You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘women’ tag.
Maybe I can just squeak by with this, as a local eatery near us is advertising Valentine’s Day dinner specials through the weekend.
I saw Jamie Glazov’s Front Page article about Valentine’s Day on February 15: ‘Hating Valentine’s: Why Islamists and the Radical Left loathe the Day of Love’.
Glazov starts by giving a near-comprehensive review of penalties for and protests against celebrating Valentine’s Day in Muslim countries. I’ll let you read that in your own time.
The more puzzling aspect, which he explains nicely, is why the notionally tolerant Left don’t like February 14. Aren’t they the ones in favour of love?
Glazov tells us (emphases mine):
As an individual who spent more than a decade in academia, I was privileged to witness this war against Valentine’s Day up close and personal. Feminist icons like Jane Fonda, meanwhile, help lead the assault on Valentine’s Day in society at large. As David Horowitz has documented, Fonda has led the campaign to transform this special day into “V-Day” (“Violence against Women Day”) — which is, when it all comes down to it, a day of hate, featuring a mass indictment of men.
Why, oh why, oh why?
Islam and the radical Left both revile the notion of private love, a non-tangible and divine entity that draws individuals to each other and, therefore, distracts them from submitting themselves to a secular deity.
Valentine’s Day is a day of two people celebrating their love and devotion to each other — not to a collective or to a government regime. Therefore, opponents want it stopped.
Incidentally, I wrote about the St Valentines various and the traditions behind the day. The following post from 2015 discusses the different St Valentines, all of whom brought two people together in the name of love:
The next post, from 2016, describes ancient traditions surrounding Valentine’s Day and the meaning of ‘x’, symbolic of the cross of St Andrew:
From its post-Lupercalian origin, Valentine’s Day has been about two people and their fidelity to each other.
This brings us neatly back to the present day and the totalitarian resistance — whether religious or socio-political — to the Day of Love.
The highest objective of both Islam and the radical Left is clear: to shatter the sacred intimacy that a man and a woman can share with one another, for such a bond is inaccessible to the order. History, therefore, demonstrates how Islam, like Communism, wages a ferocious war on any kind of private and unregulated love. In the case of Islam, the reality is epitomized in its monstrous structures of gender apartheid and the terror that keeps it in place. Indeed, female sexuality and freedom are demonized and, therefore, forced veiling, forced marriage, female genital mutilation, honor killings and other misogynist monstrosities become mandatory parts of the sadistic paradigm.
Totalitarian regimes are similar:
In Stalinist Russia, sexual pleasure was portrayed as unsocialist and counter-revolutionary. More recent Communist societies have also waged war on sexuality — a war that Islam, as we know, wages with similar ferocity. These totalist structures cannot survive in environments filled with self-interested, pleasure-seeking individuals who prioritize devotion to other individual human beings over the collective and the state. Because the leftist believer viscerally hates the notion and reality of personal love and “the couple,” he champions the enforcement of totalitarian puritanism by the despotic regimes he worships.
Some may say that the earliest Communists promoted promiscuity — and abortion. Yes, they did, but note that a) promiscuity violates tender, loving fidelity between two people and b) abortion prevents the fruit of that beautiful union.
Glazov goes on to discuss famous dystopian novels, each of which involves a totalitarian state that forbids love between two adults. HG Wells’s novels described the totalitarian atmosphere. A Russian literary editor and novelist, Yevgeny Zamyatin, who had edited translations of Wells’s works in Russian, was inspired to take the concepts further in his 1924 novel We, which the early Soviet government banned. Zamyatin’s novel describes a couple who experience devotion to each other. Because this is illegal, the protagonist D-503 must undergo the Great Operation, which deadens the parts of the brain dedicated to passion, imagination and, by extension, love. D-503’s lover O-90 gives birth to his child. O-90 cannot bear to give their child up to the state, so D-503 manages to get her and their child smuggled out of the state to safety.
We inspired other dystopian works, the most famous of which are Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World and George Orwell’s 1984. Those also contain story lines of forbidden love.
Totalitarianism encourages promiscuity, but not faithful love. Religious totalitarianism values sexual segregation, but not mutual devotion:
And that is why love presents such a threat to the totalitarian order: it dares to serve itself. It is a force more powerful than the all-pervading fear that a totalitarian order needs to impose in order to survive. Leftist and Muslim social engineers, therefore, in their twisted and human-hating imaginations, believe that the road toward earthly redemption (under a classless society or Sharia) stands a chance only if private love and affection is purged from the human condition.
However, as we know, that is impossible. We are hard-wired to be like Adam and Eve. God created them so they could be loving, supportive companions who could create a family.
This brings us to the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Those of us who are old enough to remember recall slogans of ‘free love’ and so on. Various sexual positions, some of them non-procreational, were vaunted. If couples weren’t engaging in these, they were not ‘doing it right’. The Joy of Sex was a newlywed’s go-to book in the 1970s. Swingers’ clubs were popular amongst small segments of the middle class.
And, yes, there were swingers living near my home in the 1970s. My parents and I knew two. This middle-aged couple — second marriage for both, grown children — tried to recruit my parents. Mum and Dad were appalled. My mother tried to engage the couple in a philosophical discussion about the nature of love and marriage. Their response was, ‘Who needs it?’ Not surprisingly, they divorced and moved away within the year. If I remember rightly, the woman started cavorting with a fellow swinger and left her husband. He was very angry with her and changed his tune. ‘What happened to her fidelity to me?’ he asked my parents. Lesson learned? For him, yes. For her, it came afterwards when her swinger boyfriend dumped her. That was the last we heard of or about them.
The sexual revolution — still continuing today, with teenagers engaging in oral or copulative sex as if it were nothing — is something sensible people must resist. Sex education in schools is not designed to tell children about the birds and the bees in a biological way. It is intended to subvert the sanctity of married life and bringing children into the world.
During this same era, Bill Ayers — a longtime educator who goes on public speaking tours across America — was a radical who escaped a prison sentence on a technicality. You can read more about him here:
He was one of the leaders of the Weather Underground, a group of violent radicals. Glazov tells us:
as Peter Collier and David Horowitz demonstrate in Destructive Generation, the Weather Underground not only waged war against American society through violence and mayhem, but also waged war on private love within its own ranks. Bill Ayers, one of the leading terrorists in the group, argued in a speech defending the campaign:
Any notion that people can have responsibility for one person, that they can have that ‘out’ — we have to destroy that notion in order to build a collective; we have to destroy all ‘outs,’ to destroy the notion that people can lean on one person and not be responsible to the entire collective.
That was at the time of the ‘free love’ sexual revolution in the late 1960s.
Similarly, promiscuity was the order of the day in communes, also popular then, whether large or small. Invariably, even though they started out with an egalitarian programme, all of them ended up with an alpha male leader who seduced the women in the group, creating a harem. Other men ended up being marginalised. Couples were fractured. People got hurt emotionally. Some required deep therapy to bring them back to a trusting, loving state of mind.
Although I digress somewhat, these vignettes from half a century ago tell us that we should be wary of deviating from a biblical norm when it comes to love.
Now to the present day. A bewildering series of protests have been taking place over the past few months. The most bemusing involve feminists veiling themselves as if they were Muslim. Why?
Glazov explains that totalitarian regimes rely on clothing that conceals one’s sexuality. Historically:
As sociologist Paul Hollander has documented in his classic Political Pilgrims, fellow travelers were especially enthralled with the desexualized dress that the Maoist regime imposed on its citizens. This at once satisfied the leftist’s desire for enforced sameness and the imperative of erasing attractions between private citizens. As I have demonstrated in United in Hate, the Maoists’ unisex clothing finds its parallel in fundamentalist Islam’s mandate for shapeless coverings to be worn by both males and females. The collective “uniform” symbolizes submission to a higher entity and frustrates individual expression, mutual physical attraction, and private connection and affection. And so, once again, the Western leftist remains not only uncritical, but completely supportive of — and enthralled in — this form of totalitarian puritanism.
With regard to today’s female protesters:
This is precisely why leftist feminists today do not condemn the forced veiling of women in the Islamic world; because they support everything that forced veiling engenders.
As Glazov points out, even European law enforcement officers have been advising women to cover up so they won’t be targets of immigrant Muslim men.
Before I conclude, it is essential at this point to offer documented proof that, 40 years ago, Muslim women — except for those out in the sticks — wore normal Western clothing. I wrote about this in 2015 with loads of links to photographs:
Today, I saw two more items relating to Muslim women’s attire during that time. Rare Historical Photos has a good piece, ‘Women protesting forced hijab days after the Iranian Revolution, 1979’. Here’s an unrelated tweet from someone too young, perhaps, to know what I remember from my youth:
Glazov concludes that:
Valentine’s Day is a “shameful day” for the Muslim world and for the radical Left. It is shameful because private love is considered obscene, since it threatens the highest of values: the need for a totalitarian order to attract the complete and undivided attention, allegiance and veneration of every citizen. Love serves as the most lethal threat to the tyrants seeking to build Sharia and a classless utopia on earth, and so these tyrants yearn for the annihilation of every ingredient in man that smacks of anything that it means to be human …
This day reminds us that we have a weapon, the most powerful arsenal on the face of the earth, in front of which despots and terrorists quiver and shake, and sprint from in horror into the shadows of darkness, desperately avoiding its piercing light.
That arsenal is love …
Love will prevail.
Long Live Valentine’s Day.
With work schedules and business trips such as they are, some readers might be celebrating a Valentine’s weekend. I wish you a very happy time. May it be love-filled today and always.
A human heartbeat comes earlier than previously thought.
This is further evidence against the popular ‘pro-choice’ belief that a foetus remains a ‘lump of cells’ for months on end.
A study finds an unborn baby’s first heartbeat occurs as early as 16 days after conception.
A research team funded by the British Heart Foundation (BHF) at the University of Oxford says a baby’s first heartbeat is now far earlier than was previously understood, reports the Daily Mail.
The objective of the research is to help treat congenital heart disease. However, this points out how early the human foetus begins to develop.
The Daily Mail article explains that researchers (emphases mine):
have demonstrated earlier beating of the heart in mouse embryos which, if extrapolated to the human heart, suggests beating as early as 16 days after conception.
In the study, published today in the scientific journal eLife, researchers studied the developing mouse heart and found that the muscle started to contract as soon as it formed the cardiac crescent – an early stage in heart development.
In mice, this crescent forms 7.5 days after conception, which is equivalent to day 16 in the human embryo.
Previously, it was thought that the heart started to contract a stage later, when the heart appears as a linear tube.
Congenital heart disease is diagnosed in at least 1 in 180 births, which equates to around 4,000 each year or 12 babies each day, in the UK.
The researchers ultimately hope that by understanding more about how the heart forms in the womb they will one day be able to prevent heart conditions that arise as a foetus develops.
God has the development of His creatures — including mankind — planned as only He can.
We begin functioning very early. This should put a big question mark around abortion in everyone’s mind.
Abortion is the taking of human life.
The ancient Jews never practised abortion. This is why it is not mentioned in the Bible.
When the early Church began to expand into Greece and the Roman Empire, provision had to be made to condemn the practice.
This is how the document known as the Didache (‘did-uh-kay’) came to be written. Excerpts follow from my post from 2009 (emphases mine):
There appear to be no records or treatises on abortion for social reasons prior to the ancient Greek Empire in its decline.
Hippocrates — he of the oath which doctors take — made the first mention of the procedure and instructed physicians of the day not to give an expectant mother drinks or potions fatal to the child in the womb. By the time he devised the Hippocratic Oath, social abortion was becoming more commonplace among the ancient Greeks.
Social abortion continued when the Roman Empire was in its decline. They were the first to legalise against it. The Romans ordered the mother into exile. Those involved with procuring or administering the necessary potion were exiled to an island if they were from the upper classes or sentenced to work in metal mines if they were from lower social classes.
The early fathers of the Christian Church wrote the Didache which dealt not only with abortion but also other sins, e.g. witchcraft, which were unknown to the Jews.
Author and lecturer Dr Paul L Williams explains the early opprobrium regarding abortion and how it became infused into Roman society:
‘You shall not kill an unborn child or murder a newborn infant.’ This equation of abortion with homicide was upheld by Tertullian, the father of Latin theology. In his treatise ‘On the Veiling of Virgins’ (206 A.D.), this Church father railed against women who ‘conceal their sinful failures’ by committing ‘homicide’ by means of procured abortions. In 250 A.D., St. Cyprian maintained that abortion represented a crime far worse than ‘parricide’.
A century later, the Church in Spain declared abortion a sin of ‘double damnation’ when it was the result of fornication (pre-marital sex) or adultery. The guilty woman was forbidden from taking Holy Communion for the rest of her life, including on her deathbed.
Later penalties included those for murderers. Eventually, any society which had converted to Christianity, like the Visigoths, prohibited abortion.
But, these days, it’s a legal ‘right’. Some ‘progressive’ thinkers would like to extend that ‘right’ to infancy.
Very wrong. Very wrong.
Since the 2005 Billy Bush/Donald Trump tape was leaked last Friday, timed with the Wikileaks drop of the Democrats’, including Hillary Clinton’s emails, the Deplorables have resolved to fight on — with or without the GOPe.
WARNING: This post has Clinton-related content and some links with language unsuitable for children. I apologise in advance, but the truth must come out, no matter how distasteful.
The Deplorables’ situation
It is essential to understand what the Deplorables experience in American life.
Many worry how they will get by. Tax increases are a huge issue.
One Pittsburgh resident — an ex-Hillary supporter — describes what he and his family members experience. Excerpts and a summary follow. I have edited spelling and grammar.
How is it there is not enough tax to make sure homeless veterans are taken care of, yet the United States can afford to send countless mobile phones to Africa? There are more sanctuary cities for notional refugees, yet there is not enough tax revenue to finance Social Security for older Americans.
Taxes continue to increase, but (emphases mine):
Burden is shared. I have no say … Where does that money go? Same thing with the lottery; where is that cash? Tax tax tax … My school dropped German and French. My dad gets 1700 a month social security. He has no 401k. He had six kids all of whom pay lots of taxes. He always paid his taxes. My mom became a nurse once dad [left]. She has some money but how many people know it was under Clinton that food was excluded from COLA? I said from the beginning Obamacare was about privatizing Social Security. Demand you pay for health care, we can demand you pay for retirement. Think of the money. Trillions to be made: what choice would you have? You might support a homophobic misogynist regime like Saudi Arabia every hour you worked and paid a tax as Supreme Court ruled Obamacare went through; why not retirement?
Then, there is the elite’s perception of these Americans, from 2008 to the present. The main author of The Crawdad Hole — ex-Clinton supporters for the most part — has a Twitter description which sums it up perfectly:
Obama called me a bitter clinger. Hillary called me deplorable. Terrorists call me an infidel. Trump calls me an American.
I do not know how many of my readers have seen the following tee shirt, which originated with Infowars, but a lot of anti-Hillary voters are wearing it:
After the Billy Bush/Donald Trump tape was released, the GOP elite denounced Trump.
Trump was supposed to appear in Wisconsin last Saturday, October 8, but a sanctimonious Paul Ryan — Speaker of the House — rescinded his invitation to the state’s annual GOP fundraiser.
Attendees paid $30 apiece to get in. They expected to see Trump.
ELKHORN, Wisconsin — In a jarring illustration of the chaos now engulfing the Republican Party, supporters of Donald Trump clashed bitterly with GOP leaders at a rally here Saturday — booing elected officials, heckling Paul Ryan, and angrily demanding greater establishment support for their beleaguered presidential nominee …
When, early in the event’s program, Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel tried to address the recently leaked video that has sent Trump’s campaign into a tailspin, the crowd erupted in angry protest.
“Get over it!” one heckler yelled.
“Trump! Trump! Trump!” others chanted.
Appearing taken aback by the reaction, Schimel made a brief nod toward support for the nominee — “Donald Trump will appoint judges that will defend our Constitution” — and then quickly changed the subject.
Other elected officials became more combative with the audience. When Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner talked about how voters had been coming to the Fall Fest for years to support Ryan and other local Republicans, hecklers shouted, “Not anymore!” and, “I’m for Donald Trump!”
“Why don’t you listen to what I have to say instead of interrupting me?” Sensenbrenner snapped. Soon, the 73-year-old congressman was in a shouting match with the Trump supporters in the crowd. “Listen to me, please,” he kept repeating, before ordering the audience to “clean up your act.”
By the time it was Ryan’s turn to speak, the mood had grown indisputably hostile. He took the stage to scattered boos, and shouts of, “What about Donald Trump?” and, “Shame on you!” …
Trump supporters are now unlikely to vote down ticket for Republicans who have shunned their candidate.
This is audience reaction to Ryan’s speech:
One young man wore a RAPE shirt with Bill Clinton’s image on it — another popular Infowars product.
Alex Jones is giving between $1,000 and $5,000 to anyone who can get captured on camera with it at a rally. More money is given to those who can stay on camera for several seconds and mention Infowars.
Alex is looking forward to hearing from this man who turned up at Clinton’s October 11 rally in Detroit. Not only will he receive $5,000, but he will be invited for an interview on the Infowars show:
How he was able to get one of the privileged places on the podium will make for an interesting story.
Townhall has a really clear close up.
Amazingly, the woman with the slogan ‘Stronger Together’ and who is a self-described tireless advocate of minorities had this reaction:
Hillary Clinton sarcastically laughed as the man was shoved down the stairs and she told people outside the event to “follow him” and “stage an intervention.”
Wow! I hope the man stayed safe.
I bet Big Media will ignore that story.
At an Obama rally for Clinton, a man and a woman paraded beneath the stage in Greensboro on Tuesday, October 11. Each wore homemade ‘Bill Clinton Rapist’ tee shirts (8 seconds in).
An American Lookout article says that Obama was interrupted again by other protesters:
The second and third times by people yelling about Bill Clinton and rape.
The article continues (emphases in the original):
These protesters are everywhere!
Will the mainstream media finally do some reporting on what these people are saying? On what they’re willing to get arrested for to say? …
It’s become counter-cultural to be Conservative. Conservatives are now the rock stars. The punk rockers of politics.
And these are courageous citizens! They’re standing up against Obama, the Clintons and the Mainstream Media to shout the truth!
At the weekend in Bakersfield, the city’s local Business Conference took place.
Hundreds of people showed up to hear conservative commentator Laura Ingraham (LifeZette) speak in support of Trump.
Gateway Pundit has a brief excerpt of the crowd cheering:
THIS IS AN AMAZING VIDEO–
Thousands of voters at the Bakersfield Business Conference tell the GOP to stand by Donald Trump and FIGHT!
The same day that Trump supporters booed Wisconsin GOPe types, Nevada Rep. Joe Heck disavowed the candidate. The audience booed him:
Breitbart reports that Heck has fallen prey to the George Soros funded Common Defense PAC, notionally comprised of military veterans, and a MoveOn.org petition hidden within (emphases mine):
Common Defense PAC has a simple mission statement: “As veterans, we swore to protect the rights of every American. We continue to fulfill this promise by standing against Donald Trump.” Its “leadership team” page on its website lists sixteen military veterans with no contact information for them.
On its Facebook page, the PAC features a video from a different super PAC in which a mainstream reporter asks Nevada congressman Joe Heck if he trusts Trump having the nuclear codes.
“Watch this. Share it. Then sign the petition to tell Congressman Heck to disavow Donald Trump,” says Common Defense PAC, with the link to the petition: fornevadasfuture.com/heck.
But the petition is actually a MoveOn.org petition called “Joe Heck: Disavow Donald Trump.”
One can be pretty sure that Heck and the rest of the GOPe don’t know the men behind the PAC:
Common Defense PAC is registered with the Federal Election Commission at a P.O. Box in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. The group’s treasurer is Jonathan Matthew Smucker, a Berkeley doctoral student, activist, and radical writer who did not return a request for comment for this report.
The PAC’s July quarterly filing report with the FEC only lists one donor: a Baltimore IT consultant named Marjorie Roswell who gave $20,000 on June 30.
Perry O’Brien is the group’s director. O’Brien is a longtime left-wing activist.
O’Brien was a medic in Afghanistan with the 82nd Airborne and received a discharge in 2004 for being a conscientious objector.
Perry O’Brien personally started a MoveOn.org petition called “Tell GOP leaders to disavow Trump and his attacks on veterans.” The petition, which has 121,242 signatures as of this writing, is “To be delivered to Sen. John McCain, Sen. Mitch McConnell, Rep. Paul Ryan, and all GOP leaders.”
Well, there you go. It worked. Don’t Republicans investigate these things? It took me a simple Internet search.
What Deplorables will remember
On Tuesday, October 11, Laura Ingraham analysed the disparity between GOPe and their core voters:
The vast majority of Republicans want Donald Trump to be president … they have come together in an effort to save the country from Hillary Clinton.
A small minority of Republicans do not want Donald Trump to be president. They prefer Hillary Clinton. Unfortunately for most of the Republican Party, this small group of angry dissenters includes many of the people at the top of the party — officeholders, major donors, “strategists,” and “conservative” pundits. These people have been able to leverage their connections with the mainstream press to repeatedly attack Trump — even though they refuse to say anything nice about Hillary.
… instead of having an honest discussion as to whether the GOP should be a globalist party or a nationalist party, everything dissolves into personal attacks.
When this election is over, the vast majority of Republicans are going to remember that their supposed leaders — the same officeholders, millionaires, and pundits who told them that they had to “come together” and support John McCain and Mitt Romney — refused to do the same for Donald Trump. They will know that what they have long suspected is true — the Republican Party is led by people who have more in common with the Clintons than with the GOP base. And that knowledge will affect the future of the GOP for years to come.
The biggest irony in all this is that, as one pro-Trump Rep. Steve King of Iowa said, quoting a fellow congressman:
“He said, ‘If you are so worried about a sexual deviant in the White House, helping Hillary Clinton will put Bill Clinton in the White House,’” King paraphrased.
Very true, indeed.
I am aghast to read Clinton’s Correct The Record people write in comment sections that Bill Clinton’s rape victims are conspiracy theory material.
These people were either not yet born or were not yet toilet trained during his administration.
Bill’s women were all over mainstream media in the 1990s, from the time he and his co-president Hillary entered the White House until the time they left.
I could read and see all about it in all the British press and on television, too. Even my apolitical colleagues became experts on the stories.
This is an adults-only post. It has sordid, sad and painful content — all because of Bill Clinton.
On Sunday, October 9, Juanita Broaddrick, one of Bubba’s alleged victims, gave an exclusive interview to Breitbart‘s Aaron Klein. It is clear that she still remembers what happened and how it felt as painfully now as when her ordeal took place in 1978.
For those who would prefer not to watch the video, Klein wrote a helpful article summarising the interview and what took place all those years ago. Excerpts follow, emphases mine:
Trembling, Broaddrick explained that she is still afraid of Bill Clinton and asserted that she is frightened by the prospect of Hillary Clinton winning the election. She described the alleged rape in vivid detail, providing the most extensive window yet into the singular event that she says left her traumatized until today.
In one dramatic scene, a sobbing Broaddrick was embraced and consoled by another alleged Clinton sexual assault victim, Kathleen Willey, who was present for the filming.
Willey tells the crying Broaddrick: “It’s not your fault. Okay. It’s not your fault. It’s not your fault. You didn’t do anything wrong. You didn’t do anything wrong. Okay. Okay?”
Broaddrick and Willey were in our nation’s capital last week to discuss how their lives were devastated by their respective experiences with the Clintons. They also emphatically warned about what a Hillary Clinton presidency could mean for women in general—and the Clintons’ perceived enemies in particular.
Broaddrick was a nursing home administrator and a volunteer for Bill’s gubernatorial campaign in Arkansas that year. She says that he singled her out during a campaign stop to the nursing home where she worked. The alleged rape took place at a Little Rock hotel.
The partial transcript has the details of the incident, which you can read for yourselves, however, some excerpts follow, including the fear she still feels — not only about Bill but also Hillary:
And he grabbed me again, very forcefully. And started biting on my top lip. And this was extremely painful. I thought he was going to bite my lip off. And that’s when he pushed me back onto the bed.
KLEIN: He bit you at the top of your lip. He pushed you onto the bed. And then what happened?
BROADDRICK: It’s been so long and it is just so hard to go into. I need to stop.
BROADDRICK: You, know, why? Why is it still so painful?
KLEIN: What is going through your mind right now?
BROADDRICK: That I am afraid of him.
KLEIN: You are still afraid of him?
BROADDRICK: Yes. That I am still afraid. Especially if she becomes president. And I know it’s looking that way. So it’s frightening, Aaron. It’s frightening.
In a second exclusive video for Breitbart, Broaddrick explains why she fears Hillary. A summary and excerpts follow:
Like other rape victims, Broaddrick blamed herself. And, as is true for other rape victims, she was still in a state of shock several weeks later:
She said she attended a private Clinton fundraiser at the home of a local dentist, where she had an encounter with the Clintons and was directly approached by Hillary.
Broaddrick had to be there because she had cheques from donors for Bill’s campaign:
She says she went to the fundraiser about thirty minutes early in an attempt to avoid the Clintons.
Instead, she says, Bill and Hillary Clinton arrived early, as well.
And they come in early from the kitchen area. And just before they do, a gentleman who had driven them from the airport comes straight over to me. He was supporting Clinton but he didn’t know what had happened to me even though he was a friend. And he said the topic of the conversation all the way from the airport was about you.
And that startled me. And I knew I had to get out of there. Well, just as he moved here comes Hillary straight for me. And she gets to me and she starts saying, ‘I just want to thank you for everything you are doing for Bill’s campaign. And it’s so nice to meet you.’ And all of these things.
So I just nodded and I told my friend, ‘Let’s go.’ And I thought somebody from behind had grabbed a hold of my arm. But it was her. She grabbed a hold of my arm and my hand and she pulls me into her. And she says with this very angry look on her face, which had been so pleasant seconds before. And in a low voice, says, ‘Do you understand? Everything that you do.’ And that frightened me.
She thinks that Hillary already knew what happened:
“That he raped you?” I asked.
“Yes,” Broaddrick stated. “And that she was telling me to keep quiet.”
“To keep quiet about her husband’s rape?” I questioned.
“Yeah,” she stated.
Hillary is not a nice person. She puts on a show for the public and is very different privately.
More to follow next week.
During the first presidential debate on September 26, Hillary Clinton accused Donald Trump of sexism and came out with several of his most outrageous anti-women quotes.
One of them concerned the 1996 Miss Universe, Venezuela’s Alicia Machado. Trump was less than flattering about her subsequent weight gain.
Hillary made a big deal about this, and she would have had a point were it not for two reasons.
1996 Miss Universe
Machado, who became a US citizen this year, sailed close to the wind with the law in 1998 in her native country. She was not indicted because of lack of evidence. The Daily Mail reports:
… two Associated Press reports from 1998 have revealed the Machado was accused of aiding attempted murder and threats to kill in Venezuela.
DailyMail.com has asked the Clinton campaign whether they knew about the accusations, which do not appear to have ended in conviction, before the candidate spoke about her at the debate.
The campaign also organized a conference call for reporters on Tuesday with the now 39-year-old actress, in which she spoke almost exclusively in Spanish to continue the attacks on Trump.
The Mail has the full story.
The article also says that, during her time as Miss Universe, Machado gained 35 pounds. Trump owned the Miss Universe pageant at the time.
Beauty pageant winners have to comply with certain terms and conditions during their tenure, weight gain being one of them.
Here is a CNN interview of Trump with Machado and her trainer in 1997. A CNN article that appeared at the same time explained she had gained 60 pounds during her reign. She was losing weight to appear in that year’s contest to crown the new winner. If there is a reference to Miss Piggy the Muppets star (all the rage at the time), I missed it. There is also no animosity between Machado and Trump:
On September 28, another Mail article appeared about her career in porn and relationship with a drug lord. The Conservative Treehouse also has a set of links. Gateway Pundit has a Florida Declaration of Domicile for her daughter who was born in Miami.
Hillary portrays herself as a champion of women’s rights, but, as I wrote earlier this month, in 1975 she successfully defended a middle-aged man who raped a 12-year-old girl in Arkansas. She even laughed about it. The audio recordings are available to the public at the University of Arkansas. Also:
Clinton’s defense strategy also included aggressive claims about the victim’s character, including allegations that the 12-year-old “sought out older men” and was “emotionally unstable,” according to court documents first reported by Newsday in 2008.
Two decades later, she was in the White House and the ‘bimbo eruption’ took place.
If you find that term offensive, you should know that an advisor to Bill Clinton — a woman and feminist — coined it. Betsey Ross Wright came up with the words:
to describe rumors alleging extramarital affairs by Clinton.
Wright met Bill and Hillary — unmarried, but an item — in 1972. In August 2016, The Daily Beast posted an excellent article by Professor Gil Troy who teaches History at McGill University and wrote The Age of Clinton: America in the 1990s. Excerpts follow:
… these three new friends relished the possibilities they were starting to envision, a more open, liberal, egalitarian, and female-friendly world.
“It was a nascent feminist movement then,” Wright would tell Bill Clinton’s biographer David Maraniss. Wright believed “that women were the ethical and pure force that American politics needed.” And Wright, a big, bold, bawdy powerhouse, recalled being “less interested in Bill’s political future than Hillary’s. I was obsessed with how far Hillary might go, with her mixture of brilliance, ambition, and self-assuredness.”
Bill’s presidential campaign rolled around 20 years later with (emphases mine):
Hillary Clinton and Betsey Wright determined not to let Bill Clinton’s promiscuity harm his White House bid. Wright, who monitored each piece of gossip – and frequently bullied Bill’s “exes” – coined the crude phrase “bimbo eruptions.” The term mocked the accusers and the reporters who believed them. Just a few years ago, Americans were more censorious about affairs but more forgiving about such sexist dismissals of victimized women.
Gil Troy explains that ‘bimbo’ comes from bambino and originally denoted stupid men. By the 1920s, it began being used to describe women. A song of that decade was called My Little Bimbo Down on the Bamboo Isle. In the 1930s, ‘blonde’ prefaced the word. I knew a man in the 1980s who often referred to a group of women out for a night on the town as ‘the bimbo squad’, but I digress.
Gil Troy concludes:
The ironies abound. Betsey Wright the feminist boosting a sexist slander. Hillary Clinton, the betrayed wife, not just standing by her man but trashing his accusers – no matter how true their story. Wright’s odd contribution to history, then, is sharpening the Clinton conundrum: how can a couple so committed to doing good behave so badly so often? Wright’s tale highlights the moral blind spot of the Clintons and their enablers. Their idealism, their liberalism, their faith in the good they hope to do, makes them excuse all kinds of lapses, from libeling innocent women to following their own rules regarding emails and government secrecy …
The investigation into the Whitewater scandal, which ran deep once Kenneth Starr was in charge, brought out more details about philandering which dogged Bill’s presidency. Then there was the Monica Lewinsky scandal. In 1998, Hillary appeared on Today — NBC’s breakfast show — and said this:
I think we’re going to find some other things. And I think that when all of this is put into context, and we really look at the people involved here, look at their motivations and look at their backgrounds, look at their past behavior, some folks are going to have a lot to answer for.
The following year, the New York Post featured this quote:
I don’t know who created the graphic, by the way.
Last year, a book called The Clintons’ War on Women was published. The Political Insider summarised the detailed work done by authors Roger Stone, a Republican strategist and Trump insider, and Robert Morrow.
I strongly urge everyone to read The Political Insider article, most of which I cannot quote here because of the adult content. Here are two excerpts:
For 41 years, Hillary Clinton has worked tirelessly to discredit and destroy women like that. Since 1982, she has been hiring private detectives to look into their lives and find anything that could embarrass them …
Juanita Broaddrick was alleged raped so severely that he nearly tore off her upper lip, then raped her a 2nd time …
Donald Trump must make it calmly crystal clear at the next debate that Hillary Clinton is no women’s advocate. Whilst he should not discuss Miss Universe, he can mention other topics. For a start, Europe’s mass immigration problem has brought with it a large increase in sexual attacks on women. Yet, Hillary wants to up migrant intake from the same countries in the Middle East. American women will be at risk.
The rest of us can spread the word about her misogyny in the remaining weeks before the presidential election.
It is essential that younger voters be aware of the Clintons’ past. Sexual crimes are only one part of it. As one of my readers says, it would take a lifetime to chronicle all their evil. More to come tomorrow.
When pantsuits first became a craze in the late 1960s and early 1970s, most women shied away from them.
They knew that pantsuits require a certain figure. Marlene Dietrich was the first to wear one in 1930 in the film Morocco. Katharine Hepburn also wore elegant trouser co-ordinates from that decade onward.
What characterised those women was a slim, stately figure.
The late Yves Saint Laurent (YSL) came up with le smoking paired with trousers in the 1960s. Clearly, this ensemble was made for those with models’ physiques, women such as Melania Trump, rather than her husband’s opponent:
Look how happy Melania Trump is with her femininity. She treasures it.
Today, generations of women think that pantsuits hide their less attractive physical attributes. What they do not realise is that it would be preferable for them to show heavy ankles and calves in a skirt rather than cover them up and reveal more even more with trousers: large thighs and matronly hips. Even the jackets do not fit properly.
YSL’s creation, much imitated by many other top designers and mainstream design houses, was meant for a statuesque figure. The jacket and trousers were intended to create an elegant unity, a straight line from shoulder to ankle.
Instead, this is what we have today, best exemplified by Hillary Clinton and Angela Merkel:
Women cannot hide their less attractive physical attributes in pantsuits. It would be preferable for these ladies to wear a flattering skirt paired with a chic Chanel-style jacket or a boxy sweater instead.
In 2008 Clinton’s supporters were referred to as the ‘sisterhood of travelling pantsuits’. They were paying a certain homage to her.
Instead of trying to conform to what makes a man a man, why not celebrate the fact that, yes, I am a woman, and because of that, I bring unique qualities and talents and perspectives to the job, that make me equally and uniquely qualified to do it.
Leading a country means serving a country. It is a gift of self. Of inspiring and empowering the people.
A position that should be held by the most capable person for the job – man or woman.
Am I endorsing Hillary. No. There’s a lot more that goes into choosing a President that goes much deeper than a person’s gender. There’s … well … politics. The parties’ views on the US and our future are very different. And that is up to you to decide which issues top the list and sway your vote.
I would love to see a woman President. And think it is amazing that a woman is holding the nomination for a major party.
And I hope that the first woman president, whenever she’s elected, can confidently be sworn in wearing something other than a pantsuit. Because she’s not hiding her femininity, but celebrating her feminine genius, and embracing all the unique talents and qualities that she possesses in her very nature that make her equally qualified and able to do the job.
Just so. It would be great if all women, not just those in politics, could bear that in mind.
Even our statuesque Prime Minister, Theresa May, looks better in skirts or dresses than in trousers.
It has been just under four weeks since the UK voted to leave the EU.
Theresa May has been our PM for one week.
She has done quite a lot of housecleaning in that time with many new appointments to the Cabinet, making it her own, and has created a department for Brexit.
It is unfortunate that the Nice attack took away our initial enjoyment of May’s premiership. I have much to write on her appointment and the lady herself.
For now, a few brief observations follow.
The Conservative Party — best for women
The Conservative Party is the best political party for women in Britain.
Within 26 years, they have given us two female Prime Ministers, redoubtable women both.
By contrast, the right-on, progressive Labour Party has never had a female leader.
Around the time May was entering Downing Street last week, Angela Eagle — a contender for Labour leadership — said that it was high time they had a woman at the top. What Ms Eagle misses is that the Conservatives chose Margaret Thatcher and Theresa May not because of their gender but because of their competence.
I remember watching Andrew Neil’s Sunday Politics (BBC) in 2015 prior to the general election. Several Labour women MPs told Neil week after week that the Conservatives should have more women in Cabinet.
Ho hum. Which party has two female Prime Ministers? The Conservative Party. Which party just happened to have an all-women shortlist for party leadership with Theresa May and Andrea Leadsom just ten days ago? The Conservative Party.
First PMQs an absolute blinder
On Wednesday, July 20, Theresa May held her first Prime Minister’s Questions in the House of Commons.
She played an absolute blinder; she was confident, competent and concise. She answered every question with historical data and/or departmental updates. She took questions on housing, Brexit, ‘honour’ killings and the NHS, to mention a few.
Afterwards, I watched Daily Politics (BBC2) with Jo Coburn and her panel, most of whom, like Coburn herself, are very much left-of-centre. All said that May did very well indeed. Veteran reporter John Pienaar said she was much better than Margaret Thatcher in her early days of PMQs.
May will be travelling to Berlin on July 20 to meet with Angela Merkel over a working dinner. (I will have an update in a subsequent post.)
Brexit is likely to dominate the dinner discussions. Terrorism and the recent attempted Turkish coup are also probable topics.
This is an historic occasion, as both Britain and Germany have female leaders at the same time.
The two seem similar in several respects: both their fathers were clergymen, neither has children, both have a penchant for improving society and they have strong personalities.
Expect mutual respect and honest discussions. It will be interesting to see if, once she meets May, Merkel is willing to engage in some sort of negotiations prior to our invoking Article 50 of the Treaty of Rome.
May will be meeting with France’s François Hollande on July 21. Calais and terrorism are sure to be on the agenda along with Brexit.
On July 19, May held her first Cabinet meeting.
She reiterated her commitment to Brexit and will personally oversee that new department as well as those for the economy and social reform.
May has wisely appointed three Leavers to key positions involving Britain’s future outside the EU. Longtime MP David Davis is in charge of the Brexit unit as the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. Boris Johnson, MP and former two-term Mayor of London, is Secretary of State for Foreign and International Affairs. Liam Fox is the Secretary of State for International Trade.
Keeping a close eye on Brexit, the economy and social reform ties together May’s overall agenda for her administration:
we will not allow the country to be defined by Brexit; but instead build the education, skills, and social mobility to allow everyone to prosper from the opportunities of leaving the EU.
I hope she continues to make progress in these areas. I’m beginning to like her a lot.
After months of news coverage and reader commentary from the more informed on both sides, the EU Referendum is now registering with previously less connected minds.
Attacks on women
In a frank interview published on Saturday, June 4, 2016, our primary Leave campaigner, UKIP (UK Independence Party) leader Nigel Farage told The Telegraph:
“The nuclear bomb this time would be about Cologne,” he told the Telegraph. Women may be at a particular risk from the “cultural” differences between British society and migrants, after gangs of migrant men allegedly launched a mass sexual attack against hundreds of women in Germany last New Year’s Eve, he said.
“There are some very big cultural issues,” he said. Asked whether mass sex attacks on the scale of Cologne could happen in Britain, Mr Farage replied: “It depends if they get EU passports. It depends if we vote for Brexit or not. It is an issue.”
On Tuesday, June 7, Farage’s comments boomeranged. The Commons Home Affairs Committee, led by outspoken Labour MP Keith Vaz, met to discuss immigration. The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Right Revd Justin Welby, was invited to participate. Vaz asked the Archbishop if he agreed that Farage’s remarks were ‘racist’. Welby replied (see 15:36 entry):
I would agree with you.
I think that is an inexcusable pandering to people’s worries and prejudices.
That’s giving legitimisation to racism, which I’ve seen in parishes in which I’ve served and has led to attacks on people in those parishes. And we cannot legitimise that.
Fear is a pastoral issue, you deal with it by recognising it, by standing alongside and providing answers to it.
What that is is accentuating fear for political gain and that is absolutely inexcusable.
It would have been interesting to have had the two of them discussing England’s grooming gangs two years ago. Why make a bad situation potentially worse by Remaining? Has the Archbishop seen the figures from Sweden and Germany showing a jump in attacks on women over the past year?
That evening, a ‘debate’ took place on ITV. Farage had the first half hour to answer questions from the audience. Prime Minister David Cameron had the other. These are not debates in the classic sense of the word, because the PM refuses to participate in one.
A few women accused Farage of racism for suggesting that women could be at risk if we Remain.
I am still trying to process the cognitive disconnect of women criticising a man for warning them about possible danger to themselves or other women.
That danger is sexual assault and rape.
Farage saw that coming, however. He replied and moved on quickly:
I’m used to being demonised …
I’m not going to stand and attack the archbishop of Canterbury but he would have done better to read what I actually said … It is a tiddly issue in this campaign. I knew the Remainers would come to me and conflate what I said.
Voting deadline extended
For months now, we have had various announcements encouraging UK citizens to register to vote this year. In England, we had local or county elections in May. Some areas had council elections, while others voted for their Police Commissioner, depending on where one lived.
The EU Referendum has been in the media for months now. The voter registration deadline was 23:59 on Tuesday, June 7.
After the aforementioned ITV programme ended that evening at 10:00 p.m., approximately 50,000 Britons went online to register to vote.
The voter registration site crashed.
I have no sympathy for them. My parents told me time and time again never to wait until the last minute to do anything.
If I were PM, I would have said, ‘Tough.’ But the Electoral Commission and the Government agreed to extend the deadline by a further 48 hours for a two-hour crash. Conservative MP Matt Hancock tweeted early on June 8:
Delighted at huge voter registration levels. Due to technical problems with the website yesterday we’ll extend deadline to midnight tomorrow
That means 23:59 on Thursday, June 9.
Like me, my better half and millions of other voters, columnist and author Brendan O’Neill thought this was beyond the pale. He addressed the issue in The Spectator (emphases mine):
The more people we have engaged in democracy, the better. But a deadline is a deadline, no? If you turn up at a polling booth at 10pm, when voting time is over, then you can’t vote — we all know that. The swarm of youngish voters registering at the last minute for the EU referendum are the virtual equivalent of being late to the ballot box. Why are allowances being made? Why have another two days been added? It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that it’s because these kind of voters are useful for the establishment view that we must Remain.
The satirical news site Newsthump summed up the madness well with its headline: ‘Three months wasn’t long enough, claims man who couldn’t register to vote at 11.50pm.’ Look, I’m a little torn on this. When it comes to democracy, I’m positively Chartist: the more clout the people have, the better. But I can’t help feeling that today’s rewriting of the rules, and the law, to allow late voters to take part in this ‘great festival of democracy’ — as David Cameron referred to the EU referendum today — is because it is suspected that these late voters will be beneficial to Remain. Accidentally, this might give rise to a larger, more populous act of democracy on 23 June; but the motivation seems a pretty low one to me, being more about using generations to gerrymander the outcome than genuinely throwing open politics to the people. Is this about enfranchising more of the ‘right people’ in order to counter all those wrong’uns already registered?
I put the Newsthump quote in purple, even if it is satirical, because my better half and I were making similar quips.
Seriously, if people cannot get their act in gear by June 9, they deserve to sit this referendum out. And if they cannot manage to register to vote in time for future elections, then, frankly, voting does not mean that much to them.
All this is more pandering to the Special Snowflake crowd.
I would not be surprised to find thousands of Special Snowflakes queuing up outside polling stations at 9:50 p.m. expecting to cast a vote before 10:00 p.m. on June 23. It will be the story of the month: ‘Waaah! The government wouldn’t let me vote! They denied me a voice!’
Project Fear ripped apart
Journalist and broadcaster Andrew Neil has an incredible command of facts and figures on any number of news topics. He is also in the traditional mould and does not express his own opinion. I haven’t a clue where he personally stands on the EU Referendum, nor do I wish to know. It often appears as if he is supporting or opposing something when he is probably only doing a forensic examination of a politician’s position and trying to draw out the facts.
On June 8, Neil interviewed George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and big Remain supporter, for The Spectator. Wow, what a take down of Project Fear’s talking points. The transcript is available to read in full. I highly recommend it.
The exchange about Airbus — only one of the topics discussed — follows. Neil’s statements are in bold, Osborne’s in normal type:
We make the wings, where would Airbus go to buy the wings if not Britain? In or out the EU? Who else makes these wings?
By the way, the Chief Executive of Airbus has themselves said it would threaten their investment in the United Kingdom and the point about this, this isn’t an Airbus factory, this is a small manufacturing business in West Yorkshire supplying the wings. This is the reality of the single market.
This is another scare story. Airbus would come to Britain to buy its wings and its Rolls Royce engines whether we are in or out of the EU.
That is not what the Chief Executive says, the Chief Executive says that investment in the UK …
So where would they go?
They have got factories in Toulouse, they have got factories in Germany …
They don’t make wings in Germany.
The whole point about Airbus is that it is an integrated supply chain. We import things from Germany, we sell them to France and if there are tariffs, a tax on those exports, then why would the business happen in the UK? We’d be out of the single market, that’s the reality. Britain would be quitting – quitting the single market, quitting the prosperity, quitting the source of jobs. The people who pay the price are not you or me, Andrew, it’s that person working on the assembly line in Keighley.
Why would the business happen in the UK? Because that is where the wing assembly takes place. As Neil rightly notes, they are not made in Germany.
Osborne sounds the Fear alarm about quitting, quitting, quitting! Then he asks us to consider the assembly line person in Keighley.
Dollars to donuts — Pounds to pies? — the Keighley person probably intends to vote Leave. Where else can his wings be produced for the foreseeable future? Tariffs aren’t going to come in overnight, either.
All this takes time, possibly two years.
It seems to me that only younger voters will be persuaded by Project Fear.
Another televised ‘debate’ takes place tonight on ITV and will have ended by the time this post appears.
I hope it rains on June 23.
May the UK be guided wisely in the referendum vote.
Democratic Party voters should know about Hillary Clinton’s career.
It dumbfounds millions that this woman can even countenance running for the presidency. However, as one of the videos below explains, this has been the plan since 1986, when Bill was the governor of Arkansas.
It is interesting that Hillary considers Donald Trump her opponent in the general election. A few days ago, her campaign launched an ad against the billionaire attacking his ‘extreme makeover’ recently announced by convention manager Paul Manafort to the GOPe in Hollywood, Florida. Meanwhile, Trump is unsure whether he will even be the Republican nominee without Manafort and his team going on a PR offensive with delegates.
In other Hillary news, one of her supporters, David Brock, is heading a new Super PAC called Correct The Record (CTR), which will employ online trolls at the cost of $1m to ‘correct’ Bernie Sanders’s supporters in social media comments. Obama’s 2008 campaign team were the first to use this bullying technique. Oh, my. Who can forget how down and dirty they were?
Clinton voters point to Bill’s stellar presidency and how wonderful it was having a first lady who was a lawyer. Millions of other Americans did not share their enthusiasm, but having Bob Dole as the lacklustre Republican candidate in 1996 effectively swept Bill into office for a second term.
After they left office — and ‘they’ is no mistake — warm, fuzzy memories lived on in voters’ minds. So, when Hillary became a New York senator, her fans cheered. However, when she lost to Obama in 2008, they fractured. Some went to Obama, but the rest broke off to support either John McCain (and, later, Mitt Romney) or the Green Party. As they left the Democratic Party and became unaffiliated, they started researching their former heroine’s background. What they discovered wasn’t pretty.
A Bernie Sanders supporter has an interesting site called Won’t Vote Hillary which lists a number of reasons — greater and lesser — as to why not.
Unless I missed it, one hasn’t made the list: her smoothing over New York mayor Bill de Blasio’s racist joke at an event on April 10. The New York Daily News reported:
Their big moment became a big blunder when a tasteless joke — built off the stereotype that black people are chronically late — fell flat.
“Thanks for the endorsement. Took you long enough,” Clinton deadpanned.
“Sorry, Hillary. I was running on C.P. Time,” de Blasio replied, riffing on the phrase “colored people time,” meaning always late.
When the event’s compère, black actor Leslie Odom Jr, objected, Clinton said:
“’Cautious Politician Time.’ I’ve been there.”
The New York Post has the video clip with subtitles.
Can you imagine if Donald Trump had been involved in a tasteless skit like that? The media would still be talking about it.
There are serious questions Hillary’s current supporters need to ask themselves about her candidacy. Why have questionable ethics been at the forefront throughout her career? What is her end game?
The compelling videos below provide those questions — and answers — against Hillary.
White House questions
The ‘Anonymous’ video below is 25 minutes long. In a simple and straightforward manner, it covers the many Clinton scandals from Bill’s time in the White House to Hillary’s time as Obama’s Secretary of State through to the present day. Benghazi (‘What does it matter?’) starts at the 16:00 mark:
Hillary’s 2016 campaign and the Clinton Foundation are also discussed. This is well worth watching, because seeing all these scandals and unethical activity bundled together makes the case against Hillary all the more powerful.
Two other videos raise ethical and criminal issues concerning the Clintons from their Arkansas days through to the campaign for the presidency in 1992.
Both feature interviews with a one-time Clinton insider, Larry Nichols, who eventually disassociated himself from the couple.
The Clinton Chronicles is nearly 90 minutes long and explores the couple’s shaky ethics at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock and later when Bill was Arkansas governor:
It’s shocking and, as the notice says at the beginning of the film, is intended for mature audiences only.
The next film is 33 minutes long and was made last year. In it, Nichols discusses the past and present. He says that, 30 years ago, the Clintons devised their 1986 Plan, which ultimately involves Bill becoming the Secretary General of the United Nations. If he achieved that power and if Hillary were President of the United States at the same time, they would accomplish their goal of being the most powerful couple in the world:
Nichols cautions against voters being taken in by Hillary’s attempt to position herself as the underdog in her campaign. She is anything but. He also says that the New York Times — knowingly or unknowingly — serves as a PR machine for her.
Nichols, who is battling cancer, thinks there is a very real possibility that the 2016 election could be the last one that Americans recognise. He says that if Hillary Clinton wins, the nation may be irrevocably changed — and not for the better.
He said that Hillary has always been the power behind the throne. It was she who directed Bill’s career. He explained that Bill is much more laid back, but Hillary’s mind is focussed on power.
Nichols sees only one viable option for reversing America’s travails and restoring the Great Republic: Donald Trump in the White House.
Queen Elizabeth turns 90 on Thursday, April 21.
Millions of people, not just in the UK but around the world, will wish her a very happy birthday and many happy returns.
Britons are blessed to have her as their head of state. She is the glue that holds us together.
What has made her so successful and well respected?
On October 31, 2015, Channel 4 broadcast How to Be Queen: 63 Years and Counting which revealed the ‘secrets’ of the woman who is more popular than ever.
Below is a countdown of the Queen’s ten secrets to No. 1 — the most important. The subheads below come directly from the programme and the text summarises its content.
10/ Stay out of politics
The film The Queen, starring Helen Mirren, explores this principle in depth, especially in the depictions of her conversations with then-Prime Minister Tony Blair.
The Queen does not say anything about politics outside of her family circle, however, to politicians like Blair, she makes her thoughts known through a look or a brief remark that can cut one down to size in an instant.
By contrast, Prince Charles, whose opinions are well known on a variety of subjects, has little of his mother’s near-universal appeal. Perhaps it is time he took a leaf out of his mother’s notebook.
9/ Say nothing
Unlike Prince Charles and the late Princess Diana, the Queen does not give interviews.
Discretion is the better part of valour.
The only exception was in 1992 when the Queen noted in her Christmas Day message to the nation how awful that year had been, but used a Latin expression. She pronounced it an ‘Annus Horribilis‘. A number of Royal scandals broke that year. Windsor Castle also caught fire and was seriously damaged.
8/ Do your duty
The Queen was brought up to do her duty to the nation. She has never wavered from serving her people.
She is the opposite of two of her ancestors. When Queen Victoria’s son Edward VII ascended to the throne in January 1901, he continued his previous playboy lifestyle, even though he was married to Princess Alexandra.
A more shocking example, however, was that of Edward VIII who reigned for 326 days in 1936 before abdicating to lead his own life. After abdication, he took his ladyfriend, American divorcée Wallis Simpson, whom he later married, on a trip to Nazi Germany. Understandably, public opinion was so hostile to him that he spent most of the rest of his life in France. His successor (brother) George VI — Queen Elizabeth’s father — and his mother Queen Mary threatened to cut off his allowance if he returned to the UK uninvited. It is no wonder that Britons over the age of 50 consider him to be one of our worst ever monarchs.
7/ Don’t fluff your lines
The Queen has always delivered her addresses in a clear, professional way.
The Queen Mother no doubt had a role to play in that. Her husband George VI had a stammer which marred his radio addresses to the nation. His speech therapy was the subject of the film The King’s Speech. The film builds up to the King’s wartime broadcast of 1939, which had to be delivered flawlessly to have the necessary gravitas. A nation held its breath. Fortunately, all went well. The Queen’s father occasionally stammered after that, but much less so than previously. The British public considered him all the more human for it.
6/ Protect the brand
The Queen has always been conscious of the Royal Family’s status as a brand.
The Queen Mother instilled that in her from childhood, but it actually originated with George V during the Great War. He and Kaiser Wilhelm were first cousins. The British public were understandably unhappy during a time when anti-German sentiment was rampant. George V changed the family name from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor, after the castle.
In 1917, the King faced another difficulty, this time involving another cousin, Tsar Nicholas. He wanted very much to bring the tsar and his family in Russia to safety in the UK but decided against it. He feared that bringing the Russian royals to Britain would also foment a revolt in Britain, similar to the Russian Revolution.
Unfortunately, not all of the Queen’s children share her desire to protect the brand. Some royals appeared in the television programme It’s a Royal Knockout in 1987. Rather than boost their popularity, it did the opposite. Lesson learned.
Ironically, it is the Queen’s husband, Prince Philip, who makes the most gaffes, too numerous to mention here. Reading them is painful, but people who have met him and heard them find them rather amusing. Hmm.
5/ Don’t mix with the staff
When it comes to confiding in her staff, the Queen appears to abide by the maxim ‘Trust no one’. Her record is blemish-free.
This has not always been the case with previous monarchs. After Prince Albert’s death, Queen Victoria spent a lot of time with Mr Brown and then Abdul Karim. These associations with palace attendants scandalised the royal household and the courtiers.
More recently, Princess Diana confided in her butler Paul Burrell, which generated much publicity for him after her death and some difficulty for the Royal Family as a result.
4/ Earn your keep
The Queen was brought up to be a hard worker.
She understands that if one is going to live at the taxpayer’s expense, one had better earn one’s keep.
She, Prince Philip, Prince Charles and Princess Anne are the most dedicated of the Royals. Much of the charity work that Princess Anne does goes unnoticed by the media, and that is the way she likes it.
The Queen is careful to work hard and maintain a sober, low-profile private life.
Her responsible approach contrasts with Edward VII’s partying and cavorting more than a century ago. In our time, Prince Andrew rightly came under public criticism for his affair with Koo Stark in the 1980s and, in recent years, for his profligate air travel.
3/ Keep a stiff upper lip
The Queen always controls her emotions.
She was brought up to practise emotional reserve and displayed little physical affection for her children.
Her grandfather George V was also very reserved, even towards his wife, Queen Mary. With regard to his children, the Channel 4 programme said he was ‘cold’.
Does this mean there was no love? Hardly. In fact, many Britons would point to the old dictum ‘Still waters run deep’.
The Queen’s children have taken a different approach to parenting. Prince Charles, in particular, was careful to show his sons much affection in their childhood.
One of the few times one could see a scintilla of deep emotion in the Queen was when the royal yacht Britannia was decommissioned. Television news footage captured the monarch, her lips quivering ever so slightly as she blinked rapidly.
2/ Find true love
The Queen is deeply in love with Prince Philip and always has been.
The feeling is mutual. The couple have been married for nearly 70 years.
The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (Prince William and Kate Middleton) share that same sort of love.
The film The Young Victoria depicted Queen Victoria’s profound love for Prince Albert in the 19th century. Her diaries record that he used to help her dress in the morning and would put her stockings on for her.
1/ Listen to the people
The Queen has only had one crisis during her reign and she mitigated that by listening to the people.
Another thing that helped was not to react instantly but rather wait and see what way the wind is blowing.
This troublesome period was the week following the death of Princess Diana at the end of August 1997. The Queen and the Royal Family were on summer holiday at Balmoral in Scotland at the time. The Queen decided they should leave for London four days later.
Meanwhile, public emotions were at fever pitch. I know. I worked in London at the time and saw a few of my female colleagues rail against the Queen, calling for her death. A lot of women laying flowers at Kensington Palace felt the same way. Television reporters interviewed a number of them for news broadcasts every day. The newspapers were filled with anti-Royal sentiment.
Once in London, the Queen went on a walkabout in front of Kensington Palace to see the queues of people ready to lay flowers in front of the late princess’s residence. The Queen has a scene which actually took place that day, later shown on the news. Queen Elizabeth spoke to a little girl holding a posy. She said something to the girl about the flowers being for Princess Diana. The little girl said, ‘These are for you’, and handed her the bouquet. That moment reversed the Queen’s dismal week because it signalled the turning of the tide away from animosity.
Later that day, the Queen gave a televised address to the nation with regard to Princess Diana’s death. It was her first public statement on the subject. Admittedly, then-Prime Minister Tony Blair had been advising the Queen on the hostile mood in London, but she does not say anything she does not mean.
In the address, she displayed no sign of regret but she delivered two messages in a muted fashion: continuing authority — ‘As your Queen’ — and true sentiment — ‘something I say from the heart’.
On the day of the funeral, Queen Elizabeth did something unusual. When Princess Diana’s coffin passed by, she bowed her head as a mark of respect. She might have done that as a nod to public opinion.
The Queen carefully averted what could have easily turned into a crisis. The following week saw a calmer atmosphere in the capital and a gradual return to normality.
How to Be Queen: 63 Years and Counting concluded that if the next generation of Royals can master Queen Elizabeth’s ten secrets, our monarchy’s future is secure.
Many of us will pray, particularly today, that it is.