Karl Rove Is the Father of Anna Nicole's Baby

Karl Rove fathered Anna Nicole Smith’s baby. In an unforgettable night fueled by alcohol, lust, a lion tamer outfit, a failed attempt to freebase "Sweettarts", an Al Franken blow-up doll and some crimes against nature with a very confused puffer fish, Karl fathered her child. I think we should all be ashamed of Mr. Rove (how much is she worth again?).

Now, admittedly, there is no crime in having sex with Anna Nicole Smith. If that were illegal most of the Western Hemisphere’s male population would be perp walked into a future of Federal incarceration that includes forced labor, strained peas and the sort of orange jumpsuit that even Elvis would consider garish. Whether or not there is a crime here, there is definitely something suspicious going on.

Karl Rove is a portly, yet healthy straight male capable of fathering children. Anna Nicole’s sexuality pendulum had swung back to heterosexual for a time and they were both in and around the vicinity of North America when a currently anonymous sperm cell said “Howdy Do” to one of Anna’s eggs. So it is possible that Karl is the father.

Only a public hearing, with Karl under oath, will get to the bottom of the question about whether or not Mr. Rove got to the bottom of Ms. Smith.

On the face of it, the idea that Karl Rove would even be in the same room as the promiscuous Ms. Smith is ridiculous for two reasons. First Karl is a gentleman who is probably smart enough not to touch women of her sort without rubber gloves and Bactine handy. Second, Anna seems to have a thing for sleazy lawyers of the “Ambulance Chaser” variety. With that said, perhaps we should open hearings about where John Edwards was when Smith’s latest offspring was conceived. This is where we are in the modern political climate though. Regardless of the issue, the Democrats want Karl Rove testifying under oath.

Whether or not a crime has been committed is completely irrelevant. It was not a crime to utter Valerie Plame’s name. Not only was she not a covert operative, but she spent most of her professional career doing everything short of wearing a button on her jacket that stated “Ask me about my CIA job!” to call attention to her position. This fact didn’t matter. Liberals demanded that Rove testify in this case and giddily waited for an indictment to be handed down for the key Bush political advisor. There were nearly riots in blue states when even the Democrats, hand picked special prosecutor couldn’t find a reason to go after Karl.

Well seeing as I screwed up, and only put part of the article up, and didnt label it as an excerpt. Here is the whole thing. Hopefully the FR folks will have mercy on my soul.

Karl Rove fathered Anna Nicole Smith’s baby. In an unforgettable night fueled by alcohol, lust, a lion tamer outfit, a failed attempt to freebase "Sweettarts", an Al Franken blow-up doll and some crimes against nature with a very confused puffer fish, Karl fathered her child. I think we should all be ashamed of Mr. Rove (how much is she worth again?).

Now, admittedly, there is no crime in having sex with Anna Nicole Smith. If that were illegal most of the Western Hemisphere’s male population would be perp walked into a future of Federal incarceration that includes forced labor, strained peas and the sort of orange jumpsuit that even Elvis would consider garish. Whether or not there is a crime here, there is definitely something suspicious going on.

Karl Rove is a portly, yet healthy straight male capable of fathering children. Anna Nicole’s sexuality pendulum had swung back to heterosexual for a time and they were both in and around the vicinity of North America when a currently anonymous sperm cell said “Howdy Do” to one of Anna’s eggs. So it is possible that Karl is the father.

Only a public hearing, with Karl under oath, will get to the bottom of the question about whether or not Mr. Rove got to the bottom of Ms. Smith.

On the face of it, the idea that Karl Rove would even be in the same room as the promiscuous Ms. Smith is ridiculous for two reasons. First Karl is a gentleman who is probably smart enough not to touch women of her sort without rubber gloves and Bactine handy. Second, Anna seems to have a thing for sleazy lawyers of the “Ambulance Chaser” variety. With that said, perhaps we should open hearings about where John Edwards was when Smith’s latest offspring was conceived. This is where we are in the modern political climate though. Regardless of the issue, the Democrats want Karl Rove testifying under oath.

Whether or not a crime has been committed is completely irrelevant. It was not a crime to utter Valerie Plame’s name. Not only was she not a covert operative, but she spent most of her professional career doing everything short of wearing a button on her jacket that stated “Ask me about my CIA job!” to call attention to her position. This fact didn’t matter. Liberals demanded that Rove testify in this case and giddily waited for an indictment to be handed down for the key Bush political advisor. There were nearly riots in blue states when even the Democrats, hand picked special prosecutor couldn’t find a reason to go after Karl.

Congressional Democrat’s are now screaming for Rove to testify over the firing of 8 US Attorneys. Even those demanding that a show trial be held on this issue agree that no crime has been committed and that US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. In other words, he doesn’t need a reason to get rid of them. He could fire them for not wearing a Stetson while driving through Oklahoma or for simply being ugly. It is not a crime they are interested in, it is the testimony under oath they are after.

Why they want Karl to raise his right hand and swear to God (ironically, one that liberals don’t believe in) that he will tell the truth, means that Democrats can tag-team grill this guy for hours and hours. If during his testimony he makes any error like forgetting that he had dinner at Bennigan’s on August 17th of 2002 or mistakes Barbara Boxer for a heterosexual, they can slap a perjury charge or some other procedural crime on him. That is the goal.

Once they have manufactured their crime based on nothing more than a fatigue fueled memory lapse, they can get a sympathetic special prosecutor and a DC jury (one which leans heavily to the left) to cancel out Rove before 2008 with a conviction. Anyone who doubts this fact should remember that Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald could not find any actual crime in the “leaking” of Plame’s McJob with the CIA.

On top of this, the Scooter Libby jury was lead by a journalist who has a verifiable track record of Democrat support, a financial interest in a guilty verdict (he is working on a book and has sold articles about his experience on the jury) and the sort of personal ties to witnesses in the case that would be considered a conflict of interests in any other trial.

It wasn’t important that Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was exposed as the leak by the Associated Press and Newsweek; a fact supported by the Justice Department. Fitzgerald exhausted Libby, during endless Grand Jury testimony, into making the sort of mistake they could prosecute him over. This is now the template for how they will deal with those who serve the Bush Administration.

Oddly enough this method of exhausting people during interrogations is exactly the sort of tactics that these very same Democrats are calling torture when used against our Islamic enemies and citing as the reason that Gitmo should be closed. Apparently torture is okay in their books if you have an R after your name and don’t pray to Allah.

In the grand scheme of things you really can’t blame the Democrats for trying to cancel Rove out. He already has Al Gore’s and John Kerry’s head proudly displayed on his mantle; the liberals desperately want this guy gone before he can add Hillary’s or Barack’s noggin to the collection.

Seeing as there are no real crimes to chase, get used to Dems demanding hearing after hearing, and that Rove testify under oath for such issues as: What was Karl doing during the Roswell incident? Was Karl standing in the grassy knoll when Kennedy was shot? Was it really Rove and not Ted Kennedy who drowned Mary Jo Kopechne? Why do Rove and Karl Marx both spell their first name with a K? Was Karl Rove behind writing that Gwen Stefani song where she gives us a spelling lesson about the word banana? You get the point.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.