How twisted do you have to be to come up with this?

"A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl, could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life." - South Dakota State Senator Bill Napoli

This from Bill Napoli to define just what would constitute an exception to South Dakota's new and repressive anti-abortion law.

1. Not just ANY rape will do...A woman must be brutally raped.

2. The victim must have been a virgin prior to the assault. Once a woman has had sex, she can, apparently, no longer be raped.

3. The victim must be religious. And which religion might that be? If I judge Mr Napoli correctly, it can't be anything other than that "Old time religion".

4. The victim must have been "saving herself for marriage". Will she have to prove this in court?

5. The victim must have been "sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it". Apparently light sodomy just won't make the grade.

6. The victim must have been impregnated. It only stands to reason that one can't have an abortion unless one is pregnant.

Mr. Napoli also stated that in a case of "Simple rape", there should be no thought of ending a resulting pregnancy. Mr. Napoli has yet to define just what he meant by the term "simple rape".

What kind of twisted bastard comes up with stuff like this this? And why is he even claiming to be able to make medical decisions for women he hasn't even met? Lord knows, there are so many incompetent women running around out there that a man has to make thse decisions for them. It's a good thing that incompetent women like Condi Rice, Michelle Malkind, Madelyne Albright and all the women who are MD's and engineers and pilots, and, good heavens!, the female members of South Dakota's legislature have men like Bill Napoli around to make these important decisions for them.

On a more enlightened note, Cecelia Fire Thunder, President of the Oglala Sioux Tribe on South Dakota's Pine Ridge Reservation, is working to establish a Planned Parenthood clinic on the reservation where South Dakota law has zero, zip, nada jurisdiction.

For information on how to support this effort, go HERE.

Above the Law...?

Article 2 - The Executive Branch
Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Article 2 - The Executive Branch
Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

If you will notice, in these relevant sections of the U.S. Constitution, there is no mention made of the ability of the President or Executive Branch to make laws. That power lies solely with Congress. The interpretation of law lies, not with the President or the Executive Branch, but with the Judicial Branch. The only powers the President or Executive Branch has with respect to laws passed by Congress lies with signing them into law or vetoing them in toto, and the enforcement of said laws.

Yet President Bush, after signing the renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act, issued a signing statement which seems to place the president above the law. Now, signing statements are a tool which has been commonly used for a number of years by presidents to voice their opinions on laws passed by Congress which contain provisions they find disagreeable, but insufficient to justify a veto of the bill. That's all they were used for until Dubbyuh swaggered into the White House.

The signing statement on PATRIOT Act renewal was quietly issued after all the cameras had been turned off...The press corps had been dismissed, and nobody was around to witness this bit of skullduggery. The signing statment, in short, says that Dubbyuh does not feel bound by the notification provisions of the Act which requires that the Executive Branch inform Congress of how the powers outlined in the Act were being used. This information could be witheld at his discretion, citing potential damage to "foreign relations or national security". Notice that "national security" is sucking hind teat to "foreign relations". Dubbyuh goes on to say that, "The executive branch shall construe the provisions . . . that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch . . . in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information . . . ".

But, just what is this "unitary executive branch"? Again, looking back to the powers outined for the Executive Branch in Article 2, Sections 2&3, there is no mention of a "unitary executive branch". The root of this doctrine lies in what is known as the "coordinate construction approach", which states that, "...all three branches of the federal government have the power and duty to interpret the Constitution." But the Bush administration takes this notion to its extreme in asserting that this view allows him to actually over-rule or even go around the Legislative and Judicial branches. To quote Jennifer Van Bergen from her article for Findlaw's Writ:

This is a form of presidential rebellion against Congress and the courts, and possibly a violation of President Bush's oath of office, as well.

After all, can it be possible that that oath means that the President must uphold the Constitution only as he construes it - and not as the federal courts do?

And can it be possible that the oath means that the President need not uphold laws he simply doesn't like - even though they were validly passed by Congress and signed into law by him?

In short, the president has declared in this signing statement, and others, that he stands outside the law, and is a law unto himself. And this clearly stands outside the scope of Presidential powers as outlined in Article 2 of the Constitution and, in my uneducated opinion, falls within the realm of high crimes and misdemeanors as outlined in Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution.

If the President continues to go unchallenged by Congress in this arena, Congress may as well pack their bags and go home, as they will have allowed themselves to slip into irrelevance. Their services will no longer be needed, as the President has usurped the power of Congress to make laws. The Judicial branch may soon be relegated to the same status, as newly appointed Justice Samuel Alito is a long time supporter of just such unlimited presidential power.

This abuse of power by the Bush administration poses an unprecedented threat to the very rule of law withint this nation, and the Constitution upon which these laws rest. Such power gathered into the hands so few people, with no accoutability to speak of, represents a deadly threat to democracy and its institutions in this country.

Other Resources:

The Problem with Presidential Signing Statements: Their Use and Misuse by the Bush Administration - John Dean

Bush shuns Patriot Act requirement - Charlie Savage The Boston Globe

Alito & the Ken Lay Factor - Robert Parry

An Afghan Tale

In Afghanistan, Abdul Rahman, told his wife that he was a Christian. He then told his neighbors that he was a Christian, which brought shame to his household. He then told the police. At that point his future became very uncertain.

He is now standing trial for the "crime" of converting to Christianity. If found guilty, he could be killed. But wait, isn't this Afghanistan which US forces liberated from the grips of the Taliban? Weren't those rabidly fundamentalist Islamicists whipped naked and howling into the wilderness? Doesn't a democratically elected government rule in Afghanistan? Isn't Afghanistan's president a staunch ally of the US, and committed to democracy?

To answer: Yes. Yes, kind of...they're back. Not so much. Kinda, maybe.

US troops broke the Taliban's hold on power in Afghanistan, but only temporarily. They weren't able to finish the job because Junior decided his woody for Saddam took precedence over stabilizing Afghanistan.

After being drinven from power in 2001, the Taliban, and elements of Al Qaeda have been waging a guerilla war against the Afghan government.

As for democracy in Afghanistan, well, it's kinda tenuous. While the Taliban were driven from power, the equally fundamentalist warlords filled the vaccum they left behind. Instead of a budding deomcracy in the countryside, we have a fulminating Islamic republic cleaving to extrist interpretations of sharia law.

As for Hamid Kharzhai, Afghanistan's elected president, he is really little more than the Mayor of Kabul. He has little sway over the warlords and mullahs who control the surrounding countryside.

The upshot of all of this is that an innocent man will likely be killed. And why? Despite noises Dubbyuh made about being "deeply disturbed", no action followed. No high ranking official was dispatced to rattle the cages in Afghanistan and let the powers that be know we won't spend our blood and treasure to prop up an fundamentalist regime.

Of course, had our troops actually been allowed to finish the job properly, and a fraction of the bllions wasted in Iraq been spent rebuilding Afghanistan, this man would not be on trial for his life. Converting to another religion would not be a crime. Real democratic institutions respecting the rights of all of Afghanistan's people might actually be taking root. But Dubbyuh had other things on his mind.

The Son-0f-A-Bitch Knew...!

...That there were no WMD's in Iraq!

Iraqi Official, Paid by C.I.A., Gave Account of Weapons

Yet Bush, and his administration, lied this nation into a war in Iraq. Does this not qualify as a high crime against the Republic? Have they not violated their oaths of office? How many more impeachable offenses will the Bush administration have to commit before Congress does its duty and removes these sorry sons-of-bitches from office?

Having rubber-stamped every misbegotten policy this administration, members of Congress have very nearly relegated themselves to irrelevancy. So, does Bush have to be caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl before they act? Or would they just turn a blind eye to this, saying "They got what they deserved."? How much longer will Congress ignore the very real threat this Administration poses, not just to this country, but the world as a whole.

Three years...And counting.

Rumsfeld, 2/7/03: "It could last six days, six weeks.
I doubt six months."

Cheney, 3/16/03: "I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months"

"The administration's top budget official [Mitch Daniels] estimated today that the cost of a war with Iraq could be in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion... Mr. Daniels declined to explain how budget officials had reached the $50 billion to $60 billion range for war costs..." [New York Times, 12/31/02]

“There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” - Paul Wolfowitz, 3/27/03

Q: If your analysis is not correct, and we're not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?
Cheney: Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. [Meet the Press, 3/16/03]

It is now three years into the war in Iraq, not 6 days, 6 weeks or six months.

As it stands now, nearly $350 billion has been appropriated for the war in Iraq, with $400 billion looming.

Some 2,300 US soldiers have been killed with the official tally of wounded exceeding 17.000.

No weapons of mass destruction, causus belli, have been found. The rationale for the war has morphed some 26 times.

On May 1st, 2003, George W. Bush stood on the deck of an aircraft carrier and, standing under a banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished", stated that major combat operations were completed.

Given the grim truths of Iraq and the unrealistic predictions offered by the Bush administration, can anything else they say about Iraq be trusted?

We, the people, were lied into this war...We have been fed lies in order to justify its continuation. The Administration has consistently failed to provide any sort of strategy for rebuilding Iraq and branded those who question them on this matter as "unpatriotic".

Just his weekend, Dick Cheney defended the pre-war assertions as "realistic", when nothing could be further divorced from reality. If anything, it shows just how divorced from reality the Bush administration is.

Just how many more impeachable offenses is it going to take before the members of this Administration ARE impeached?