Thursday, March 15, 2007

C*NT, CU*T or CUN*?

Click the headline for original Internet article.
NOTE: I sincerely believe that if KCAC were still on the air, this topic and others like it would have been given considerable attention. To that end and with that Editorial License in mind, I respectfully present this post -------



THIS article [click the headline] I believe, is completely unfair and is perhaps a grand example of reverse-spin applied by liberal media to Our President..... yours and mine.

The VERACITY of the statement MUST be brought forth for public debate - the credibility of the office of President and all that implies on the International front - is at stake in this situation.

This topic will inevitably need to be defined LEGALLY because only the legal system has the resources to handle the definition properly. This carries over into the realms of Clinton's "Definition of 'is' " - as he so eloquently conveyed it during the impeachment/Lewinsky broo-ha.

IS the First Lady a C*nt as described by The President? Or is she NOT a C*nt? Does the "Definition of 'is' " rule apply HERE or is this another situation awaiting sustaining evidence e.g. the Lewinsky dress. If not, then "is" is actually "NOT is" and then we must all QUESTION the Presidential (mis-use) of C*NT when it should have been CU*T or even CUN* - but certainly not *UNT wherein the accusasion would have lost all definition. Inevitably it would seem, this matter must prioritize itself to the final attention of The Supreme Court.

Then too (and as a word of caution to all who might engage in this legal debate) - there are certain levels of disagreement with Our President that Homeland Security has and will, come to regard as treasonous. Therefore as long as The President is saying it and for as long as we as a nation are obliged to respect the point of view of our Commander In Chief, we as citizens would best take up the chant and carry forth The Banner.

Whatever you say, Mr. President.

No comments: