States, et al) in Washington, DC, attempting to exercise the supposed Right we have under the First Amendment “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” One of the grievances the suit raised was for the government to state specifically what law required the average person to file and pay the alleged “income” tax. You know, could you just show us the law?

U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan, who allegedly swore an oath to follow, protect, and defend the Constitution, dismissed the lawsuit on August 31, 2005, stating the government does not have to listen to or respond to the grievances raised by the citizens in the lawsuit. On May 8, 2007, that ruling was upheld by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, and on June 22, 2007 WTP filed an en banc Petition for a rehearing by the full appeals court, which are rarely granted, so its probably on to the Supreme Court. Stay tuned.

See here: http://givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/InfoCenter.htm

In retaliation for having its lawsuit dismissed without its grievances even being required to be listened to, WTP started Operation Stop Withholding (OSW). Basically they said, if the government doesn't have to respond to our grievances, as the First Amendment requires, then we're going to teach people how to stop withholding from being taken out of their wages. No answers, no money. Now take that!

Poor IRS! Instead of leaving well enough alone, they then retaliated against WTP by filing a civil lawsuit against them on May 3, 2007, claiming its OSW was an "abusive tax shelter." In the WTP's Motion To Dismiss the lawsuit, it asserted they are only engaged in First Amendment protected Freedom of Speech, and they are merely educating people on the statutes and regulations, which clearly and repeatedly, cite wage withholding is a "voluntary agreement" between an employee and employer. Plus, their program is free of charge, and thus, doesn't structurally meet the legal criteria of being a "tax shelter."

See www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/Update2007-07-19.htm

But the IRS just doesn't seem to learn. They've already lost big once messing with Schulz (setting bad case precedent for them in the process) by previously trying to summons his records. But the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals sternly rebuked the IRS, ruling that IRS summonses have no weight of law, and no one has any requirement to comply, or even respond, to these mere administrative request if they were not accompanied by a court order. So at least within the jurisdiction of the 2nd Circuit, if you get an IRS summons without a court order attached to it, you can just tear that baby up and throw it away.

See http://givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/InfoCenter.htm

Ahhh...Poor IRS! :<(

Oh, oh, and then there's the case of U.S. v. Lawrence, in Peoria, IL, where on May 12, 2006, the U.S. Attorney filed an emergency motion to drop the 3 alleged criminal charges each of failure to file and tax evasion against Robert Lawrence, 3 days before his trial was to start. And why did the US Attorney feel compelled to beseech – no beg – the Court to immediately drop all charges against Mr. Lawrence – with prejudice – meaning those charges could never be brought against him again? Well, Lawrence's Attorney Otis Stilley had raised the single issue of the 1040 Form being an illegal “information form” which did not have a valid OMB (Office of Management and Budget) number, which designates its statutory authority to collect the information requested on the form. This is a violation of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1974. And because the Judge allowed this argument to be made, and because the US Attorney knew there was no statutory basis for the “income” tax, and thus had no statutory basis requiring anyone to file a 1040 Form, the US Attorney threw in the towel before the boxing match began, rather than get his face bashed in trying to prove the unprovable. For once, a smart(er) move on their part.

See government motion here: www.givemeliberty.org/RTP2/PRA/Pleadings/27_MtnDismissWPrejudice.pdf
and the case docket sheet recording the order of dismissal by the judge.
www.givemeliberty.org/RTP2/PRA/PRA-Misc/LawrenceDocket5-18-06.pdf

Faced with the growing Tax Honesty Movement and court losses, in November 2006 the IRS felt compelled to put out a propaganda document titled “The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments” (www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf). But, Poor IRS, not too many jurors seem to have gotten the message.

Most recently there's the case of Tom Cryer. Now get this, Cryer is an attorney in Louisiana who, skeptical at first, through his own study of the information that is now easily available on the Internet to study, also came to the same conclusion Kuglin, Banister, We The People, et al, have come to about the “income” tax, and stopped filing too. But, once again, the IRS felt compelled to concoct a set of bogus criminal charges against him too. I mean, if we let lawyers get away with this then lay people will think it's alright for them to do too! And like Kuglin, et al, before him, a Shreveport, LA jury of his peers, on July 11, 2007 found him not guilty of 2 counts of “willful failure to file” “income” tax forms, because the government couldn't prove to these 12 Americans there was any law that required Cryer (or anyone else) to do so. Poor IRS! :<(

Read about it here: http://newsbusters.org/node/14077 and here:
http://edbrownextendedentries.blogspot.com/2007/07/tom-cryers-trial-summary.html
His video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KjBy_qp4Zc&mode=related&search=
and his website: www.liefreezone.com

And finally, Poor IRS, now they've even got a feature film making Hollywood director, Aaron Russo (Trading Places, The Rose) getting on its case. In 2006 he released “America: From Freedom to Fascism” (www.freedomtofascism.com) which can be seen FREE in its entirety here: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=freedom+to+fascism

Also see the Zeitgeist video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBZne09Gf5A&mode=related&search=

Yes, the inexorable demise of the IRS, and its reason for existence, the “income” tax, are on the imminent horizon. With over 67 million people (IRS numbers) choosing to no longer voluntarily file and pay, people winning bogus criminal trials in hostile courts, damn movies and videos spilling the beans on this corrupt fraud, and the Fair Tax (www.fairtax.org) in Congress ready to abolish this whole mess, with Republican AND Democratic Presidential candidates touting its passage, these are not high times at the IRS. It's really getting hard being the most hated agency of the government when your curtain has been pulled, and people see you're just a lying feeble fake spewing FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt).

In fact, reports have it some dismayed IRS and DOJ attorneys have adopted an old song:

Don't push me, cuz I'm close to the edge
I'm trying not to lose my head
Uh huh, ha ha ha
It's like a jungle, sometimes it makes me wonder, how I keep from going under
It's like a jungle, sometimes it makes me wonder, how I keep from going under

Poor IRS! :<)

Why we need the FairTax

The need for good tax reform is one of the most important issues facing this country. But the thinking which created the problems of the current corrupt and dysfunctional “income” tax system cannot be the basis for solving them. And in going forward, we must continually heed the warnings of the fourth Chief Justice John Marshall who said: “The power to tax involves the power to destroy.” So it's not enough to just propose a tax system that is only marginally “not as as bad” as what we have, rather, we need one that is actually absolutely better.

I, along with a growing number of other citizens, realize we must completely replace the current so-called “income” tax system with a system that is simple (it's easy to understand), efficient (it doesn't take up a lot of resources), and is fair (it treats people equitably under the law). I contend a system which meets all these criteria, and more, already exists in legislative form, its called the FairTax. In fact, since its reintroduction in the 110th Congress on January 4, 2007, as of July 4, 2007 the FairTax Act (HR25) has already attracted 62 cosponsors, and the Senate version (S-1025) has 4 cosponsors.

Here are the basic features of the FairTax:

1) The FairTax will abolish the so-called “income” tax system and its mechanics.

2) Wage withholding (Social Security, FICA, et al) will cease, allowing individuals to take home and control 100% of their wages again.

3) All "income" tax form filing will be abolished for individuals and businesses. April 15 becomes just a beautiful spring day again!

4) The IRS, as we know and hate it, will be abolished, and the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) trashed.

5) A federal National Retail Sales Tax (NRST) will replace the "income" tax, with an initial 23% (tax inclusive) excise tax on the retail sales of services and NEW (not previously sold) products.

6) The NRST will NOT be imposed on the wholesale purchases by businesses of goods which are to go into products that will eventually be sold at retail to end-users of the products.

7) The NRST will be administered by the States, and monies collected sent to the federal treasury.

8) Each family will be eligible to receive a monthly prebate. The prebate amount is determined solely by family size (one or more persons) according to the official poverty level designated for each family size.

9) The FairTax will NOT tax savings, or interest and investment earnings.

10) The FairTax calls for the repeal of the 16th Amendment, the so-called “income” tax amendment.

The creation of the FairTax was the result of a lengthy period of extensive study and analysis of the economic, social, and constitutional issues and affects of taxation. Its goal was to produce a viable and functional tax system that would raise the necessary revenue to fund the federal government with the least amount of social and economic disruption. It is probably the most scientifically sound and understood piece of public policy ever proposed in this country, with very specific design criteria and goals it is devised to meet. Here are some of the goals and outcomes the FairTax is designed to achieve.

The FairTax is designed to be simple and efficient
Currently it is estimated people and businesses spend from $200B-$350B a year just to comply with the administrative cost of the “income” tax. This doesn't include the costs and inefficiencies that the government incurs in trying to enforce it, and Congress wastes in the yearly finagling of the IRC, with all the corruption surrounding lobbying to influence that. The FairTax in one fell swoop wipes all of that away. It creates a simple excise tax that is administered by the States (45 of which already have state sales tax systems they administer), which abolishes the IRS and IRC as we know it. Smaller government, cheaper government, and better government, all with one Act.

The FairTax is transparent
Everything about the FairTax is open to scrutiny, You will always know what the tax will be on anything you buy before you buy it. Revenue figures can be easily generated on a periodic, and by state, basis to show the amounts collected. And since there is only one number that determines the tax, the tax rate is the only thing that can be changed by Congress to affect the amount of revenue being raised. No hidden lines in an incomprehensible tax code, or special exemptions or exceptions. Tax lobbyist go out of business. And if any member of Congress tries to “mess” with the system, it will be open for everyone to see (if they dared).

The FairTax is “progressive” and treats everyone fairly
The FairTax is fair because by its design it's “progressive” and it treats people “equitably.” Its progressive because people determine how much they are taxed by the level and type of consumption they engage in. The more you spend on taxable items the more you pay in taxes, and those with the most money will spend the most, and thus pay more in taxes. Also, because only “new” items are taxed, people who buy used goods won't be subject to the NRST, thus people can spread their full paychecks even further. And with the monthly “prebate” families will not spend any of their own earned money to pay for the NRST until they spend past the poverty level for their family size. If their monthly spending is less than the poverty level they will be earning money from the government. This is obviously fairer than the current “income” tax system, which takes money directly out of people's paycheck without regard to their poverty level, and caps the amount of money withheld from people's wages once it's past about $90K. The withholding system is, thus, by design “regressive” in benefiting high wage earners, while instituting a system of (unconstitutional) “wage slavery” in the process.

The FairTax is economically sound
In our 231 years of existence since 1776, the taxation of “income” has only been the dominate source of revenue (individual and corporate) for the federal government for only the past 50-60 years. Before that the government subsisted on the revenues from duties, imposts, and excises (Indirect Taxes), though it's always had (and still does) the authority to impose a Constitutionally valid apportioned Direct Tax on the States. The FairTax switches the basis of federal taxation from “income” back to consumption, which is a much larger and stable basis for taxation. Everyone (people and businesses) is ultimately sometimes a retail consumer. And the taxation of consumption includes foreigners (visitors, student, immigrants, etc) and foreign businesses, thus, not just Americans will be contributing to the tax base.

That FairTax encourages savings
The US has one of the lowest rates of savings in the western world, largely due to the fact that interest and investment earnings are included as “income” to be taxed, while debt (like mortgages) can be deducted. Thus, the “income” tax promotes regressive economic behavior, which is what most people engage in. Under the FairTax, whatever you don't spend now can be saved with positive economic benefit. Thus, over time, there will be a substantial increase in savings, as people are encouraged to behave financially rationally.

The FairTax will cause interest rates to drop
Because people and businesses will be able to keep and save more of their money, this means, without the government having to print any additional money, the banking system will incur an increase in money (savings). This increase in the available supply of money will cause the price to acquire money (interest) to drop. Additionally, since people/businesses will have more of their own money to use, this will lower the demand for credit, which will also cause interest rates to drop, to spur the demand for bank capital.

The FairTax will spur economic growth and stability
With people/businesses having more money to use for their personal/business needs the higher capacity to spend will spur demand, which will spur business growth to meet it. Without the “compliance cost” of the “income” tax, which accounts for about 23% of the price of goods, prices will drop to meet demand, within a heightened competitive environment, as more businesses are able to focus all of their resources on productive business activities. Employees effective wages will immediately increase (without being subject to withholding) and will grow over time as businesses grow in the expanding economy.

The FairTax will make the US attractive to businesses
With the elimination of the corporate “income” tax, the US will become attractive again for domestic and foreign businesses. Moving businesses offshore becomes less attractive as the cost differential to do so won't be worth it. Foreign businesses will flock to the US from countries with corporate tax systems, and to be closer to their end markets, and to reduce their goods transportation costs. Plus, since capital will be cheaper in the US, businesses can expand faster and cheaper. And without the “creative accounting” tricks encouraged by the tax code (e.g. by Enron, et al) simpler, more accurate, and honest accounting will provide truer pictures of businesses for investors, stockholders, and regulators. And, in a few short years, the US will wipe out its trade deficit, and become a net exporter of goods again.

The FairTax is in total harmony with the US Constitution
The FairTax calls for the repeal of the 16th Amendment, which allegedly gave Congress the power to tax “income.” But in the "The Law That Never Was, Vol 1 & 2", Bill Benson (www.thelawthatneverwas.com) documents how the 16th Amendment was fraudulently declared to be ratified in 1913. And from its alleged inception, the so-called “income” tax has been challenged as being unconstitutional. The film "America: From Freedom to Fascism" (2006 by Aaron Russo, free to view at http://video.google.com/, search on "freedom to fascism") goes into the details of how and why no one is required to file “income” tax forms or “voluntarily comply” to pay such so-called taxes. The FairTax is a fully valid excise tax, as authorized by Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, to be uniformly applied to the States (e.g. the federal gasoline tax, et al).

The FairTax puts “we the people” back in control
With the government's greedy hands out of our wallets and bank accounts, citizens will be able to directly express their displeasure with the government by deciding to keep more of their money in their pockets by not spending, or by spending more on used goods, We will also be able to reign in the power of corporations by controlling and directing our spending with them too. Thus, because neither Congress or Corporations would have direct access to our money, “we the people” now have the power to control them.

With all of these irrefutable benefits of the FairTax, most citizens are unaware of it, because of the failure of mainstream (corporate owned) media to inform people of it, and accurately explain its features and benefits. Most congresspeople either don't know it exists, don't support it for a lack of understanding, or oppose it for ideological, partisan, or political reasons.

However, even with the deliberate indifference shown to it by the media, and the seemingly inability of Congress to ever pass tax legislation that will benefit the country, the FairTax is about to reach its tipping point. “The FairTax Book” by its legislative sponsor Rep John Linder and radio host Neal Boortz, spent weeks on the bestsellers lists in 2006/7, proving the American public is interested in the topic. And Americans For Fair Taxation (AFFT) (www.fairtax.org and www.myspace.com/fairtax) a grassroots organization created specifically to get the FairTax passed, is making it a central issue in the 2008 presidential election, by holding rallies at the debates around the country, and confronting the candidates on their support of it.

Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come. The FairTax is a radical departure from the status quo, whose time has almost come. And the sooner more people know of its existence and benefits, the sooner that time will come.