guilty as charged

In comment below "anonymous" notes that I know nothing about IRS arrears collection.

When my depth of "knowledge" is represented by having seen tax-farming ads on TV, it's really hard to dispute the charge!

Defending my ignorance, I'll say that my interest is less in IRS arrears collection than in the proliferation of prime-time tax-farming ads (at least, prime-time on cable stations). When the commercials state explicitly, "If you owe the IRS $10,000 or more...", it's hard for me to accept that the target audience is not, in fact, folks who owe more than $10k.

The next bunch of ads I'd expect to see would be for "foreclosure relief": save your credit rating by avoiding foreclosure! Call today.

Yes - my expectation is based on my loathing of W. I seize upon anything that can be presented as an indictment of his "governance"... and, yes, this leads to uninformed ranting.

But! Thanks, "anonymous", for a well-presented comment!
(Please, don't hesitate to slam me again! I suspect most of my posts are similarly uninformed rants. Honestly having to defend a position might chasten me!)

Maybe next time I'll do my homework before ranting... but don't bet on it.

Sing a song!

Our last line of defense: the Courts

Senate commits to shielding telecoms from suits
By PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writer
9 July 2008
WASHINGTON - The Senate on Wednesday affirmed its intention to protect from civil lawsuits telecom companies that helped the government wiretap Americans without court authorization after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Again, which word(-s) don't they understand:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I know I'm naive, but I really don't understand how a simple Act of Congress or an Executive Order can legitimately supersede the plain language of the Bill of Rights.

As expressed previously, my hope is that when a Federal Court finally gets to review one of these cases it finds that,

The United States Constitution being the Supreme Law of the Land, neither the Congress nor the Executive has the competence to arbitrarily abrogate any of its provisions, among which are the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures and the requirement for a warrant based on probable cause.

Yes, I know: wishful thinking.

Recommendation: if your Democratic Senator votes for this bill, make a note of it. Next time s/he is up for re-election, remember this vote!

Stop the madness!

just a coupla' observations on W's govt & economy

Anyone remember the French Revolution? (Well, no - actually, no one now living can honestly claim to "remember" the Revolution, but I'd guess quite a few of us have read about it!... sort of like "rain" in Albuquerque.)

One of many precipating conditions was taxation... and in particular, the practice of farming out tax collection. "Tax farming" was extremely lucrative - the "farmer" got to keep some percentage of whatever he collected.

It's been quite a while since tax collection has been farmed out to non-governmental agents. Under W's philosophy of government ("that government is best which governs least" + "private enterprise is divine"), the tax farmers are back. I see their commercials on TV every night. I've two somewhat contradictory responses to these commercials:
1. Why are private businesses doing the IRS's job?
2. How do folks end up owing "more than $10,000" the IRS? (Folks who owe the IRS "more than $10,000" are the target audience for these commercials.)... and a third reaction: why do I feel like a sap for paying what I owe?

Second observation on W's economy, also based on TV commercial: "The Gold Kit". Yes, you too can now liquidate family heirlooms for a few bucks... which, sad to say, you probably desperately need! "I took a vaction on the money I got from The Gold Kit!" Wow! Your wedding ring, your grandmother's locket, your dad's watch fob - no problem! Send 'em in! We'll give you $$$ today!.

I suspect a pawn broker would give a better rate... and you'd have the chance to redeem the articles.

Liquidating portable, tangible assets to take a vacation seems the perfect metaphor for W's economy. Squander the future for today's fling!

Stop the madness.

From "suggesting" to "insisting"

Iraq insists on withdrawal timetable for US troops"
By SALLY BUZBEE, Associated Press Writer
8 July 2008
BAGHDAD - Iraq's national security adviser said Tuesday his country will not accept any security deal with the United States unless it contains specific dates for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces.

I don't know if Iraq's national security adviser has any say-so in this decision, but it's still rather refreshing to see the Iraqi's state an anti-occupation position.

If only our Congressional Dems could display this backbone: "No funding without... ", well, without just about ANYTHING would do. A timetable. Clearly stated objectives. Clearly articulated milestones towards those objectives. ANYTHING besides the no-strings-attached continual funding (now in its 6th year!).

Meanwhile, a car bomb at the Indian Embassy in Kabul killed 41.

So... we want to keep troops in Iraq so we can fail in Afghanistan, too?

Stop the madness!

For newcomers: why "Al Qaeda in Albuquerque"?

The name, 'al Qaeda in Albuquerque', is deliberately chosen to excite the NSA. (It has, in addition, nice alliteration and a fun convergence of A's and Q's)

In truth, the name was chosen long before the blog was started.
It intends to mock W's conflating the so-called "al Qaeda in Iraq" with bin Laden's al Qaeda - the folks who in fact attacked us on 9/11.
A little-known Jordanian, Zarqawi, led a small radical militant group that he called, "Group of Monotheism and Jihad"... until the U.S. invaded Iraq. He then renamed his group, "Organization of Jihad's Base in the Country of the Two Rivers", and "pledged allegiance" to bin Laden. Henceforth, this group has been known in the U.S. as "al Qaeda in Iraq". It has NO connection with bin Laden, other than Zarqawi's "pledge".

Just because a group is known as "al Qaeda" doesn't mean they're the folks who attacked us, or that it is allied with bin Laden. ... BUT: W has been quick to seize on Zarqawi's "pledge" to justify our continuing occupation of Mesopotamia.

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
[Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, Act II, scene ii.]

If no one but the NSA finds this blog, that'd be okay... but I DO hope to reach a larger audience. A point: simply naming oneself 'al Qaeda' does NOT imply an allegiance to Osama bin Laden. As stated on this page, my sole purpose is to restore the U.S. Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land. I am a U.S. Army vet, a registered voter, and all in all a proud citizen of the USA who now feels powerless to rescue my Country from W and his minions. This blog is my little contribution to recovering my country.

Our shame (continued)

U.S. soldier may be able to seek asylum
OTTAWA, July 5 (UPI) -- A Canadian federal judge has decided Canada's refugee board made a mistake when it rejected a U.S. soldier's request for asylum.

Justice Robert Barnes said the Immigration and Refugee Board was incorrect when it decided Joshua Key was unable to seek asylum in Canada because the military actions he was dodging weren't extreme enough to be considered war crimes.

The Friday ruling may pave the way for other American deserters who try to claim refugee status in Canada, The Globe and Mail in Toronto reported.

The judge said evading military orders that are "contrary to the basic rules or norms of human conduct" is a substantial reason to seek asylum.
[emphasis added]

Cool! A Canadian court has effectively ruled that the U.S. has committed war crimes... or at least, that the claim has merit!

How long will it take us - you, me, and our country - to recover from W?

I've been watching a History Channel International series on American Presidents. The worst that could be said of Grant - close to the bottom of the list - is that his appointed cronies enriched themselves. I believe the same is true of Harding - another low-ranking President. Nixon? Well, he did what he could to subvert domestic politics.

W?
Where to start?
Raping the Bill of Rights.
Promoting torture.
Flat out rejecting international law & the Geneva Conventions.

Stop the madness!

Iraq (what else?): why are we there?

Recent commentary - from cable news to the New Yorker's Talk of the Town suggest that the "success" of the surge has left Obama adrift. All cite the apparent "success" of the surge in reducing the daily violence, and the apparent emergence of more-or-less democratic Iraqi institutions as evidence that Obama's anti-war stance could prove a liability in November.

Well... maybe. But only if Obama accepts W's framing of the issue.

Me? I'm still waiting to hear just exactly what are our strategic objectives in Iraq. What is it we want to achieve? What is the end-state we envision?

If low-level domestic violence (only a couple of car-bombings/week) is what we want - great! We've achieved it!

If oil production is what we want... well, are we getting there? How 'bout simply say, "We want Iraq's oil." That at least guides policy. Forget Baghdad, Mosul, and Basra! Concentrate our forces in the oil-fields and along the major pipelines to ensure a steady supply!

I've said this frequently: with no strategic objectives it's impossible to either figure out our next steps or know when we've succeeded. Maintaining a military presence simply as policemen, to keep a lid on sectarian, civil violence, dooms us to an eternal presence. Is this what we want?

Stop the madness!