Normally, but where England, specifically City of London, is concerned denounce is much more accurate.

Not so sure about that, perhaps Jimmy Carter and George, Jr. should have proven theirs. One could of been related to a fruitcake and the other could have come from divine inception.

That would be that stance of those that ignore truth waiting to be told. And there is no "fighting" truth, just ignorance of it made even more so by refusing to find and accept. It is only those in fear that don't want to know the truth, not as you imply, far from it. Others can only point to the path, it is up to the individual to verify to find enlightenment. The idiots are those that reject off hand, that determine that truth can only be that which within their preconceived notion of the truth ignoring all facts otherwise, solipsism.

Solipsism if from the Latin adjective solus: alone, and the Latin pronoun ipse: self. It is the ideology that only one's own mind is sure to exist, solipsists contend that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure, hence there is no such thing as objective truth, and nothing about the external world and it's workings can actually be known.

It is within this concept of Solipsism that the masses are led around by the nose. There can be no truth but for that told to them by their masters.

And you can pretend all you want, doesn't change reality one iota. And Asia and the Pacific Rim are areas and their native population, has nothing to do with racial false labeling. But then everything has to be reduced to racial to instill some kind of false logic.

And this has everything to do with the OP. It was the introduction of false logic designed to denigrate Allen West that has driven the topic and needs to be thoroughly exposed. And to insinuate that some racist bigot with the same last name would somehow do other than further denigrate Allen West.

But will the truth and facts stand against prejudice and ignorance?

But that would suppose their are contradictions in it's statements. There are no contradictions in the statements. The document is pure, it is only the inherent trait of men that betrays that purity.

From the very beginning, there were forces at work that tried to subjugate the very concept of free man and we were warned numerous times to always beware to protect our freedoms from the evils of psychopathic man.

It is the people's fault that we are where we are. Every since even before that glorious document was signed much less ratified, forces have been at work to circumvent it's meaning and restrictions. As the founders stated during the ratification period, a bill of rights wasn't needed as it was understood by the very restrictions placed within the document rights were inherent, but look where we are, without those devout amendments called the "Bill of Rights", we would be in much worse shape.

Bless Ayn Rand for her insight, but she is but one that has bought the obvious to the forefront in her time, but still so many read the message and went back to their lives ignoring all around them. And that passage is already in the Constitution:



It is an assigned power with an additional restriction on that power that has caused so many problems. But this was only possible be the passing and ratification of the 17th Amendment, the accelerated downfall of a republic into the debauchery of a democracy, that know by the founders to guarantee failure, and here we are, on the brink, descending into fascism and oligarchy, the implementation of Agenda 21.

all that because I think Cornel West would be an interesting candidate?

denigrated Allen? He must be a pretty shallow figure then.....