Another shot from a walk downtown... 

STOP THE WAR IN IRAQ!!!

This pretty much sums up my reasons for getting out of Irag NOW!!

AFSC Board Statement on
Immediate Troop Withdrawal

---

Statement of the American Friends Service Committee on the Immediate Withdrawal of U.S. Troops from Iraq

December 22, 2004

The AFSC Board of Directors, gathered in worship in Philadelphia, adopted the following minute:

The Board of the American Friends Service Committee grieves at the ongoing and increasing deaths of Iraqis, Americans, and others in Iraq, including as many as 100,000 civilian deaths and many more maimed.

We believe that an immediate end to hostilities is essential to stem the carnage.

We are convinced that the presence of U.S. troops is a destabilizing force in the region and contributes to the increasing loss of life.

We are anguished by the damage and lasting scars we are causing to another generation of American soldiers who have been asked to serve in another war in a distant place for questionable ends.

Therefore, we urge the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops.

---

We believe it is now clear that the continuing U.S. military presence in Iraq is counter-productive and wrong. The occupation has lost the trust of the Iraqi people. We abhor the violence—each day Iraq becomes less safe for the occupied, the occupiers, and those who seek to relieve the suffering.

We have struggled since the beginning of the occupation with the role of U.S. forces in Iraq. Our Quaker faith tells us that military solutions are always wrong. But we also realized that a sudden withdrawal of troops after the toppling of the Hussein regime might have further destabilized Iraq and increased the danger to its citizens.

At the outbreak of the war, leaders of Quaker organizations in the U.S. warned:

This is a choice we know will have enormous and tragic consequences -- many as yet unimagined -- for the Iraqi people, for our own nation, and for the world. It is a choice we believe was unnecessary, immoral, and unwise, especially since it was taken before all the nonviolent and diplomatic alternatives were exhausted; indeed, before some were even explored.

From A Statement from Leaders of Friends Organizations in the U.S. Regarding the War in Iraq, March 20, 2003.

In November 2003, AFSC declared:

The U.S. invasion and a poorly conceived occupation have created danger and chaos in a country already devastated by years of international economic sanctions and a dictatorship that squandered valuable resources on military adventures. Iraq's government and its institutions have been destroyed and a foreign army cannot and should not fill the void. With each passing week, more Iraqis grow angry and refuse to cooperate with a provisional authority and occupation forces that they view as both illegitimate and ineffective. In this climate, both American troops and Iraqis who cooperate with them become targets of violence.

From Building Hope for Iraq, November 2003

One year later, the violence continues to escalate. U.S. forces have resumed offensive operations and more than 1,000 American soldiers and countless Iraqi civilians have perished since the President declared an end to major combat in May of 2003.

Since President Bush's declaration, AFSC has consistently called attention to the fact that by law the U.S. is responsible for the success or failure of the military occupation. Iraqis, the international community, and the U.S. public will judge success, not by how swiftly military action toppled the Hussein regime, but rather by how it:

• Establishes and maintains security for Iraqis,
  
  
• Restores basic services, including electricity, water, health care, and education,
  
  
• Revives the local economy to meet day-to-day as well as recovery needs of Iraqis,
  
  
• Effects a rapid transition to a sovereign representative Iraqi government,
  
  
• Assures the active presence of the international community in Iraq's rehabilitation, represented by the UN and non-governmental organizations, and
  
  
• Demonstrates responsibility in the allocation of U.S. funds.

On all these points the U.S. has failed. As a result, the troop presence in Iraq has lost the support of the Iraqi people and, by most accounts, the U.S. public. All of these events confirm our long-held belief that violence can only beget further violence.

The U.S. must give way, so that the UN and other agencies, working with the Iraqi interim government, can bring peace and stability. The AFSC believes that the United States has lost the moral standing to achieve the necessary healing, but remains responsible to support financially those institutions and agencies which can do so.

Is the U.S. Government out of control?...

Court rules cities can seize homes for economic development
By Jan Crawford
GreenburgWashington Bureau
June 24, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Rejecting pleas by homeowners fighting to keep their properties, the Supreme Court on Thursday said local governments could condemn a person's home or business so the sites could be redeveloped for more lucrative uses.In a 5-4 decision written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the court said the Constitution permits governments to condemn a person's property, paying them a fair price for it, as part of a broader economic redevelopment plan to revitalize a distressed community.The decision, one of the most anxiously awaited of the term, emphasized that governments have long relied on powers of eminent domain to condemn property for public uses, such as railways and utilities. The court has historically taken a "deferential approach to legislative judgments in this field," the majority said.The court recognized the "hardship" such condemnations may bring to property owners uprooted from homes and businesses in the name of economic development. But local governments should be given "broad latitude" to determine whether their citizens would be best served by condemning private property, especially where it is part of a broader scheme for redevelopment, the court said."Promoting economic development is a traditional and long-accepted function of government," the court said, upholding efforts by the city of New London, Conn., to redevelop a parcel of land in a distressed part of town.Nine New London homeowners had argued that the city's efforts to condemn their property for the redevelopment project violated the Constitution's 5th Amendment, which says that no private property shall be "taken for public use, without just compensation." The private redevelopment, they said, was not a "public use."But the court agreed with New London, holding that the proposed private economic redevelopment, promoted as one that would add jobs and increase tax revenue, did amount to a "public use" that would permit New London to take the homeowners' property after paying them the fair value for it.Analysts differed sharply on the effect of the decision on future eminent domain cases throughout the United States. Property rights advocates, who have long urged the court to give greater protection to private property, said the decision sets a dangerous precedent that would encourage local governments to be more aggressive in taking private property."This is an appalling decision by the Supreme Court," said Dana Berliner, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, which represented the New London homeowners fighting to keep their properties. "It's now just fine to take somebody's home or business away from them just because the government thinks someone else can make more profit off that land."But others said the court's reasoning in its decision, emphasizing that governments need carefully thought-out development plans before condemning private land, would limit the impact of the case."I don't think it's, `Katie, bar the door,' for government entities running over private property owners," said Mark Burkland, a co-chairman of the national land use team at the Holland & Knight law firm in Chicago who also represents Lake Zurich and other municipalities in eminent domain cases.Burkland also pointed out that the decision makes clear that states can impose greater protections for private property than the U.S. Constitution provides. Some states, including Utah, California and Michigan, have already done that, he noted.Illinois' Constitution contains a provision identical to the 5th Amendment's takings clause. But the Illinois Supreme Court has closely scrutinized condemnation of private land for private redevelopment efforts. In one case, in 2002, it rejected efforts by the Southwestern Illinois Development Authority to condemn a metal-shredding facility in order to provide a racetrack parking lot, said Jerold Solovy, a partner with Chicago-based Jenner & Block, who represented the shredding facility.Thursday's decision produced a sharp dissent from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who said it means that "any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party."Who among us can say she already makes the most productive or attractive possible use of her property? The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," wrote O'Connor, in an opinion joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."Thomas, who also wrote a separate dissent, said the decision would fall hardest on the poor and minorities, who would be displaced in the greatest numbers by development projects and urban renewal programs."So-called urban renewal programs provide some compensation for the properties they take, but no compensation is possible for the subjective value of these lands to the individuals displaced and the indignity inflicted by uprooting them from their homes," Thomas wrote.The case started in 1998, when the city of New London approved a redevelopment plan for 90 acres of land located next to a new Pfizer Inc. pharmaceutical research facility. The city, looking to create jobs and expand its tax base, planned for hotel, housing and office developments, as well as open space, on the land.To put its plan in motion, the city created a development corporation to buy the necessary plots from homeowners and gave the corporation the power to condemn the land and force homeowners who were refusing to sell to do so. The corporation then was to lease the land to a private developer for $1 a year for 99 years.But some homeowners, including one woman who has lived in her home since her birth in 1918, put up a fight and challenged the city's right to acquire their land for private economic redevelopment. They argued that governments could only condemn land for more obvious public uses, such as for utilities or new roads or schools or firehouses--not for private redevelopment.

In his opinion for the majority, Stevens said the court has made clear that the government can't take land merely to benefit a particular private party or where there is no public purpose.But in the New London case, Stevens said, there was extensive evidence that the city had crafted, thoroughly researched and carefully considered its development plan. He noted that the trial judge had found no evidence that the condemnation was designed to benefit one party or group.Second, the court said that even though the land would not be entirely open for use by the general public, the court has always rejected such a narrow definition of "public use." The court noted that state courts and the Supreme Court have long said "public use" could include irrigation of private lands and railroad development--both of which led to the economic development of the West.Moreover, Stevens wrote, courts should defer to legislative judgments, which can best discern local public needs.

jgreenburg@tribune.com

I know they won't draft me, how about you?

For most people my age we have gone through our late teens and early twenties not having to worry about the prospect of being forced, against our will, into military service. Well now is the time for anyone between the ages of 18 and 25 to wake up and start watching what is going on in Washington and overseas.

Read this article for a better idea of what is going on.

I did some checking up on the new draft at the Selective Service System website and I think that I will be safe should our government decide to send unwilling men and women into the armed services.

Is there an end to this whole mess?

Crude Oil Prices Surge Above $54 a Barrel

By BRAD FOSS, Associated Press WriterWed Jun 1, 4:23 PM ET

Oil prices jumped by more than $2.50 a barrel on Wednesday in a rally brokers pinned on fears of tight supplies at the end of the year even as they were stunned at the market's volatility.

It was the seventh straight trading session in which crude oil futures have risen, lifting prices above $54 a barrel, and to their highest level in a month.

After climbing above $58 a barrel in early April, oil prices cooled off in mid-May, falling below $47 a barrel amid signs of slowing economic growth. Now the market psychology appears to have flipped again.

"It doesn't make a lot of sense," said John Kilduff, senior oil analyst at FImat USA in New York. "But fears about fourth quarter demand are feeding on themselves and a lot of people are scared. They don't want to miss the boat again if it looks like crude is going to go back up to $58."

Concerns are rising that strong demand for diesel will leave it and other distillate fuels, including heating oil, scarce later this year. And there was also talk Wednesday of a refinery snag in Texas. But the supply-demand fundamentals are basically unchanged from two weeks ago, when oil prices were nearly $8 a barrel cheaper.

Kilduff said "$60 a barrel, which looked highly unlikely just last week, is now once again within the realm of reason."

Light, sweet crude for July delivery rose $2.63, or 5 percent, to settle at $54.60 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Brent crude rose $2.46 to settle at $53.30 a barrel on London's International Petroleum Exchange.

Oil prices have been high and volatile for almost two years because there is little excess production capacity worldwide, leaving the market more vulnerable to unexpected supply disruptions or stronger-than-anticipated demand growth.

Brokers traced the start of Wednesday's rally to heating oil futures, which shot up by 9.05 cents to $1.54 a gallon. They said the gains then spread to other commodities. Gasoline futures climbed 7.72 cents to $1.5442.

In addition to rising consumption of gasoline, diesel demand is also strong due to economic growth, with pump prices averaging $2.16 a gallon in the U.S.

Oil analyst Andrew Lebow at Man Financial Inc. in New York said this could limit the buildup of distillate fuel inventories over the next few months, leaving heating oil supplies tight next winter.

"This could be the kickoff of the heating oil season — in June," Lebow said.

Both Kilduff and Lebow said there is ample gasoline in the market right now.

The U.S. Energy Department releases its next petroleum supply snapshot on Thursday. Analysts said the report would have to show substantial growth in supplies to bring prices down, adding that the hospitalization of Saudi ruler King Fahd might also have been putting upward pressure on prices over the past few days.

In mid-May, prices fell below $47 a barrel in response to steadily rising crude inventories, but a surprise drop in U.S. oil supplies last week brought some nervousness back into the market.

"For a few weeks now, the market has become more difficult to predict and last week's drop just reiterated that," said Daniel Hynes, energy analyst at ANZ Bank in Melbourne, Australia.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration's last petroleum data showed that U.S. commercial crude oil inventories fell 1.6 million barrels to 332.4 million barrels in the week ending May 20 from the previous week.

Still, Hynes said he expects a "slight rise" in crude inventories in the report released Thursday, a day later than normal due to Monday's Memorial Day holiday in the United States.

"Anything less than that, we'll definitely see an upward impact on the prices," he said.

Oil prices are now 24 percent higher than a year ago.

OPEC ministers are scheduled to meet in Vienna on June 15. The cartel has been pumping at 25-year highs in an attempt to keep prices in check.

The lesser of two evils?

'Disabled and blind' woman drove home
By David Sapsted
(Filed: 30/05/2005)
A woman who is wheelchair-bound and "virtually blind" drove her boyfriend home after an evening drinking because he was so drunk, a court heard.
After crashing into two parked cars, Sheree Smith told police that she was not doing too badly until her legs seized up and her eyes "went blank".
She told officers: "I am virtually blind. I used to have a provisional licence years ago but I did not take my test as I'm scared of the road.
"The person who drives the car was drunk. As I turned into my road, my eyes went blank and my leg seized up. I could not move the brake and the clutch. I could not see. I had my hands over my eyes."
Smith, 44, from Ely, Cambs, was banned from driving for a year and fined £200 by magistrates on Friday.
At a previous hearing, Smith admitted driving without due care and attention, driving without insurance and driving without a full license.
Magistrates ordered that the DVLA be informed of Smith's medical condition but the ban would not affect her use of a disabled person's scooter.

The memo: Boston constitutional lawyer seeks Resolution of Inquiry on Iraq

The recent release of the Downing Street Memo provides new and compelling evidence that the President of the United States has been actively engaged in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for going to war against Iraq. If true, such conduct constitutes a High Crime under Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution: “The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

In light of the emergence of the Downing Street Memo, Members of Congress should introduce a Resolution of Inquiry directing the House Judiciary Committee to launch a formal investigation into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach George W. Bush, President of the United States.

The Downing Street Memo

On May 1, 2005, The Sunday Times of London published the Downing Street Memo. The document, marked “Secret and strictly personal – UK eyes only,” consists of the official minutes of a briefing by Richard Dearlove, then-director of Britain’s CIA equivalent, MI-6, to British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top national security officials. Dearlove, having just returned from meetings with high U.S. Government officials in Washington, reported to Blair and members of his Cabinet on the Bush administration’s plans to start a preemptive war against Iraq.

The briefing occurred on July 23, 2002, months before President Bush submitted his resolution on Iraq to the United States Congress and months before Bush and Blair asked the United Nations to resume its inspections for alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The document reveals that, by the summer of 2002, President Bush had decided to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein by launching a war which, Dearlove reports, would be “justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD [weapons of mass destruction].” Dearlove continues: “But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” Dearlove also states that “[t]here was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.”

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw states that “[i]t seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided.” “But,” he continues, “the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, and Iran.”

British officials do not dispute the document’s authenticity, and, on May 6, 2005, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported that “[a] former senior U.S. official called [the document] ‘an absolutely accurate description of what transpired’ during the senior British intelligence officer’s visit to Washington.” “Memo: Bush made intel fit Iraq policy,” The State, Knight Ridder Newspapers, May 6, 2005.

Why a Resolution of Inquiry is Justified

On May 5, 2005, you and 88 other Members of Congress submitted a letter to President Bush, asking the President to answer several questions arising from the Downing Street Memo. On May 17, 2005, White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters that the White House saw “no need” to respond to the letter. “British Memo on U.S. Plans for Iraq War Fuels Critics,” The New York Times, May 20, 2005, A8.

The Framers of the United States Constitution drafted Article II, Section 4 to ensure that the people of the United States, through their representatives in the United States Congress, could hold a President accountable for an abuse of power and an abuse of the public trust. James Madison, speaking at Virginia’s ratification convention stated: “A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution.” James Iredell, who later became a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, stated at North Carolina’s ratification convention:

The President must certainly be punishable for giving false information to the Senate. He is to regulate all intercourse with foreign powers, and it is his duty to impart to the Senate every material intelligence he receives. If it should appear that he has not given them full information, but has concealed important intelligence which he ought to have communicated, and by that means induced them to enter into measures injurious to their country, and which they would not have consented to had the true state of things been disclosed to them, - in this case, I ask whether, upon an impeachment for a misdemeanor upon such an account, the Senate would probably favor him.

On July 25, 1974, then-Representative Barbara Jordan spoke to her colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee of the constitutional basis for impeachment. “The powers relating to impeachment,” Jordan said, “are an essential check in the hands of this body, the legislature, against and upon the encroachment of the Executive.”

Impeachment, she added, is chiefly designed for the President and his high ministers to somehow be called into account. It is designed to ‘bridle’ the Executive if he engages in excesses. It is designed as a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men. The framers confined in the Congress the power, if need be, to remove the President in order to strike a delicate balance between a President swollen with power and grown tyrannical and preservation of the independence of the Executive.

The question must now be asked, with the release of the Downing Street Memo, whether the President has committed impeachable offenses. Is it a High Crime to engage in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for taking the nation into war? Is it a High Crime to manipulate intelligence so as to allege falsely a national security threat posed to the United States as a means of trying to justify a war against another nation based on “preemptive” purposes? Is it a High Crime to commit a felony via the submission of an official report to the United States Congress falsifying the reasons for launching military action?

In his book Worse Than Watergate (Little, Brown and Company-NY, 2004), John W. Dean writes that “the evidence is overwhelming, certainly sufficient for a prima facie case, that George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have engaged in deceit and deception over going to war in Iraq. This is an impeachable offense.” Id. at 155. Dean focuses, in particular, on a formal letter and report which the President submitted to the United States Congress within forty-eight hours after having launched the invasion of Iraq. In the letter, dated March 18, 2003, the President makes a formal determination, as required by the Joint Resolution on Iraq passed by the U.S. Congress in October 2002, that military action against Iraq was necessary to “protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq...” Dean states that the report accompanying the letter “is closer to a blatant fraud than to a fulfillment of the president’s constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the law.” Worse Than Watergate at 148.

If the evidence revealed by the Downing Street Memo is true, then the President’s submission of his March 18, 2003 letter and report to the United States Congress would violate federal criminal law, including: the federal anti-conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, which makes it a felony “to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose...”; and The False Statements Accountability Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which makes it a felony to issue knowingly and willfully false statements to the United States Congress.

The United States House of Representatives has a constitutional duty to investigate fully and comprehensively the evidence revealed by the Downing Street Memo and other related evidence and to determine whether there are sufficient grounds to impeach George W. Bush, the President of the United States. A Resolution of Inquiry is the appropriate first step in launching this investigation.

The following is suggested language for this resolution:

Directing the Committee on the Judiciary to undertake an inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist to impeach George W. Bush, the President of the United States.

Whereas considerable evidence has emerged that George W. Bush, President of the United States, has engaged in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people as to the basis for taking the nation into war against Iraq, that George W. Bush, President of the United States, has manipulated intelligence so as to allege falsely a national security threat posed to the United States by Iraq, and that George W. Bush, President of the United States, has committed a felony by submitting a false report to the United States Congress on the reasons for launching a first-strike invasion of Iraq: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary is directed to investigate and report to the House of Representatives whether sufficient grounds exist to impeach George W. Bush, President of the United States. Upon completion of such investigation, that Committee shall report thereto, including, if the Committee so determines, articles of impeachment.

Conclusion

The Iraq war has led to the deaths of more than 1,600 United States soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. Thousands more have been permanently and severely injured on both sides. More than two years after the invasion, Iraq remains unstable and its future unclear. The war has already cost the American people tens of billions of taxpayer dollars at the expense of basic human needs here at home. More than 135,000 U.S. soldiers remain in Iraq without any stated exit plan.

If the President has committed High Crimes in connection with this war, he must be held accountable. The United States Constitution demands no less.

The Entire Downing Street Memo can be viewed here.

This makes me sick...

Judge Adds Jail Time in Texas Beating Case

13 May, 2005
(AP)

LINDEN, Texas - Citing the seriousness of the crime, a judge Friday added short jail terms to sentences recommended by juries for two of four men convicted of beating a mentally disabled black man and leaving him in a field.Judge Ralph K. Burgess invoked his right to add short jail terms for James Hicks and Christopher Amox. Both were convicted by a jury. Hicks, 26, received 10 years probation and 60 days behind bars. Amox, 20, got two years probation, a $4,000 fine and a 30-day jail sentence.Hicks, who was a Cass County jailer at the time of the beating, Amox and Stone had no immediate comment after they were sentenced. Relatives of Johnson, 44, also declined comment.Owens and Stone, who pleaded guilty to a third-degree felony charge of injury to a disabled person by omission, testified that Amox and Johnson were arguing about country versus rap music when Amox told Johnson to leave.Doctors soon determined he had suffered a concussion that, without medical attention, could have killed him, Lee said. Johnson was hospitalized for weeks. He is now unable to walk without help or speak clearly.This month, a different jury found Hicks guilty of the felony charge, which carries a penalty of two to 10 years in prison. That jury recommended that Hicks‘ three-year prison sentence also be suspended.White supporters of the men note they are "good boys" from prominent families with no previous legal trouble. But other residents, blacks and whites, say the case has been tainted by small-town politics, racism and a court system that favors whites.Jacque Arnold, a 56-year-old white woman who works at a juvenile detention center, said it was a clear case of racism.District Attorney Randal Lee, who is white, said before the sentences were imposed that the juries‘ decisions were in line with other juries who sympathize with first-time offenders. And he pointed out that the so-called beating involved one punch. - obviousnews.com


60 days and 30 days!! I guess that if you want to kill a man just go to Linden Texas. Can you guess what race the jury was made up of? You got it all whites. Don't let people forget about the mockery Linden Texas has made of our justice system!!

Sorry about the delay...

Well hello everyone it is time once again for me to sit and write in my little online diary. Well not too much going on, I'm gettign married in about 15 days so most of my attention has been on wedding plans and such. After the honeymoon I am going to spend more time and energy updating the information here. Until then have fun with whatever it is that you do.

Pope Benedict the XVI

Well it’s new Pope time once again. While I’m not a catholic I, like most other people in the world, was fixed to CNN yesterday awaiting the announcement that the Papal Conclave had reached a decision on the new Pope. I am not sure of the religious implications of this as it pertains to the church, however I do know that this is a historical moment. It’s not everyday you get to see something like this.
I guess that shortly the news media will go back to the “other” news and the buzz and excitement of the last weeks will be quickly forgotten by most people. If you are interested in reading some more about the new Papacy click on the following link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7563460/?GT1=6428 they have some great articles on this site.
I know that this wasn’t a very large blurb about the recent news, but hey at least it’s something. Right? Anyway I hope to be adding some more in depth and larger posts here in the near future. If you wish, leave a comment and let me know your e-mail address I can notify you when I do update again.

Until then, stay involved…in something…anything…..

The Fair Tax ....

Is there a way that we can still fund the federal government without having to give up, unwillingly in most cases, a large portion of our earned income? The short answer, yes, we can. The longer version lies in the grassroots movement, Americans For Fair Taxation.

“Americans for Fair Taxation is a 501c(4) non-profit, non-partisan organization, headquartered in Houston, Texas with an office in Washington, D.C. Since it was founded in 1995, Americans for Fair Taxation has grown to become the largest tax reform organization in the United States with over 400,000 supporters and members. Americans for Fair Taxation advocates the elimination of the current income tax code and proposes to replace it with the FairTax, a single-rate, federal consumption tax collected only once, at the final point of purchase for personal consumption.”

There are many reasons why we should support this movement. For one, the system is broken. Period. The tax codes that we as a country now use are so convoluted that it takes a degree in economics just to decipher them. Under the current system, every American worker pays a tax on each and every dollar that they earn. The new Fair Tax would only tax us on what we choose to purchase.

Some will say that this is a ploy by the Left at yet another misguided social project. Others will say that it is an attempt by the Right at getting more of their money. The truth is that neither of these could be farther from the truth. The fact is the Fair Tax has non-partisan support from Democrats and Republicans as well as some other third party organizations. The common belief among them all… “There is a fairer, simpler, more efficient way to raise federal revenue...” Under the Fair Tax we as Americans will not be taxed on what we make, we will be taxed on what we choose to spend, thereby no longer punishing us for going out and making more for ourselves.

If you are interested in learning more, there is a plethora of information available at www.fairtax.org that explains the intricacies of the program in more detail.