Karl Rove: Bush's Brain! - No Wonder

Sad Man

It's well past time that the American People demand the curtain be pulled back (Toto, a little assistance, please.) This smarmavescent and calumnious, worm tongued deceiver has no place working in the USA's highest elected office.

An Internet search will yield massive quantities of ideas and actions to take. I recommend writing the White House. Preferably a letter a la snail mail. Call them; write them email. Let your friends and maybe your co-workers know about it. Talk about it liberally.

Then call your representatives. Both Senators, and your Representative. Call if they are D or R. The democrats need to hear from their constituency and put some increased stiffness into their spines. The current accumulation of dissent from the so-called opposition party is paltry and pathetic.

If that doesn't work, hoard your dog's' shit; keep rotten eggs /fruit /vegetables. Next time Karl's in town - you know the act. Oh Jeese, I am Just Kidding!!!?

But seriously, what's it coming to? With a history like his, in a decent society, Karl Rove would be unemployable, except maybe flipping burgers. This man should in no way hold a position of power and influence in government. Period.


  1. We don't seem to know much about Karl Rove. He didn't graduate from college. He has never married. He didn't serve in the military. Does he have a life outside work? Does he exercise? Is he a vegetarian? As an unelected official he has not had so much exposure to the public. And, yet, given his enormous influence with Mr. Bush, wouldn't one think that there would be more information about Karl Rove, the human being?

    I wish he didn't look so much like our friend, CWORT!

  2. "You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
    To change something, build a new model that
    makes the existing model obsolete."
    - R. Buckminster Fuller

    I think I have handy a current and relevant example which might clarify and help focus on the substance of the problem. In the disscussion, as such there is, about the Valeri Plame outing, you notice that seldom is mentioned the actually applicable law. Instead the main topic in the MSM is another law, which I am not going to mention, in that EVERYONE knows ALL about it. The chief feature of the law being disscussed, aside from its' inaplicability, and its' complexity, is the fact that conviction under it is EXTREAMLY DIFFICULT.

    Propoganda 101 ; The most effective form of propoganda is that which seeks to provide those who desire it a reason to not think things through. This is becuase the target audience either already believes (the faithful) or wants to believe (complicit) the lie being told, or is uncomfortable with the act of thinking criticaly (that is to say, is dumb).

    You will notice however that despite the broad based effort of the MSM and Ambassodor Wilson to provide us with the wrong answer, the prosecutor, Mr. Fitzgerald is not confused. He is using the applicable law, Title 18 Section 794, which is both simple and inescapeable. The only thing which will prevent his attaining convictions is death, either that of the guilty (watch for this) or his own (which has turned out to be difficult to accomplish). And should this occur, the case will become larger, much larger. It will not go away.

    Similarly, as I inferr from your comments on the matter you are aware, there is a growing concern that our Constitution does not seem to be effectively responding to the assalts it is recieving. It is quite true, it does not seem to be. Perhaps this perception is the result of impatiance. I know I think we should be done by now. But it may instead be, and it seems more likely, a combination of inexperience (in that this situation is novel), willful ignorance (on the part of the faithful) and a considerably more subtle "Ad Campaign" than that which we may notice surrounding the Plame Affair.

    To encapsulat that 'Ad Campaign", we are being told, even by the esteemed Congressman, that we must first wait a year and a half. Break right there for a moment. What's going to happen in the meantime? Oh, yeah, that's right. Back to business. And then if we succeed at the polls. Break right there for a monent. What kind of shape is our Voting System in? Oh, yeah, that's right. Back to business. We may, beginning in the spring of 2007, assuming the Capitol Building still stands, expect from the House of Representatives a Vote For Impeachment. Problem solved, not quite. Next we have to hold a trial of that Impeachment in the Senate. The most important trial in United States history, the most important trail since that presided over by Pontius Pilate. A very long and contentious trial which will include at least one example of every trick in the book, as well as quite a few tricks that are not yet in the book. And then, once that trial is finally forced to an end, along about Christmas, 2007, IF we gain the VOTES of two thirds of the SURVIVING Senators despite the pressures which may be brought to bear on them, then we may remove the President and replace him with...someone. Problem solved, not quite. Considering the current pace of events there is little reason for optomism when considering the likely inclination of the men and women in place in the various Offices of the buerocracy and the military in two years time. And seeing as the new guy would be dependant on these, no gain. And then the predictable happens, and then the predictable and after that the predictable. But we don't need to consider any further than we have already gone to see that this is a foolish plan.

    Just as prosecuting the Plame case using the law which the guilty desire, instead of the appropriate law, is a foolish plan. A plan which the prosucution is not following. This is because prosecutor Fitzgerald is not among the faithful, nor is he complict, nor is he dumb. And so, when told to prosecute using the wrong law, he said, "I'll be right back.", went and got the right law, and then came right back. Pardon the reiteration, he used his own mind after being told what to think, selected the right tool for the job, and then set to work with it with the intent to succeed. My opinion is that this is an example worthy of emulation. Your comments lead me to believe that you at least suspect this as well, as you say that your forsight makes you doubtful regarding the outcome of the plan being offered.

    Doubts which are entirely appropriate because it is the wrong plan. This is not to say that I think there is anything wrong with Impeachment, I don't. I think it an excellant way to deal with the things it applies to, such as stolen elections, and stolen, uh, kisses. Things which are high crimes and misdemeanors. But when it comes to lying to Congress (read that "everyone") in order to gain the power to torture and kill anyone pointed at, things which are explictly and repeatedly prohibited by the United States Constitution and also by all of the documents attatched to it and are also stipulated to as cause in the Declaration of Independance, trying to apply the words 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors' strains those words far beyond the breaking point. Like stuffing fifty pounds of potatos in a ten pound sack. It don't work, don't fit, won't work, can't. And it ain't a matter of wanting it to.

    The matter is, it's the wrong plan. Upon realizing this, we have some options. We can throw our hands in the air, as some would like us to, and get out the sack cloth and the ashes. We can spend a couple years trying to make it work, and then get out the sack cloth and the ashes. Or we can pull our head out and think a little bit. Something along the line of "There has just got to be around here somewhere a sack big enough to stuff these fifty pounds of spuds into. After all, there always is. EVERYTHING is illegal. You can't drop a cigarette without risking a Thousand Dollar Fine." Then put our nose back in the book and keep reading our Constituion, and reading it, and reading it, untill finally near the back of the book we come upon the word Rebellion. Now that's a nice big sack, one which will hold fifty pounds of spuds with room to climb on in after them. And juggle. And where is this word? It's in 14/3. And what does 14/3 deal with? Impeachment?


    Here is the text. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

    Here is the text, boiled down. No person shall ... hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, ... to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

    It is this, and not impeachment, which is the proper tool to use to perform the job at hand, if the objective is success.

    It is this, and not Impeachment, which should be the object of disscussion.

    I know what it means. Do you?

    A very long time ago Congressman conyers presented the President five questions and five hundred thousand signatures. To date, no answer.

    We all clearly recall the questions were :
    1)Do you or anyone in your administration dispute the accuracy of the leaked document?
    2) Were arrangements being made, including the recruitment of allies, before you sought Congressional authorization to go to war? Did you or anyone in your Administration obtain Britain's commitment to invade prior to this time?
    3) Was there an effort to create an ultimatum about weapons inspectors in order to help with the justification for the war as the minutes indicate?
    4) At what point in time did you and Prime Minister Blair first agree it was necessary to invade Iraq?
    5) Was there a coordinated effort with the U.S. intelligence community and/or British officials to "fix" the intelligence and facts around the policy as the leaked document states?

    Refferrance ; http://www.johnconyers.campaignoffice.com/index.asp?Type=SUPERFORMS&SEC={8771D3DA-2F3D-49F7-895C-DF473CAEFA2C}

    These questions were not asked in an attempt to engage in casual conversation. The presidential silence on the matter is not casual either. Nor has that silence prevented answers to these questions arriving from other than Presidential sources.

    The questions go to the Constitutional requirement that the President through regular channels inform the Congress, in this instance through the State of The Union Address. The questions go to fact that in the SoTU Address preceeding the invasion of Iraq certian points were made, points upon which Congress made certian and very important decisions, including the decision to attack, points which on review turn out to be not simply untrue, but points which the President knew to be untrue when he made them. These were not mistakes, they were lies. The result of theses lies has been an unneccesary and unlawful war, and the expense of blood and treasure attendant thereto, along with the destrucion of American reputation worldwide, and the destruction of liberty here at home. And etcetera.

    The motive for the war is another topic. The motive of the questions was to illuminate that motive for war, in order to compare that motive to the motive stated. The motive for the Presidential silence is that by refusing to engage the point it may seem not to have been made. The point being that lying to Congress is illegal, else it would happen everyday, and if so, why have a Congress? This point goes directly to the legitimacy of the sitting President. Not on the basis of having lied, cheated and stolen his way into office, but because in lying to Congress in order to get Congress to vote for war, he has arrogated the Congressional authoriy as regards to war. This removes from government the Constitutionaly mandated seperation of powers. This is quite distinct from that situation which prevails when the Constitution is violated, as when a search is performed illegally, for here we have not just a conviction to overturn, but an entire war, as well as the need to reestablish the Constitutional delegation of warmaking authority in the Congress. Upon this consideration, it should be plain that The Constitution has not been simply violated, it has been repudiated.

    Put another way, the Constitution has been rebelled against. This topic is addressed in the Constitution in Amendment 14, Section 3. This is a rather obscure portion of the document. This is because it is seldom used. That is because it is meant to be used only in case of emergency, it's plan 'B', if I may put it that way, and Constitutional emergencies are fortunatly uncommon. Now that you have read it you can clearly see for yourself that it says, "Goerge Ain't President."

    Now, as to what I think we should do about this. In three words that would be "Go to Court."

    I think that suit should be filed to clarify that the answers independantly generated to the questions asked the President are the legal equivelant of those answers had they been provided by Goerge Bush, because he has not addressed these answers in refutation or provided any alternative to them. Upon having done this we may then apply 14/3 to the situation, and enter the resolution phase of this Constitutional crisis.

    At this point the problem becomes, "What is President Kerry going to do about this?" And we're done.

    See you next election.

  3. You said it. Where exactly is it that we start?! I have actually been doing some thinking recently about constitutional law.

    I would love to help out if possible, however I can!

  4. How about taking a Conn Law course? You could email Michelle to see what she thought about it...

    Please make a blog for your photos. They are AMAZiNG.


Aldo Leopold: "We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect."

keywords: peace, justice, truth, love, wisdom, common sense, ethics, nonviolence, compassion, communication, community, egalitarian, equitable, society, culture, future, politics, government, public interest, sustainability, economy, ecology, nature, beauty, urban issues, environment, wilderness, energy, industry, reciprocity, karma, dignity, honor, patience, life, photography, music, flowers, and more!