Free Republic

I posted an excerpt by accident. I mistakenly didnt copy the entire article, and didnt notice until after I posted it. There was no way to go back and list it as simply an excerpt. It was a chain of events that equates to one big blonde moment (well before my hair started abandoning ship, it would have been a blonde moment)

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.

Dang, well the whole thing is pretty good.

I only posted an excerpt, and am lost how to go back and edit this so it is listed as only an excerpt. HELP!!!!!

LOL...good stuff

It is not that complex a point, but you failed to mention that Federal income tax itself is a loss of freedom. Having quarterly audits would be an extension of a that lost freedom.

I love how people who can't argue around a fact call the fact that is giving them all the trouble a "strawman". You lose on this one, because the truth is no freedom has been lost, in fact new freedoms have been gained.

It is interesting that you cannot point out one civil liberty that has been lost over the War on Terror. New liberties have been created to protect the terrorists. So tell me, what liberty have you lost?

Nobody answers what freedoms we have lost, because they nobody can point to any freedoms we have lost. Conversely, ACLU lawyers have found a whole bunch of new rights that apply to terrorist combatants. So one could argue that freedom has expanded during the war on terror, albeit to the wrong people.

As long as you bring up legalities, Bush's actions are legal.

Your hysterics aside tortoise, and the fact that you find 3000 people killed by terrorists acceptable, we have lost no freedoms during this war. So your very premise is flawed. We lost more freedom from campaign finance reform than we did in the war on terror.

What I find amazing is the carping over the "loss of freedom" when we are at war, when the reality is that we have lost more freedom with election law changes and over religious expression at Christmas than we have during the entire war on terror.

Considering what happened on 9-11, as well as the ten years of terrorists attacks on US interests before that, I would have to call your lack of awareness delusional. Terrorists don't need to invade our shores when they can kill a few thousand of us every now and than, and have willing accomplices in the government attempt the cultural shifts they desire.

The Bill of Rights has been suspended on previous occasions (Lincoln and FDR) so your very point of whether it "can" be done is moot. So I will say it again, Bush used powers assigned to him by Congress. The Supreme Court has not ruled the acts unconstitutional. Therefore, under the current system of doing things (thanks to Marbury vs. Madison) he has acted properly. That is the simple, dispassionate fact of the matter.

Once again, you ignore Marbury vs. Madison. You ignore it because there is no way for you to argue around it. This is not a statement of endorsement, it is simply what is reality. If you don't like it, instead of making Constitutionally weak arguments, maybe you should actively lobby your senators to vote for strict constructionists to be put on the Supreme Court (Bush will have at least one more appointment after Alito).

Once again all you are spouting is your opinion, not fact. Congress authorized these powers. Unless the court deems them unconstitutional, it holds up. You need to go back and research Marbury vs. Madison to figure out where things went wrong as far as who decides what is constitutional or not.

One more thing, your AoC argument is moot, because we are technically a Constitutional Republic. You have simply ignored the part about "common defense", and only retorted with your opinion about what the constitution means.

You miss the fact that those special powers were assigned days after 9-11. So your still flapping in the constitutional breeze.

That doesn't work because we are technically a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. This makes the Constitution is our guiding document, and the common defense a mandate.

There was no point in responding, because you offer opinion, and nothing else. I agree that the second amendment should be protected, but the modern civil liberties movement is about restricting the rights of people, not increasing their rights. We just got through with Christmas and another wave of the civil rights infringements on Christians. The best example is how the civil rights of Mohammed Atta trumped the right to life, liberty and happiness that those killed in the towers inherently had. You have your opinion, and your welcome to it, but that is all it is, an opinion.