You are currently browsing the monthly archive for October 2012.

What follows will be surprising news for some.

Kevin DuJan of HillBuzz recounts the conversation at a breakfast he recently shared with a group of Chicago blacks. The post is lengthy and informative. It also contains adult content as it relates to President Obama’s sexuality.

However, even bigger news is the disillusionment of DuJan’s black friends with Obama and the Democrats (emphases mine):

Members of the black community who are disgusted by how the Democrat Party treats blacks like animals and uses them as weapons or political pawns have formed these informal “Think Squad” groups coast to coast, which are underground salons of free thought wherever black professionals get together to talk openly about the anger black people feel about Democrats today.

“Black folk are mad, they are mad as Hell, and they ain’t going to take this anymore”, one of the Think Squad members told me soon after I joined the table in the second floor restaurant at the Marriott hotel on Michigan Avenue in downtown Chicago.  She was already sipping coffee and munching on a cinnamon roll, and between bites she told me that the black community at large is furious that nothing “got better at all for nobody” with Obama in the White House

This prompted knowing smirks and affirmations from the other four Thinkers at the table, forming a consensus that many black people who were jubilant with Obama’s election in 2008 are disappointed and angry in 2012 because their lives are the worse for having him in office. Black people are angry that unemployment is so high in places like the Southside of Chicago and that Obama’s been “looking for votes from illegals by giving Mexicans amnesty” and thus taking away jobs from black people.  Tensions between blacks and Spanish-speakers in Chicago are at the highest levels ever because it’s true that Hispanics have largely replaced blacks in the City’s preferred hiring protocols; this means that jobs that used to go to blacks on the Southside are now going to people who don’t speak English and are in the country illegally.  Democrats are seen as pushing this because Mexican colonists here in Chicago are easy to control and completely dependent on the Democrat party because they can’t get work legally without the proper papers…but Democrats have ways of looking the other way and paying these people anyway, so long as they do the Democrats’ bidding.

Obama is seen as encouraging all this, while simultaneously enjoying the perks of being president without wanting the responsibility of delivering on any of his promises ...

He’s not a president as much as he’s a celebrity now, and people kind of see him like they do Beyonce or Chris Brown or Sean John or whoever,” a Thinker who works in the medical field told me …

Since she’s a doctor, I asked this Thinker if she believes the current President of the United States has HIV or AIDS but she refused to speculate.  ”Something is wrong with him physically, that’s for sure, but I won’t go there.  It could be a lot of things.  He’s clearly on drugs of some kind though and I don’t think he has a prescription for any of them, if you catch the drift. He sure looks a lot different in the face than the did when he took office and it’s not just that they all age so much in the White House”.

That was a reference to the common belief that men who’ve become president seem to age rapidly for mysterious reasons…and that Obama looks worse at this point him his presidency than any of his predecessors. Clearly he’s not a hard worker and is not staying up late at night reading policy papers or intelligence briefings…so why on Earth DOES he look so terrible all the time?  Speculation in Chicago is rampant these days ...

This is the part of the story of the 2012 election that the Ministry of Truth that is the national media will never tell you.  Black people voted in record numbers for Obama back in 2008 because they mostly knew nothing about him and just wanted to see someone who looked like them become president.  They got caught up in the excitement.  Even some of the Thinkers admit they voted for Obama just because it “was time” to have a black president. Now they wish it could have been “someone who knew what he was doing and was a real man” instead of Obama who became the “first black president”.  There’s a great sense of disappointment that history was squandered on a punk who didn’t deserve that honor.

As breakfast was being cleared away and we were all getting ready to leave the conversation turned toward what black preachers have been saying on Sundays about the election.  The Thinkers represented not just what’s going on here in Chicago, but what’s happening with their friends and relatives all across the country.  ”One thing you need to always remember is that black people all know each other,” a Thinker reminded me, “we all talk and have family all over so there’s a grapevine and it’s buzzing right now”.  It seems in all the states these Thinkers have friends or family black preachers really are — in subtle or obvious ways, depending on the congregation — telling the faithful that Democrats have turned against God and that the Democrat Convention in Charlotte, in particular, was an abomination …

Well done, reverends! It’s about time someone called them out on the matter. The media certainly didn’t.


This election, right here, is a breaking point.  This is the election where black folk sit down and say “NO MORE!” and we stay home.  I ain’t voting.  First time in 30 years that I won’t.  I am sitting home and everyone in my church is doing the same”, an angry Thinker said as we were all putting on our coats.  I had on my Romney/Ryan campaign shirt, by the way, which I wear everywhere in Chicago…and I have yet to have a single black person say anything bad to me for wearing it, certainly not the Thinkers.  ”Some black people are even going to vote for Romney, you watch.  He’s a smart man and he’s not evil no matter what Obama would say.  He fixes things that are broken and things sure are broken now and people who want jobs again are going to pull the other lever this time”.

It’s estimated that Democrats only win national elections when blacks comprise 11% or more of the electorate and simultaneously cast 90% or more of their votes for Democrats.

The Think Squad has told me that through the grapevine they’re hearing anecdotes that make them believe that not only will the share of the black vote be less than 11% this time around (from black people staying home) but that more black people than ever before in recent political history will actually be voting either third party or for the Republican. This means that Democrats will receive less than 90% of the black vote…and it means that states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Jersey, Wisconsin, and even Oregon could go to Romney on November 6th.

Now that’s news. But you won’t hear or read it in the mainstream media.

Benghazigate should, by now, be telling us everything we need to know about Obama.

The timing of the weird weather patterns on both coasts of America right now might well be a providential message. Not only did Hurricane Sandy devastate parts of the East Coast, but on Sunday, October 28, tsunami warnings (subsequently lifted) were issued for both Alaska and Hawaii after an earthquake of 7.7 on the Richter scale occurred off the coast of British Columbia in Canada.

Meanwhile, an angry Democrat advisor, Pat Caddell, made his disgust clear on Benghazigate and also blamed the media (video available at Right Scoop‘s link above):

In a clearly emotional moment, Pat Caddell says he feels outrage and shame for his country after listening to Tyrone Woods[‘] family speak out over the handling of the Benghazi attacks by the Obama administration as the way the media is ignoring it. He says they have no honor and repeats his statement that the MSM has become a fundamental threat to American democracy and the enemies of the American people.

Fourth Estate or Fifth Column, one might ask.

Right Scoop reader Mike Lee reminds us:

The POTUS went to a FUNDRAISER less than 24 hours after an attack on a consulate that left 4 men dead. When I saw him do that, I was just speechless. Can you imagine if Bush had done that? And the media went after ROMNEY for rightly criticizing the Egyptian embassy’s message! We are living in dangerous times.

Yes, if that had been on Bush’s watch, all MSM guns would have been blazing 24/7. With Obama at the helm, we hear nothing.

If casual readers, perhaps like many Obots, think this is just a minor event, take a look at the number of military casualties that have occurred under Obama’s watch. Keep in mind that he is the Commander in Chief.

Under Bush II’s eight years in office, fatalities totalled 1,049. Remember leftists and the media crying, ‘Bush lied! People died!’

Under Obama’s four years, fatalities totalled 2,164. Odd. I don’t hear anyone screaming about double the number of military deaths compared with Bush II’s eight year period.

What sort of man is Obama? Who is he really? Many Americans and most Westerners do not know who he is. They know only the image the media set up for them.

Having been introduced to this site by ex-Democrats, I highly recommend that you read Don Fredrick’s Obama Timeline. The entire content was posted starting in 2008. Those interested in defeating Obama four years ago read every instalment. Fredrick has now put these into a book, but you can read the salient points from the controversy surrounding the incumbent’s birth to the present as the 44th President of the United States. Of note is Fredrick’s page on so-called coincidences in Obama’s life.

Whilst I cannot speak for Fredrick’s other work, I can say without doubt that his Obama Timeline is spot on and useful for anyone in the world interested in American politics. It should be required reading for every American voter.

Grab yourself a bowl of popcorn. You won’t be disappointed.

Please forward the links to anyone you think might benefit from reading them.

Those of us who ignore the mainstream media knew that Barack Obama was suspect well before the 2008 election.

The myth surrounding him has persisted to this day.

Ignored are photos of him as president bowing before foreign heads of state. The Drudge Report helpfully carried a photo montage of Obama’s bowing and scraping on Monday, October 22, 2012, including, perhaps, the most outrageous of all from a couple of years ago:

For those readers unaware of the questions that many of us, especially ex-Democrats and independents, have about the man, do have a browse of this page, which is full of links and articles about the man who calls himself Barack Hussein Obama. The introduction reads, in part (emphases mine):

President Obama won the 2008 election, even though his beliefs and political positions were all but completely unknown to most Americans.  He is a man with no great record of accomplishments in the Senate, or anywhere else, yet the national news media constantly gush over him.  Seldom is heard a discouraging word about the man, even though nobody really knows what he stands for.  The only thing that distinguished him from the rest of the Democratic front-runners (in the eyes of the media) was his ethnicity.  Apparently that’s all it takes.

Mr. Obama has never managed a business of any kind, nor has he ever worked in a for-profit environment.  He appears to abhor the concepts of monetary profit and capitalism.  His only management positions have been in organizations that give away other people’s money, such as the Woods Fund and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.  He has never served in the military (for which the news media would never forgive a Republican candidate) …

More importantly, he has been surrounded by left-wing anti-American radicals and genuine Communists all his life, he had the most liberal voting record during his very brief term in the Senate, and he appears to be a fundamentally dishonest man with major character flawsHe claims to be a Christian, although there is much more evidence that he is actually a MuslimHe supports and approves of abortion by any method and at any stage of pregnancy — or slightly beyond.  And apparently he is not legally qualified to hold the office of President:  His own grandmother insists that she was present when Obama was born — in Kenya — but even if he was born in Hawaii, he was registered in an Indonesian school as a citizen of Indonesia.*

Kevin DuJan at HillBuzz recently wrote this about Obama:

Folks, Obama was a C and D student in high school.  He smoked dope and did drugs all through his time at Occidental in California.  He was, however, smart enough to apply to Columbia using his Indonesian name and adopted identity of Soebarkah to game the admissions system at a time when the Ivy Leagues were DESPERATE to fill diversity quotas with English-speakers from Oceania (Indonesia really fit the bill with that, didn’t it?).  I maintain that the real reason Obama’s been so mysterious about his past — and in particular about his college records — is because he received generous scholarships and financial aid packages by applying to school as an Indonesian citizen, not as an American.  I bet he also benefited from funds provided by the Wahabi Saudi Royal family — which has been financing the studies of Muslims in the Ivy League for years.  I’m convinced Obama never got a grade above a C or a D in his life unless it was in Islamic studies and that the weirdness surrounding John Roberts needing to readminister his oath of office a second time in 2009 relates to the fact that his legal name is still Soebarkah and not “Barack Obama” as he claims (because his mother changed his name legally to Soebarkah in the 1970s when his stepfather Lolo Soetoro adopted him, but Obama never changed his name back again to “Barack Obama” legally since no record of such a name change exists)

It is staggering how the American public — and the world — have accepted this man without question or reservation. Especially when in 2008 there was online evidence of an Illinois senator campaign debate from 2004 in which GOP opponent Alan Keyes, a devout Catholic, challenged Barack Obama on his citizenship status. Obama retorted, ‘So what? I’m running for Senator, not President of the United States’. The original video went missing in 2008 once disaffected Democrats began poring into Obama’s background (N.B.: Republicans, outside of Keyes here, have never questioned his citizenship):

This week, the Democrats, mainstream media and pollsters — including (especially?) Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight — will be pulling all their tricks out of the box to intimidate American conservatives and independents intending to vote for Mitt Romney.

Please DO NOT, under any circumstances, let them cloud your mind with doom and gloom.

The Des Moines Register (Iowa) endorsed Mitt Romney for President at the weekend, even though Obama had a long conversation with the newspaper’s editor which the Register was not allowed to publish. Therefore, their endorsing Romney is a major breakthrough in a state where Obama won by 9.5 points in 2008 and even moreso for a newspaper which has not endorsed a Republican candidate in 40 years. Currently, four large Iowa newspapers are endorsing Romney. Many other newspapers around the country are, too. But don’t expect television news to tell you about it.

Friends, Mitt has broken through the Dem firewall in other states. Around twenty thousand people went to see him last week in Colorado at the Red Rocks rally and another ten thousand in Defiance, Ohio, at the weekend. He has more campaign stops planned this week and will also be distributing clothing and food relief to victims of Hurricane Sandy along the way. (Meanwhile, the incumbent returned to the White House after his trip to Florida on Monday. Bill Clinton and Joe Biden will be campaigning on his behalf the rest of the week.)

Now all Mitt needs are your votes.

Please make every effort to get out the vote among Romney supporters and make sure he wins by a huge margin. Make this a GOP victory the Dems will never forget!

As former Congressman Artur Davis stated, the Democratic Party effectively amputated its center and right wing factions. He adds that there are twice as many conservatives as leftists in the United States. Davis transformed himself from an Obama endorser in 2008 to a Romney supporter in 2012. His story resonates with many Americans, including some of his fellow blacks.

Kevin DuJan, a former Democrat, explains the party’s psy-ops at play and warns conservatives not to fall for them. Excerpts below, emphases in bold mine:

I’m amazed that few conservative writers seem to understand this, but the Democrat Party has been engaged in a protracted Civil War for many years now…I’d say going back to at least 2004.  This internal struggle culminated in 2008, with the Leftist faction shunting aside the moderate Clintons and instead insisting Barack Obama be the party’s standard bearer in the last election (because the Left knew Hillary would do what she thought best as president, not what the Left demanded of her…while Obama would be a weaker and more malleable figurehead of a president). The Left held absolute power from 2008-2010 and did every crazy thing it wanted to do, after being exiled in the political wilderness for many years and FINALLY (at long last) having the ability to put into real-life practice every insane scheme these people concocted in academia since the Carter administration.

We all know what happened next, because Americans saw how far Left the Democrats veered and punished the party at the polls in the midterm elections.  That was just a warmup, though, because on November 6th voters are going to decimate the Democrat Party with the largest rebuke in modern American political history.  The Left’s pretending this isn’t happening because there never was a “Plan B” for these people; their whole operating agenda is predicated on the fact that the lefties are so much smarter than the rest of the country and that the way they intend to transform America (into a more European socialist style of country where the government decides what’s best for people) must be forced on Americans so that they can ultimately see how great it all is.  The Left has normally maneuvered behind the scenes in quiet ways, pushing a little socialism here and the destruction of family units there…but under Obama they were allowed to not only let their masks slip but remove them completely and go absolutely hog wild during the Obama regime. The Left never anticipated defeat because it thought once it had the levers of power it would never allow them to slip away again…and the Left didn’t anticipate Americans YANKING back that power (and hopefully never again in our lifetimes allowing the Left to have it again).

This is one of the reasons I keep telling people to stop using the word “liberal”, despite the fact that many conservative writers and popular pundits toss it around all the time.  ”Liberal” is what the Democrats want to be called, because it seems much more appealing to the general public than calling Democrats what they really are, which is “Leftists” or “lefties”.  Democrats are adroit at PR and marketing and for many years they were allowed to do everything they pleased because the American public bought their lies that they really weren’t Marxists and that they didn’t really intend on wrecking the economy and radically transforming the nation.  So they started calling themselves “liberals” because that sounds great to low-information voters…in the way that hearing your house was visited by delightful “hug-a-bugs” was more melodious than being told by an exterminator that you were suffering a cockroach infestation.  You are a damn fool if you still call Democrats “liberals” because every time you do that it’s like contributing $5.00 to the Obama campaign in free advertising and brand-management ...

Do not ever help Democrats repair the damage of the Obama years by allowing them to rebrand as a kinder, gentler, “more liberal” party when calling them Leftists forever will keep it in the minds of Americans that electing Democrats to national office is a bad thing.

The Left, through its propaganda arm in the Ministry of Truth that is the national media, declared the Tea Party to be a nonentity and has steadfastly ignored or ridiculed its existence…and the Left’s going to actually be stunned by its losses on November 6th because many lefties believe their own hype.  They actually convinced themselves that Americans would just meekly accept the Left’s takeover of this country and the destruction of America as we all knew it without a fight…and they believed that the Ministry of Truth could convince Americans they loved Obama more than life itself and that everything done to America in his name was just marvelous. Of course, everyone who opposed Obama was branded a RAAAACIST! so that such opposition would be minimized due to the fact that people were so terrified for so long of being accused of racism for trying to stop the awful things the Left did to our country using a black man in the White House. You can clearly see that putting a black man in office was key to the Left’s plan, since that fear of being called a racist for opposing him is what kept so many people from standing up to Obama from 2008-2010

I have to say that I’m really loving Mitt Romney too … The guy is really kind of amazing, and is uniquely qualified to lead us in these difficult times.  I honestly believe that Romney can save the country and that in doing so he’ll guarantee that Americans keep Democrats out of power for a very, very long time.  That’s where I hope you come into the picture because as things start to get better under Romney our job will be to keep reminding people of how bad everything got with Obama and the Left in power.  Though Democrats are going to attempt to rebrand under Hillary and claim that the party is moderate again, I want you to keep telling everyone that this is all just a trick and even before Obama lost the 2012 election this was the plan that was underway …

The role you can play in the days and years ahead is to start being aware of the words you use and the stories you decide to chase.  Always ask yourself, every day, what Minitru’s agenda is in pushing whatever story’s blanketing MSNBC and the NY Times.  Know that whatever they are putting out is designed to help Democrats in some way…and the challenge is just to figure out HOW that thing is helping them.  From now through the election all the content pushed by Minitru is meant to either depress conservative turnout or keep the Left’s spirits up so that Obama doesn’t completely implode on November 6th.  The game that Minitru is playing is to try to keep Obama’s loss as contained as possible so that Romney does not win in an all-out landslide of epic proportions.

Democrats have no delusion of winning this election…but at this point their aim is just to keep things close.

If the campaigns are actually focusing on Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and even Oregon in the last week of this election then you know that Romney is going to win Ohio and win it big (I think it will be 54% Romney to 46% Obama in my home state…not even close).  If you spot any conservative writer going on in the days ahead about how “Romney can still win without Ohio!” I really hope you email, Tweet, and comment on his site that he’s a damn fool to be pushing Minitru’s meme on this.  Democrats are expert at psychological operations and Republicans are forever so clueless to being manipulated like this.  I don’t know why this is, but conservatives always seem to be like the little kids left home alone with the bad older brother who messes with their heads constantly…but the kids never catch on to the fact that they’re being played all the time.  The Left CONSTANTLY plays mind games with conservatives and gets them riled up into panics…and this is the distraction that Democrats typically need to succeed in something they’d fail at if only Republicans weren’t so distracted.

I hope this helps in the days ahead. You might need to relay this advice to family members, friends or work colleagues.

The Left played the same strategy in France earlier this year. Fora were full of Socialists saying, ‘We are so much more intelligent than you’, ‘Urban people are smart — country-dwellers are  stupid conservatives’, ‘Everyone is voting for Hollande’, ‘Sarkozy is a racist’, ‘Sarkozy hates the poor’, ‘Conservatives are haters’ et cetera. Now the swing-voters and weak conservatives who absorbed this meme in May and June are sorry they voted for Hollande; they feel duped. I heard Eric Brunet’s show on RMC last Friday: many French people have buyer’s remorse. Brunet’s response was, ‘Who would have thought that voting for a Socialist would result in left-wing policies? You have only yourselves to blame.’ Brunet did a marvellous job promoting the UMP and Sarkozy during the election cycle, by the way. More Frenchmen should have taken a leaf out of his notebook.

Conservatives, please avoid the Left’s trap! Keep your spirits up. This is nearly won — or in the incumbent’s case, ONE AND DONE!

Kevin DuJan at HillBuzz has revealed that Walt Disney World ‘imagineers’ are hard at work preparing to update their Hall of Presidents (emphases mine):

Walt Disney World (WDW) is indeed working on an update of the Hall of Presidents attraction to feature Mitt Romney as the 45th President of the United States beginning in 2013. Imagineers are that certain Romney will win the election and that his likeness will be needed to update the attraction in early 2013 so it will be ready in time for the park’s summer tourist season.

The Romney addition to the Hall of Presidents was just recently fast tracked and monies were shifted in the budget to accommodate this suddenly necessary change …

For those who don’t follow the company, Disney is incredibly cheap and does not invest time or resources on anything that’s not definitely needed in the near and immediate future.  The entity that oversees WDW is called “Team Disney Orlando” (TDO) and pinches pennies tighter than Scrooge McDuck.  They actually allow attractions to rot to near-ruin before springing for necessary maintenance and replacements…and they don’t do things at WDW just because it would be fun to spend time and money on something “just in case”

Excellent news!

Peggy Noonan, notable author of George Bush the Elder’s ‘Thousand Points of Lights’ speech, sold out to the Democrats in 2008.

I heard Bush deliver the speech in 1988 and it was inspiring, pointing a vision towards an even greater post-Reagan America.

Therefore, it was surprising to find that, in 2008, Noonan was no longer a part of that stellar galaxy. Indeed, she embraced the other side.

McCain-Palin couldn’t do anything right in Noonan’s eyes; the Republicans were consistently wrong. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton’s more conservative supporters — the blue dog PUMAs — were campaigning for the Republican ticket in their vehement opposition to Barack Obama.

The PUMAs questioned the coverage the Republicans were receiving from Fourth Estate, the media. For a bit of history on how the press — now the mainstream media — derived its name, Wikipedia explains (emphases mine):

Fourth Estate” most commonly refers to the news media; especially print journalism or “The Press”. Thomas Carlyle attributed the origin of the term to Edmund Burke, who used it in a parliamentary debate in 1787 on the opening up of Press reporting of the House of Commons of Great Britain.[1] Earlier writers have applied the term to lawyers, to the British queens consort (acting as a free agent, independent of the king), and to the proletariat. The term makes implicit reference to the earlier division of the three Estates of the Realm

In Burke’s 1787 coining he would have been making reference to the traditional three estates of Parliament: The Lords Spiritual, the Lords Temporal and the Commons.[4] If, indeed, Burke did make the statement Carlyle attributes to him, the remark may have been in the back of Carlyle’s mind when he wrote in his French Revolution (1837) that “A Fourth Estate, of Able Editors, springs up; increases and multiplies, irrepressible, incalculable.”[5] In this context, the other three estates are those of the French States-General: the church, the nobility and the townsmen.[4] …

By 1835, when William Hazlitt (another editor of Michel de Montaigne—see below) applied the term to an individual journalist, William Cobbett, the phrase was well established.[9][10]

Oscar Wilde wrote:

In old days men had the rack. Now they have the Press. That is an improvement certainly. But still it is very bad, and wrong, and demoralizing. Somebody — was it Burke? — called journalism the fourth estate. That was true at the time no doubt. But at the present moment it is the only estate. It has eaten up the other three. The Lords Temporal say nothing, the Lords Spiritual have nothing to say, and the House of Commons has nothing to say and says it. We are dominated by Journalism.[11]

Indeed, this is where we find ourselves today, not only in the United States but in the Western world as a whole.

The media claim they are reporting the facts. Only a few decades ago, journalists such as Edward R Murrow tirelessly plumbed the depths to reveal hidden truths. Murrow was one of my mother’s favourite journalists. You could agree or disagree with the facts he uncovered, but at least he made one think.

Peggy Noonan — or ‘Pegs’, as Lame Cherry often referred to her in 2008 — did Senator McCain and Governor Palin no favours in 2008. She said their campaign was unexciting. This clashed sharply with what PUMAs reported from having attended McCain-Palin rallies. One in Florida had over 20,000 in attendance. Palin, in particular, energised what Americans now refer to in electoral terms as ‘the base’. Of course, the Fourth Estate reported that only a few thousand people were in attendance. Meanwhile, residents of the complex which accommodated the rally said that they were overwhelmed with Republican supporters — a mixed blessing under the circumstances for the small community of conservative residents.

It seems that everywhere Governor Palin went, people flocked. Another rally in Pennsylvania or Ohio attracted another 10,000 or 15,000 people. Others who had hoped to attend that event gave up in the end. They hadn’t left their houses early enough and were caught in a traffic jam only to find out that there were no more parking spaces. Wherever Governor Palin went, men and women followed.

Did Pegs Noonan recognise Palin’s power to attract votes for McCain in 2008? No.

Did she recognise Obama’s emptiness at all between 2008 and the current 2012 election cycle?

Only on Friday, October 26, 2012. In the Wall Street Journal, she discussed the Denver debate, the first of the presidential candidates’ direct encounters earlier that month:

in some utterly new way the president was revealed, exposed. All the people whose job it is to surround and explain him, to act as his buffers and protectors—they weren’t there. It was him on the stage, alone with a competitor. He didn’t have a teleprompter, and so his failure seemed to underscore the cliché that the prompter is a kind of umbilical cord for him, something that provides nourishment, the thing he needs to sound good. He is not by any means a stupid man but he has become a boring one; he drones, he is predictable, it’s never new. The teleprompter adds substance, or at least safety.

Most of us saw this in 2009. There is even a blog written from the standpoint of the Teleprompter, which satirises many of the ‘presidential’ (I use the term advisedly) announcements.

The Urban Dictionary has this definition of TPOTUS:

TelePrompTer of the President of the United States. An electronic device that tells President Obama what to say. The president rarely speaks in public without the aid of this device, despite the widely held belief that he is highly intelligent and extremely articulate.

Yet, even though many others could see this, incredibly, Noonan and her fellow journos could not. Why is that? Is she that much of a ‘Beltway insider’ [referring to the inner core of Washington, DC]? Is she that fawning and feigning? Are her fellow associates?

Suddenly and inexplicably, a fortnight before the 2012 election, perhaps some of the Thousand Points of Light have now dawned. Noonan now says of the incumbent in the WSJ, dated October 26 (italics in the original):

Was it the catastrophic execution of an arguably sound strategy? …

Was it the catastrophic execution of a truly bad strategy? …

But maybe these questions are all off. Maybe what happened isn’t a mystery at all.

That, anyway, is the view expressed this week by a member of the U.S. Senate who served there with Mr Obama and has met with him in the White House. People back home, he said, sometimes wonder what happened with the president in the debate. The senator said, I paraphrase: I sort of have to tell them that it wasn’t a miscalculation or a weird moment. I tell them: I know him, and that was him. That guy on the stage, that’s the real Obama.


No kidding, Pegs. PUMAs knew that in 2008. Did you bother interviewing them or at least reading their blogs? Did you take the time to talk to the McCain-Palin team about the challenges they faced then? Did you talk in depth to any of the Romney-Ryan crew this year?

Ms Noonan, all that many of us know is that you helped to conceal the truth — directly or indirectly — about the man who calls himself Barack Obama. We still don’t know much about him, although he has served — or ‘ruled’, in Valerie Jarrett’s words — since 2008.

It seems to us that you ignored all that, especially the word ‘ruled’. The United States does not have a ruler. They have a President who serves the nation, at the nation’s pleasure, by way of universal suffrage. The Constitution establishes the word of law. There are three branches concerned, each of which offers a check against the other: executive, legislative and judicial.

Where the media — as Fourth Estate — fit in with this, is now unclear, particularly as they seem to have sided in with the Executive. This is a most dangerous coupling indeed.

What is even more incredulous in Noonan’s same editorial is her review of Bob Woodward’s new book, The Price of Politics.  It is good that she mentions the latest from the investigative journalist who, along with his partner Carl Bernstein, examined hundreds of hours of the Watergate tapes and other relevant communiqués. However, it is astonishing to find out that, only now, four years later Noonan discovers that Obama is

portrayed as having the appearance and presentation of an academic or intellectual while being strangely clueless in his reading of political situations and dynamics. He is bad at negotiating—in fact doesn’t know how. His confidence is consistently greater than his acumen, his arrogance greater than his grasp.

Who knew? I, along with many PUMAs and Republicans, could have told her that four years ago. She refused to vet Barack Obama the way Woodward and Bernstein investigated Richard Nixon and his administration.

Peggy Noonan’s failure — and that of her fellow journalists — to investigate and reveal the truth in the manner of Murrow raises many questions. Each of them will have to answer for those sins of omission individually. The day of reckoning is surely coming with Benghazigate, which only Fox is covering.

Might does not make right, as almost all the journalistic pack so often have reminded us over the years. Yet, over the course of four years, they clearly forced the public to fall for the empty unknown quantity that is Barry Soetoro Soebarkah Barack Obama.  They heaped scorn upon those who did not.

May God have mercy on those journalists who so shamelessly hopped on the Hope’n’Change bus in 2008.

And may He bring the sordid truth of the Fourth Estate to light.

Accuracy in Media (AIM) describes former US Congressman Artur Davis succinctly (emphases mine):

Davis is a four-term member of the House of Representatives from Alabama, where he represented the 7th District as a Democrat from 2003-2010.  He was viewed as a rising star in the House, and named in 2008 by Esquire magazine as one of the “Ten Best Congressmen in America.”  He was the first congressman to endorse Barack Obama for president, and even seconded his nomination in 2008. But he has since switched to the Republican Party, and even spoke at their convention in August. Davis is now a columnist and commentator across a wide media spectrum: He contributes to Politico and National Review, among others.  He is a Current Fellow at Harvard’s prestigious Institute of Politics, and is an attorney in Washington, D.C.

Davis spoke at AIM’s recent conference, ‘ObamaNation: A Day of Truth’, and took questions from the audience. This video contains his address:

If you prefer to read a transcript, you can find it here.

A few things Davis said struck me in particular. One was a response to an audience member asking how more Democrats can become Republicans. Davis responded by citing his own political journey:

I don’t have any one epiphany moment that I can give you.  I wish I did.  But I will give you something that I noticed about the Democratic Party in 2011, 2012, and 2010: I saw the Democratic Party just get smaller and smallerI saw a party that used to have a right, a center, and yes, a left, all of a sudden saw off its right wing and saw off its center wing.  I felt that party was speaking for fewer and fewer Americans.  I think there’s a reason Democratic Party ID peaked at 51% at the end of 2008, and today it’s around 42%.  Frankly, it’s higher now than it was before their convention in Charlotte.

The reality is, millions of American people have traveled the same path I have.  You know, people talk about me because I used to be an elected official.  The reality is—and you know some of these folks—there are millions of Americans who made the same transition I have.  They just don’t get to speak at these kinds of forums, they don’t get invited to give any lectures, but there are millions of us who made this transition.

He suggests evangelising (my word) a bit more about conservative ideals:

We cannot just talk to ourselves!  I think we have this crazy illusion sometimes—and the Left has it too, but we share part of this—we have this illusion that we can just talk to ourselves.  And it feels very good when you talk to yourself: You hear so much wisdom, you generally like what you see in the mirror, it feels so good when you talk to yourself—but you don’t persuade when you talk to yourself.  So I think we’ve just got to always understand that our conversations are being seen by people who, frankly, have different stakes than we do, and we have to speak to their stakes in society.

Continuing the theme in addressing another question, he added:

For some of these young people in this room—some of these folks in this room who are in their 20s, who are thinking about becoming a public life you may want to live, I assure you, ladies and gentlemen, who may be out there, you will learn everything you need to know if you spend just a little bit of time reading what Ronald Reagan had to say about this country, because, in an incredible manner, he managed to describe how to create a dynamic conservatism, and I think that’s the key: Conservatism’s got to be dynamic.  Conservatism has got to have a sense of empathy and a sense of engagement with all manner of people in this society.  Conservatism cannot just be a defense of things as they are nowSome of you may think that’s what the word “conservatism” means.  Conservatism has never been that narrow.  It’s the Left that wants you to think conservatism is this narrow thing that doesn’t speak to our broader aspirations.

About the media being at odds with American public sentiment, he said:

You have all manner of mainstream media organs that make it clear where they’re coming from.  Here’s the reality: People are not watching them anymore!  People are not reading them anymore!  And you know the proof of this?  40% of Americans, right now, call themselves “conservatives,” 22% call themselves “liberals.”  That could not be the case if the establishment media had the power over the way we process things that they think they have, or wish they had, or used to have.  So, again, let’s not despair too much over this in a country where the Right outnumbers the Left two to one.

You can see Davis’s expand on the media in this video:

RELATED: Tonight, Sunday, October 28, 2012, it has been rumoured that Fox will be showing the exposé on Obama, The Hope and the Change, at 9 p.m. EST. I understand that it is a must-see documentary.

This post continues a study of the passages from Mark’s Gospel which have been omitted from the Lectionary used in public worship.

These omitted passages comprise my ongoing series Forbidden Bible Verses, also essential to understanding Scripture.

Today’s verses are from the English Standard Version with commentary by Matthew Henry and John MacArthur.

Mark 9:49-50

49For everyone will be salted with fire. 50 Salt is good, but if the salt has lost its saltiness, how will you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another.”


In order to understand this passage, it is worth noting an addition to verse 49 which appeared in certain manuscripts:

and every sacrifice will be salted with salt.

These two verses follow an instruction by Jesus about the importance of avoiding sins of the flesh — carnality. In Mark 9:42-48 we read:

42 “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea. 43 And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. 45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. 47 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, 48‘where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’

Recall that in Mark 7:18-20, Jesus said that it did not matter what people ate. Food would be eliminated. However, it is what is in a person’s heart that matters, because that is what manifests itself as sin:

18And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, 19since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) 20And he said, ”What comes out of a person is what defiles him.”

Yet, in Mark 9:42-48, He spoke of parts of the body, not the heart. How do the two tie together?

The carnality in our hearts causes our sins: what we read (e.g. pornography), where we go (places which cause us to sin) and what we handle (perhaps another person’s flesh or an object which facilitates iniquity). Jesus said that it would be better for us to rid us of these body parts than to sin as a result. However, He did not want us to take this literally, but as a call to deaden our desire to see and handle things — or walk to situations — which lead to iniquity.  The general term for this in Christianity is ‘mortification of the flesh’. That does not mean self-flagellation, amputation or mutilation, but rather a deadening of the desires from the heart which cause sins of the flesh.

A refusal to mortify the flesh — deaden these desires — can lead to eternal condemnation, destination Hell:

48‘where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’

John MacArthur expands on the references to and warnings about Hell in the Bible (emphases mine):

The word “hell,” by the way, is Gehenna…Gehenna. It is a very interesting term. It is always the term that refers to the Lake of Fire, not just the place of the dead like Hades, but the actual burning Lake of Fire. That is why verse 43 describes hell as the place of unquenchable fire. And verse 48, “Where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.”

Gehenna, where did that word come from? The root of that word comes from the Valley of Hinnom…mentioned in Joshua 15:8. It is a steep ravine down to a valley, south of the city of Jerusalem, very severe. That was a place where Ahaz and Manasseh, two kings, offered human sacrifices to Molech. You can read about it in 2 Kings 16 and 21, 2 Chronicles 28 and 33. Human sacrifices in the land of Israel, in the Valley of Hinnom, to pacify this vicious, false deity named Molech…an unthinkable practice that Jewish people would sacrifice their babies to Molech. It was denounced, of course, by the prophets, particularly Jeremiah, Jeremiah 7:31, Jeremiah 32:35. In fact, Jeremiah renames it in Jeremiah 19:6, he calls it “the Valley of Slaughter…” And he also calls it the Valley of Topeth. Topeth comes from a Hebrew word that means drum.

Why would it be called the Valley of the Drum? Because some historians tell us that drums were beaten there regularly to drown out the screams of the burning babies. A horrendous place.

Josiah, the good king according to 2 Kings 23:10, shut that down, stopped all that and turned it in to Jerusalem’s garbage dump. I mean real garbage, no plastic, no paper. Rancid food, sewage, maggots and a 24/7 fire consuming it. And it was easily adapted as the word to describe eternal hell…unquenchable fire.

This is the emphasis of Scripture. All the way from the beginning, Matthew 25 to the end, Revelation 20, hell is a reality about which we are warned. Hell is mentioned twelve times in the New Testament, eleven of them by Jesus, the other one by James…James 3:6. And in this place, the fire is not quenched and the worm never die…that’s verse 48.

Therefore, Jesus counselled that, to avoid this fate, we must avoid sin and avoid encouraging others to sin, which is the meaning of verse 42:

“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.

‘Little ones’ means adults as well as children. St John also addressed his flock using the same words.

Sin can be greater or lesser. Examples of the latter include provoking people, inciting arguments and generally encouraging others to trespass.

MacArthur provides further examples:

You provoke them to jealousy by flaunting what you have. You…you provoke them to anger by indifference or unkindness, like your children … Ephesians 6:4, “Provoke not your children to wrath,” by inattention, lack of affection, lack of forgiveness, lack of kindness, overbearing expectations. You can do it directly or indirectly.

Thirdly, another way that you can cause people to stumble is by setting a sinful example, simply by doing things that people see that are sinful which path they perhaps will follow. Romans 14, it can be flaunting your liberty which will then lead someone else to do the same but because that conscience has not yet been liberated to understand the full freedoms in Christ, Paul says, it’s destructive because this is training a person to violate conscience and that has a very bad outcome. You have to be careful of the example that you set. Just when you don’t think people are watching, the truth is, they are.

These verses are a call for us to become the best Christians we can by renouncing temptation, which leads us to verse 49, a cryptic verse, to say the least. Both our commentators acknowledge this. Matthew Henry writes:

The two last verses are somewhat difficult, and interpreters agree not in the sense of them; for every one in general, or rather every one of them that are cast into hell, shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt. Therefore have salt in yourselves. [1.] It was appointed by the law of Moses, that every sacrifice should be salted with salt, not to preserve it (for it was to be immediately consumed), but because it was the food of God’s table, and no flesh is eaten without salt; it was therefore particularly required in the meat-offerings, Lev. 2:13. [2.] The nature of man, being corrupt, and as such being called flesh (Gen. 6:3; Ps. 78:39), some way or other must be salted, in order to its being a sacrifice to God. The salting of fish (and I think of other things) they call the curing of it. [3.] Our chief concern is, to present ourselves living sacrifices to the grace of God (Rom. 12:1), and, in order to our acceptableness, we must be salted with salt, our corrupt affections must be subdued and mortified, and we must have in our souls a savour of grace. Thus the offering up or sacrificing of the Gentiles is said to be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost, as the sacrifices were salted, Rom. 15:16 … The pain of mortifying the flesh now is no more to be compared with the punishment for not mortifying it, than salting with burning. And since he had said, that the fire of hell shall not be quenched, but it might be objected, that the fuel will not last always, he here intimates, that by the power of God it shall be made to last always; for those that are cast into hell, will find the fire to have not only the corroding quality of salt, but its preserving quality; whence it is used to signify that which is lasting: a covenant of salt is a perpetual covenant, and Lot’s wife being turned into a pillar of salt, made her a remaining monument of divine vengeance. Now since this will certainly be the doom of those that do not crucify the flesh with its affections and lusts, let us, knowing this terror of the Lord, be persuaded to do it.

As Scripture mentions salt in both positive and negative contexts, Christians would be reminded of the context of verse 49. Salt preserves and flavours. Salt also corrodes permanently. Will we choose to emulate the disobedient example of Lot’s wife who was told not to look back at Sodom and Gomorrah, yet she did. This is what Genesis 19 relates:

15As morning dawned, the angels urged Lot, saying, “Up! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, lest you be swept away in the punishment of the city.” 16But he lingered. So the men seized him and his wife and his two daughters by the hand, the LORD being merciful to him, and they brought him out and set him outside the city. 17And as they brought them out, one said, “Escape for your life. Do not look back or stop anywhere in the valley. Escape to the hills, lest you be swept away.”

23The sun had risen on the earth when Lot came to Zoar. 24Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the LORD out of heaven. 25And he overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground. 26But Lot’s wife, behind him, looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.

Alternatively, Christians also look upon salt as a reference to God’s grace, which is why Jesus reminded the disciples about the varying quality of salt (verse 50). Similarly, today, are we Christians going to exhibit the fulness of that grace in what we think, do and say? Or are we going to be second-rate in our discipleship, presenting ourselves to the world as inconsistent Christians, not fully using His divine gift of grace?

MacArthur explains that there were varying qualities of salt in the Holy Land:

Now if any of you are in to chemicals out there, chemistry, you know that sodium chloride is stable. Just sitting around it doesn’t lose its saltiness. So the question comes up, “What can this mean, since salt is stable and doesn’t lose its property, even over a long period of time? What can it refer to?”

We’re helped by some historians. Some of them may be ancient like Pliny who recorded the fact that there were several kinds of salts in Israel and many of them had properties that made them impure and they were basically worthless. One kind that seemed to be in some abundant supply with salt that was imperceptibly mixed with gypsum and it was worse than useless.

So our Lord says … Salt is good but it’s only good if its unmixed.

Jesus calls us to use grace to its fullest. It is the best salt. This is a call to personal purity, to what MacArthur calls a ‘radical discipleship’ — following Him and dedicating ourselves to Him completely.

When Jesus concluded with His exhortation to have salt in ourselves and be at peace with each other, He meant that we are to use divine grace in everything we do and to live in Christian harmony.

MacArthur concludes:

I think our Lord simply says, “You need to be unmixed in your obedience, and here’s your command for today. Stop fighting. Stop elevating yourselves. Stop the competition. Stop being the cause of temptation such as the essence of radical discipleship then, to love extremely, to deal with sin severely, to sacrifice one’s life wholly and to obey fanatically.

And what is the outcome of this? What is the result of this? Turn to Matthew 5…Matthew 5, “You are the salt of the earth.” You’re the only hope the planet has for a spiritual influence. So what you have as a result is radical witness. “And if you become tasteless, you’re not good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men.” Might as well remove you. Hum…maybe that’s what happened to the people at the Lord’s Table in the Corinthian church who died, or the sin unto death that John talks about. The Lord is saying, “Look, have salt in yourselves,” in Mark. Here He says, “You’re the salt of the earth, there is no other salt.” There are no other spiritual influences in this world than the true disciples of Christ who are known by the radical nature of their discipleship.

Then He changes metaphors, “You’re the light of the world. A city set on a hill can’t be hidden, nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, it gives light to all who are in the house. So let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven.” The end of all is that God would be glorified, right? And what is going to attract people to glorifying God is going to be the witness you give because you are salt and light by virtue of your radical discipleship.

Just as the sacrifices in the Old Testament required salt in order to be acceptable to God (Leviticus 2:13), we also must have salt — God’s grace — in order to make ourselves acceptable sacrifices to Him in our daily lives. This is why we pray for increasing holiness, purity and Christian witness.  We pray for the ability to turn away from the world and towards Him.

Next time: Mark 10:1, 10-12

Short answer: no. However, urban police forces are on alert. At most, I would expect minor incidents, probably from one or two radical agitators.

Kevin DuJan of HillBuzz explains why he thinks calm will prevail. We’ll look at minorities in a moment, but first, this is what he says about Occupy (emphases mine):

When the FBI busted OWS attempting to blow up bridges in Cleveland the entire game Occupy was playing changed …  That Cleveland bust was a big deal that’s not talked about a lot.  OWS should be divided into pre-Cleveland and post-Cleveland phases because after the FBI arrested the people responsible for planning the bombings there I believe Democrats realized in horror how close they came to being directly affiliated with domestic terrorism in this country.  Democrats then distanced themselves from OWS and not a single Democrat political figure will even acknowledge the “movement” existed at all…they completely pretend it never happened and abandoned all plans to use these people as goon squads in the election.

That was a HUGE surprise to me, because I fully expected Obama to use an “Occupy and Persecute” class warfare goon squad campaign to attack Romney…but that’s not manifested and with three weeks left to go before the election it’s not going to happen, either.  If the Cleveland bridge-bombings weren’t planned and prevented then I think OWS would have still been a Democrat favorite.  The FBI busts in Cleveland changed everything and stopped OWS from being a major force in the election…which in turn prevents it from being in a position to encourage rioting on November 6th or 7th.

Now to urban blacks:

I will say that the Left wants white people to be forever terrified of blacks, because that’s how the Left holds power in this country.  It indeed is part of the Obama campaign’s strategy to pump fear into the election in hopes that independents decide to either vote for him or stay home on election day to avoid “black people rioting!”.  That’s a tactic out of the Alinsky playbook and is what’s known as psychological operations (or “psy-ops” for short). Don’t fall for it

Obama will lose.  Romney will win.  Cities will not burn.  The talking heads on MSNBC will all have heart attacks and flail about unable to explain what’s happening.  But there will be NO RIOTS.

I want to say this in as clear a way as possible:  there are times in life when it might be exciting to jump into an orgy of fear porn and upset everyone you know with something you think is scary and exciting…but going around claiming there will be riots when Obama loses is just plain DUMB. Please don’t be foolish and get sucked up into this.  There are surely better things for you to worry about…like great white sharks somehow getting into your bathtub or toilet.  Be afraid of THAT before you work yourself up over riots when Obama loses.

DuJan, a Cleveland native, lives and works in Chicago. He understands cities and knows a lot of people. He also says:

Re-electing Obama is a lot different than electing him in the first place.  Obama’s the first black president.  He won in 2008.  Nothing can take that away or make people forget it.  While many blacks will be disappointed when Obama loses on November 6th, they are not going to burn Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Philadelphia, or Atlanta to the ground because of it.  There may be some grumbling, but any anger that manifests will be directed at Obama himself for not doing a better job in office.  Blacks are as disappointed in this president as the rest of the country…

I enjoy reading his site not only for his commentary but also for his readers’ comments. Here are a few which will be eye-openers to many outside the United States:

Moonzoo: … There are two profound, interconnecting ironies in modern America, known by only a few.

The Democrat party has always treated black people with hatred and scorn. After the 60′s, the party – – turning on a dime, like Stalin with Hitler – – decided to re-package their disdainful, shabby treatment of black folks as sub-human: they were still sub-human, but they were now not worthy of slavery and segregation; they were worthy of becoming Janissaries, enlisted to the cause of their haters. The first irony is the utter disrespect Democrats have of black people.

The second, interconnected, irony, is that the controlling white Democrats almost always have no actual, real life, genuine, non-political connection to black people. Non-Leftists as a whole have far more experience with African-Americans as human beings, and understand, as Democrats do not, that black people are actual human beings.

Read the rationalizations and justifications of slave-owners, and you will hear an almost pitch-perfect echo of the sort of things you hear Democrats saying today, about black people and about us all.

Strange Bedfellows: Lefties see “blacks” in the sense of a group or bloc. Non leftists see individual people who happen to be black and thus recognize that there is as wide a range of “black behavior” as there is “white behavior.”

Democratic policies in cities like Chicago and Detroit have enslaved or killed more blacks than all the plantation owners from the founding to the Emancipation Proclamation.

Layla: … I do not see any evidence of black enthusiasm this election, and consequently I do not expect to see nearly the turnout as last time. If there is no enthusiasm to vote FOR him, how are we to believe there will be any enthusiasm to protest and riot and ruin their own communities?

For those who do plan to vote for Obama based on the color of his skin this time, I have to wonder what they thought about Martin Luther King working so hard toward a person being judged based on the content of his character instead of the color of his skin. I can see it being important to them the first time. This time, no.

Rae: I think Black people will not back Obama in huge numbers like 2008. At least 12% of black people lie to the polls and vote Republican.

Black Republicans are treated like dirt, try being black and living next to the Obama phone lady, so many cho[o]se to be Democrats until they get to the polls.

There could be riots if Obama loses, it will hurt the Democratic Party so badly they will lose Senate and house seats in 2016 in droves.

For those concerned about unrest post-election, I hope this added insight and allayed your fears.

Lt Col Allen West is a retired Army officer who has been a US Congressional Representative for Florida’s 22nd district since January 2011.

West represents one of America’s wealthiest Congressional districts, which includes Palm Beach.  Although raised in a Democrat household, he said that his family was conservative in many ways. His father and brother were also career Army officers, whilst his mother was a civilian employee for the United States Marine Corps.

On October 12, 2012, West addressed a conservative audience in Temecula, California in a speech which evoked the Field of Dreams idea of ‘build it and they will come’.

This is one of the most beautiful contemporary speeches about America. West discusses the Founding Fathers’ ideals for individual sovereignty which, he reminds us, comes not from government but our Creator.

He mentions the sacrifices the Founding Fathers and the patriots paid for the freedom of every American and how precious that freedom is. He cites the Declaration of Independence.  He goes on to say that 236 years later — after independence from the British — people the world over still dream of living in America, where liberty, success and hard work are held in high esteem.

However, he warns his audience that they must resist today’s ever-encroaching state and do what they can as today’s patriots to defeat government control and restriction of God-given liberties. He says those are not the government’s to take away. They were divinely given to us.

West also lauds libertarian ideas and cites Atlas Shrugged as a warning about what can happen when free enterprise and market forces are restricted.

Wherever you are reading this, West’s speech is an eloquent tribute to America and freedom. I hope that you will find time to share it with your friends and family:

© Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 2009-2021. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? If you wish to borrow, 1) please use the link from the post, 2) give credit to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 3) copy only selected paragraphs from the post — not all of it.
PLAGIARISERS will be named and shamed.
First case: June 2-3, 2011 — resolved

Creative Commons License
Churchmouse Campanologist by Churchmouse is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,533 other followers


Calendar of posts - The internets fastest growing blog directory
Powered by WebRing.
This site is a member of WebRing.
To browse visit Here.

Blog Stats

  • 1,658,365 hits