Hollywood’s Hypocrisy At Large

CAUTION, ADULT THEMES

HOTAIR notes the following HOLLYWOOD REPORTER piece:

Tuesday I wrote about actress Reese Witherspoon who told a “Women in Hollywood” event held in Beverly Hills that she had been sexually assaulted several times in her career, starting at age sixteen. Actress Jessica Chastain was at the same event and she offered her own take on the scandal, suggesting that Hollywood was full of complete and utter hypocrites. From the Hollywood Reporter:

“This is an industry rife with racism, sexism and homophobia,” she said, speaking to a room full of women including Laura Dern, Riley Keough and Aaron Sorkin. “It is so closely woven into the fabric of the business that we have become snowblind to the glaring injustices happening every day.”

She continued, “Oh we’re very quick to point the finger at others and address the issue with social action and fundraising. Yet there is a clear disconnect between how we practice what we preach in our industry.”…

[….]

…“We rally against the presidential candidate who slants a narrative of his sexual assault as mere locker room talk, but at the same time we ignore the stories and warnings of sexual predators in our offices.”

Where Do Ethics Come From? Atheist Convo (Bonus Material)

A chap in a Facebook group posted a few points in a post, of which I took this point up to respond to.

  • …My moral values have a simple root…if an action causes harm to another person, that act is immoral. If my inaction causes harm to another person, that inaction is immoral…

I first posted this as a response:

  • You would have to define and then implement this definition in a way that non-theistic governments would accept (like the many Eastern-block countries of our past for example). Some countries would view the disabled and farmers as harming society, and thus view the moral rout for said society as a whole to rid themselves of these persons/groups. They would say to NOT do so causes harm.

BUT, I didn’t have to really do any heavy lifting… this person did it for me. After reading through the discussion, the same person said this:

  • …Morality actually derives from human self interest in preserving the group they needed to be part of to survive in a hostile world. It had to be a feature in the lives of the earliest human ancestor species…

To which I replied:

Oh, this comment refutes you OP [original post]. “Morality actually derives from human self interest in preserving the group they needed to be part of to survive in a hostile world.”

So another group’s morality to survive in a hostile world (say, Pol-Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Caesars, etc) are just as “moral” then. Unless you are saying that there is a universal code you are tapping into to compare/contrast, and put on a higher plane? Not only that, but you would need to argue that another person would have to have that same ability…. At least if you are expecting your OP to carry any weight.

Otherwise you are merely here expressing your preference (emoting), like my children telling me they prefer chocolate ice cream over vanilla.

Not only that, but the majority group, whether in a country or in the world, would decide this ethos (what it “means” to survive). And thus, to speak out against this consensus (whether is science or in morality) would be immoral.


BONUS!


A couple examples of this ethos at work:

“Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism by intuition….  If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and men who claim to be bearers of an objective, immortal truth… then there is nothing more relativistic than fascistic attitudes and activity….  From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable.”

Mussolini, Diuturna (1924) pp. 374-77, quoted in A Refutation of Moral Relativism: Interviews with an Absolutist (Ignatius Press; 1999), by Peter Kreeft, p. 18.


“The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature.  Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if he does so it is merely because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind; for if such a law [natural selection] did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all….  If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.”

Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, translator/annotator, James Murphy (New York: Hurst and Blackett, 1942), pp. 161-162; found in: Norman L. Geisler & Peter Bocchino, Unshakeable Foundations: Contemporary Answers to Crucial Questions About the Christian Faith (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2001), 206.


“What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question.” — Richard Dawkins

Stated during an interview with Larry Taunton, “Richard Dawkins: The Atheist Evangelist,” by Faith Magazine, Issue Number 18, December 2007.


Atheist Daniel Dennett, for example, asserts that consciousness is an illusion. (One wonders if Dennett was conscious when he said that!) His claim is not only superstitious, it’s logically indefensible. In order to detect an illusion, you’d have to be able to see what’s real. Just like you need to wake up to know that a dream is only a dream, Daniel Dennett would need to wake up with some kind of superconsciousness to know that the ordinary consciousness the rest of us mortals have is just an illusion. In other words, he’d have to be someone like God in order to know that.

Dennett’s assertion that consciousness is an illusion is not the result of an unbiased evaluation of the evidence. Indeed, there is no such thing as “unbiased evaluation” in a materialist world because the laws of physics determine everything anyone thinks, including everything Dennett thinks. Dennett is just assuming the ideology of materialism is true and applying its implications to consciousness. In doing so, he makes the same mistake we’ve seen so many other atheists make. He is exempting himself from his own theory. Dennett says consciousness is an illusion, but he treats his own consciousness as not an illusion. He certainly doesn’t think the ideas in his book are an illusion. He acts like he’s really telling the truth about reality.

When atheists have to call common sense “an illusion” and make self-defeating assertions to defend atheism, then no one should call the atheistic worldview “reasonable.” Superstitious is much more accurate.

Frank Turek, Stealing from God (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2014), 46-47.


….Darwin thought that, had the circumstances for reproductive fitness been different, then the deliverances of conscience might have been radically different. “If . . . men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill  their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters, and no one would think of interfering” (Darwin, Descent, 82). As it happens, we weren’t “reared” after the manner of hive bees, and so we have widespread and strong beliefs about the sanctity of human life and its implications for how we should treat our siblings and our offspring.

But this strongly suggests that we would have had whatever beliefs were ultimately fitness producing given the circumstances of survival. Given the background belief of naturalism, there appears to be no plausible Darwinian reason for thinking that the fitness-producing predispositions that set the parameters for moral reflection have anything whatsoever to do with the truth of the resulting moral beliefs. One might be able to make a case for thinking that having true beliefs about, say, the predatory behaviors of tigers would, when combined with the understandable desire not to be eaten, be fitness producing. But the account would be far from straightforward in the case of moral beliefs.” And so the Darwinian explanation undercuts whatever reason the naturalist might have had for thinking that any of our moral beliefs is true. The result is moral skepticism.

If our pretheoretical moral convictions are largely the product of natural selection, as Darwin’s theory implies, then the moral theories we find plausible are an indirect result of that same evolutionary process. How, after all, do we come to settle upon a proposed moral theory and its principles as being true? What methodology is available to us?

Paul Copan and William Lane Craig, eds., Contending With Christianity’s Critics: Answering the New Atheists & Other Objections (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing, 2009), 70.

DAWKINS (44-Seconds):

PROVINE (43-Seconds):

BARKER (Almost 5-Minutes):

Wolpert (17+Minutes)


Rolling Rock Ethics


Paul Copan and Matthew Flannagan, Did God Really Command Genocide? Coming to Terms with the Justice of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2014), fn.2, 319 [added linked reference from Evolution News for context]:

Dawkins spells out the contradiction: “As an academic scientist, I am a passionate Darwinian, believing that natural selection is, if not the only driving force in evolution, certainly the only known force capable of producing the illusion of purpose which so strikes all who contemplate nature. But at the same time as I support Darwinism as a scientist, I am a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to politics and how we should conduct our human affairs.” A Devils Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2003), 10-11.

In another place, he admits to the logic of his own determinism (that people cannot be held responsible for their actions), but emotionally he cannot accept this. See the Dawkins interview by Logan Gage, Who Wrote Richard Dawkins’s New Book?,” Evolution News (website), October 28, 2006:

Manzari: Dr. Dawkins thank you for your comments. The thing I have appreciated most about your comments is your consistency in the things I’ve seen you’ve written. One of the areas that I wanted to ask you about, and the place where I think there is an inconsistency, and I hoped you would clarify, is that in what I’ve read you seem to take a position of a strong determinist who says that what we see around us is the product of physical laws playing themselves out; but on the other hand it would seem that you would do things like taking credit for writing this book and things like that. But it would seem, and this isn’t to be funny, that the consistent position would be that necessarily the authoring of this book, from the initial conditions of the big bang, it was set that this would be the product of what we see today. I would take it that that would be the consistent position but I wanted to know what you thought about that.

Dawkins: The philosophical question of determinism is a very difficult question. It’s not one I discuss in this book, indeed in any other book that I’ve ever talked about. Now an extreme determinist, as the questioner says, might say that everything we do, everything we think, everything that we write has been determined from the beginning of time in which case the very idea of taking credit for anything doesn’t seem to make any sense. Now I don’t actually know what I actually think about that, I haven’t taken up a position about that, it’s not part of my remit to talk about the philosophical issue of determinism. What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don’t feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do. None of us ever actually as a matter of fact says, “Oh well he couldn’t help doing it, he was determined by his molecules.” Maybe we should… I sometimes… Um… You probably remember many of you would have seen Fawlty Towers. The episode where Basil where his car won’t start and he gives it fair warning, counts up to three, and then gets out of the car and picks up a tree branch and thrashes it within an edge of his life. Maybe that’s what we all ought to… Maybe the way we laugh at Basil Fawlty, we ought to laugh in the same way at people who blame humans. I mean when we punish people for doing the most horrible murders, maybe the attitude we should take is “Oh they were just determined by their molecules.” It’s stupid to punish them. What we should do is say “This unit has a faulty motherboard which needs to be replaced.” I can’t bring myself to do that. I actually do respond in an emotional way and I blame people, I give people credit, or I might be more charitable and say this individual who has committed murders or child abuse of whatever it is was really abused in his own childhood. And so again I might take a…

Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views?

Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable. But it has nothing to do with my views on religion it is an entirely separate issue.

Manzari: Thank you.

2 Peter 1:5-8:

“For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and to godliness, mutual affection; and to mutual affection, love. For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

In other words, there is no absolute moral ethic, Dawkins wants to have a consensus of people agreeing what is “right” and “wrong” — he says as much in the audio above. Which means that rape and murder are only taboo… not really wrong.

Secondly, there can be no concept of “ought”

What about human actions? They are of no more value or significance than the actions of any other material thing. Consider rocks rolling down a hill and coming to rest at the bottom. We don’t say that some particular arrangement of the rocks is right and another is wrong. Rocks don’t have a duty to roll in a particular way and land in a particular place. Their movement is just the product of the laws of physics. We don’t say that rocks “ought” to land in a certain pattern and that if they don’t then something needs to be done about it. We don’t strive for a better arrangement or motion of the rocks. In just the same way, there is no standard by which human actions can be judged. We are just another form of matter in motion, like the rocks rolling down the hill.

We tend to think that somewhere “out there” there are standards of behaviour that men ought to follow. But according to Dawkins there is only the “natural, physical world”. Nothing but particles and forces. These things cannot give rise to standards that men have a duty to follow. In fact they cannot even account for the concept of “ought”. There exist only particles of matter obeying the laws of physics. There is no sense in which anything ought to be like this or ought to be like that. There just is whatever there is, and there just happens whatever happens in accordance with the laws of physics.

Men’s actions are therefore merely the result of the laws of physics that govern the behaviour of the particles that make up the chemicals in the cells and fluids of their bodies and thus control how they behave. It is meaningless to say that the result of those physical reactions ought to be this or ought to be that. It is whatever it is. It is meaningless to say that people ought to act in a certain way. It is meaningless to say (to take a contemporary example) that the United States and its allies ought not to have invaded Iraq. The decision to invade was just the outworking of the laws of physics in the bodies of the people who governed those nations. And there is no sense in which the results of that invasion can be judged as good or bad because there are no standards to judge anything by. There are only particles reacting together; no standards, no morals, nothing but matter in motion.

Dawkins finds it very hard to be consistent to this system of belief. He thinks and acts as if there were somewhere, somehow standards that people ought to follow. For example in The God Delusion, referring particularly to the Christian doctrine of atonement, he says that there are “teachings in the New Testament that no good person should support”.(6) And he claims that religion favours an in-group/out-group approach to morality that makes it “a significant force for evil in the world”.(7)

According to Dawkins, then, there are such things as good and evil. We all know what good and evil mean. We know that if no good person should support the doctrine of atonement then we ought not to support that doctrine. We know that if religion is a force for evil then we are better off without religion and that, indeed, we ought to oppose religion. The concepts of good and evil are innate in us. The problem for Dawkins is that good and evil make no sense in his worldview. “There is nothing beyond the natural, physical world.” There are no standards out there that we ought to follow. There is only matter in motion reacting according to the laws of physics. Man is not of a different character to any other material thing. Men’s actions are not of a different type or level to that of rocks rolling down a hill. Rocks are not subject to laws that require them to do good and not evil; nor are men. Every time you hear Dawkins talking about good and evil as if the words actually meant something, it should strike you loud and clear as if he had announced to the world, “I am contradicting myself”.

Please note that I am not saying that Richard Dawkins doesn’t believe in good and evil. On the contrary, my point is that he does believe in them but that his worldview renders such standards meaningless.

(Nothing Beyond the Natural Physical World)

We know Dawkins’ position is not science, so… what is it? Here begins the journey for the truly curious.

The Continuing Rape of Sweden

Dennis Prager reads from a 2014 article by the Gatestone Institute entitled, “Sweden: Rape Capital of the West,” by Ingrid Carlqvist and Lars Hedegaard (http://tinyurl.com/hkkg43r). Near the end of the audio Pragers asks who has skewed the numbers… that’s easy. The Swedish government and court system. (Some examples after the audio.) The other mention of the German politician misreporting her own rape can be found here:

This month, all major Swedish media reported on a brutal gang rape on board the Finnish Ferry Amorella, running between Stockholm and Åbo in Finland. Big headlines told the readers that the perpetrators were Swedish:

✦ “Several Swedish Men Suspected of Rape on the Finland Ferry” (Dagens Nyheter).
✦ “Six Swedish Men Raped Woman in Cabin” (Aftonbladet).
✦ “Six Swedes Arrested for Rape on Ferry” (Expressen).
✦ “Eight Swedes Suspected of Rape on Ferry” (TT – the Swedish News Agency).

On closer inspection, it turned out that seven of the eight suspects were Somalis and one was Iraqi. None of them had Swedish citizenship, so they were not even Swedish in that sense. According to witnesses, the group of men had been scouring the ferry looking for sex. The police released four of them (but they are still suspects) whereas four (all Somalis) remain in custody….

(Gatestone)

Swedish police will no longer be able to give descriptions of alleged criminals for fear of being seen as racist. According to an internal letter, police in capital city Stockholm are instructed to refrain from describing suspects’ race and nationality, according to news website Speisa. Local newspaper Svenska Dagbadet reported it had seen the letter, which it said outlined how officers should now notify the public of crimes.

[….]

The letter specifies that, for everyday crimes such as burglary, basic information such as ethnicity, nationality, skin colour and height should not be given.

(Independent || Breitbart)

…The Swedish government is no longer collecting sensitive statistics from nationality and crime in the governments deliberate intent of social engineering….

…Interestingly, between 1995-2006, the Swedish government tracked gang rapes, identifying a drastically increasing trend. Unbelievably, after discovering the problem, it then adopted an ostrich-like “head in the sand” approach, terminating any further studies on them . Apparently the government’s fear of being labeled Islamophobic proved greater than its concerns about warning Swedish women about the threat. While no studies on gang rape have been conducted since 2006, one can assume these numbers have continued to rise…

(The Muslim Problem || Daily Caller || Daily Caller)

Two Swedish police officers stepped forward in February discussing the scope of migrant crime in Sweden and attempts by the Swedish government and media to cover the crime wave up.

The first police officer, Peter Springare, is now reportedly under criminal investigation for “incitement to racial hatred.”…

(MRCTV Blog)

Other commentators have mentioned — specifically — Sweden as well. See my favorite atheist, Pat Condell:

(11-2015)

(12-2010)

There’s lots to experience in Europe. Germany has bratwurst and migrant camps, France has baguettes and terrorism, and Sweden has… mostly rape. Heaps of it, actually. In recent years, Sweden has been living up to its name as the rape capital of the west (see Liberal Utopia Sweden: Where Murder and Rape Are Easy To Do… and Sweden’s Open Islamic Immigration: Now Officially the Rape Capital of the West). The latest in Sweden’s goings-on? Two men live streamed their vile rapescapade to “Facebook Live” for all to see. #Memories

By the way, those two slimebags? They’re migrants. Surprise…

Police rushed to the scene after they were tipped off by someone watching the live stream in horror. An online witness said the victim had her clothes pulled off by armed men and was sexually assaulted before cops arrived and turned off the camera.

The two men, aged 18 and 20, who are both from Afghanistan, were arrested in the city. The [suspects], who cannot be legally identified under Swedish law, have not been charged.

In Sweden a person suspected of a serious crime can be detained without being charged with the approval of a court. But this is only if there is a risk they will flee the country.

The men deny the accusations.

You’d think it a simple case. Somebody recorded evidence of their own crime, so the job’s already been done for the police. Easy peasy. Still, one can’t help but see this ending sans justice. After all, Sweden is notoriously sucky at pressing charges when it comes to rapists… Or migrants. Pick one. The two are practically interchangeable by now (see SWEDEN: Muslim Refugees Gang Rape Two Girls. No Punishment…).

(Louder with Crowder)

A Utopian Vision of Illegals Hurts Women

Before I post this… I just want to say how “Utopian” this ad was in reflecting how Democrats typically view the act of crossing our border. Everyone was so nice and cordial in this piece of propaganda, but there is a darker side to this. A side that — go figure — reflects reality:

  • According to a stunning Fusion investigation, 80 percent of women and girls crossing into the U.S. by way of Mexico are raped during their journey. That’s up from a previous estimate of 60 percent, according to an Amnesty International report… (Some Trump Sized Myths)

What these visions of everything pleasant does is it harms the female migrant… because they continue to make the trip. By building a reliable border they will not make the travel that gets the majority of them brutalized. Second, many of these crimes against women are committed by those that are crossing the border as well. By building a reliable border we will be protecting our female citizens and residents of all ethnic backgrounds from these criminals.

By painting this rosy picture that the Left falls for, nothing can get done to stop the brutality against women due to our porous border.

California – Criminals Paradise

Where are the pink vagina hats? John and Ken ask that question as sex offenders and other violent criminals — who happened to plead their case down to unburden the financial cost of prosecuting violent drug and sex related crimes — are going to be released into the California population via Prop 57… coupled with the earlier Prop 47, which has led to law-enforcement death — will harm Californians (via my post election commentary):

(PROP 47 OUTCOME EXAMPLE) This is a horrible, horrible proposition for the voters of California to pass. In reality, the policies that catch and release person’s onto our streets led directly to the deaths of Placer County Deputy Michael David Davis Jr. and Sacramento County Deputy Danny Oliver – died at the hands of President Barack Obama and California Governor Jerry Brown. And a local Sheriff was shot and killed due to Gov. Brown’s first realignment bill 47, which this double downs on:

Lancaster Mayor R. Rex Parris was interviewed by Los Angeles radio station KNX-AM before a memorial service for his friend, Sgt. Steven Owen, who was shot while answering a burglary call on Oct. 5. Trenton Trevon Lovell, on parole for an armed robbery conviction, has been charged with murder.

[….]

Brown signed the realignment bill in 2011 in response to federal judges’ orders to thin overcrowded state prisons. It was aimed at reducing the number of lower-level offenders and parole violators who cycled through state prisons by instead having county officials handle their punishment.

Westrup noted Lovell’s armed robbery conviction in 2009 came before Brown signed the bill, which stipulated no inmates currently in state prison would be released early, and all felons convicted of serious or violent offenses would continue going to state prison.

Lovell has been on parole since 2014, when he was freed from prison after serving roughly five years of a six-year sentence for robbing a university community safety officer at gunpoint.

Prior to realignment, Lovell could have gone back to prison as a parole violator after pleading no contest to driving under the influence earlier this year. Instead he served 13 days in jail and was placed on three years’ probation….

(FREE REPUBLIC)

Remember the Marches Against Bill Clinton?

John and Ken in their humorous way look at the hypocrisy of the women at the Washington march who are worried about Trump’s vulgarity but were waaay more vulgar — either on stage or cheering for what was going on on stage. They note as well, sarcastically of course, all the marches against the rapist known as Bill Clinton. Who also stuck cigars in girls butts in the White House. Yeah, trump is the issue. John and Ken note as well the reversal of TPP which many union leaders just praised:

One last thing. Hollywood is a Leftist filled and populated industry. So it wouldn’t surprise me to find out their are pay differences among the sexes. As usual, very entertaining.

Peace Paper Project – Univ. of Wisconsin, Parkside (Liberal Idiocy)

Excerpts from Mark Belling Show, Jan. 9, 2016. SPOILER NOTICE: To avoid spoiling the fun for others, if you share this, please don’t summarize the exact nature of the projects. Let others try to guess at it, or at least fathom it, as Mark gives his detailed description of this almost unbelievable liberal idiocy.

Incredible Rumors Regarding An October Surprise |Bill Clinton|

Some comments by RPT on a recent Anonymous announcement about an alleged video of Bill Clinton having sex with a 13-year old…

…Mind you, we know Bill was on a plane owned by Jeffrey Epstein,

Former President Bill Clinton took a romantic jaunt in 2002 to convicted pedophile pal Jeffrey Epstein’s “orgy island” with “two young girls” from New York, according to a shocking new interview.

Virginia Roberts, who’s accused Epstein of turning her into a “sex slave” at age 17 and forcing her to sleep with his powerful friends, claimed Clinton stayed in one of the many villas on Epstein’s US Virgin Islands estate — where group sex was a “regular occurrence.”

“I remember asking Jeffrey, ‘What’s Bill Clinton doing here?’ kind of thing, and he laughed it off and said, ‘Well, he owes me a favor,’ ” Roberts told her lawyers in a 2011 interview obtained by RadarOnline.com. “He never told me what favors they were.”

Bubba was accompanied by two of Epstein’s regular girlfriends and “two young girls that I could identify,” Roberts claimed.

“I never really knew them well anyways. It was just two girls from New York,” she said.

And we know who Jeffrey Epstein is:

…The Palm Beach, Florida police and the FBI both investigated charges that Epstein consorted with underage girls used for prostitution.

Court documents show that police found a ‘clear indication that Epstein’s staff was frequently working to schedule multiple young girls between the ages of 12 and 16 years old literally every day, often two or three times per day.’

One victim said under oath that Epstein molested her at least 50 times, beginning when she was 13…

We know Bill Clinton ditched the Secret Service multiple times on these 26 flights on “Lolita Express”… and we know there is legal action against Bill [and Trump] for allegedly having sex with [essentially rapping] underage girls (13-years old being the youngest).

~ However, there may be video of Bill’s assault, according to Anonymous ~

(I stress MAY be)

A friend sent an “Anonymous” announcement to me — keep in mind that Anonymous is not a reliable source of information, they are very revolutionary in regards to promoting Marxists like Noam Chomsky and are anti-Semitic to boot (in other words, propaganda is in their nature)HOWEVER, with what we know about Bill… this is very plausible. I know all this sounds incredible.

Ravi Zacharias intimates well the depths of man’s depravity.

But Bill and Trump to me are Pagans [secular] acting out their Pagan [secular] natures, and we also know from history that much worse is possible.

I wrote briefly on this on August 10th… speaking to the Bill Clinton connection to Epstein — I also note:

  • To be fair, it looks like “The Donald” was also involved in this sorted affair of closeness to Epstein and his “sex slave island.” Which does not surprise me one bit. Ann Coulter was right to say that this story is bigger than Bill Clinton!

Trump said this years ago about Epstein:

  • “I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,” Trump told New York Magazine back in 2002. “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”

Wow.

The next few weeks should flesh out the truth or falsity of this matter. If I had my own way, I would want both Presidential choices (Hillary and Donald) to step aside and let the running mates run as top of the ticket. But I am not in charge of much… my wife even controls my own life ;)

At any rate, as culture and the West becomes more secular… what we are seeing and hearing will become more of the norm.

HERE IS A REPORT of the supposed video:

Nurse That Found One of Bill Clinton’s Victims Speaks Out

From BREITBART via YOUNG CONSERVATIVES:

In her first extensive interview in over a decade, the nurse who found Juanita Broaddrick in her hotel room immediately after Bill Clinton allegedly raped Broaddrick recounted what she says she witnessed in that room 38 years ago.

“She was crying,” recalled Norma Rogers, a nurse who worked for Broaddrick, who at the time was a nursing home administrator volunteering for then-Arkansas Attorney General Bill Clinton’s 1978 gubernatorial bid.

“And the thing I think I remember most is that her mouth was all swollen up. It was cut. … Her pantyhose were all ripped,” Rogers stated in dramatic, lengthy new testimony.

In our radio interview, Rogers recounted what she says she saw upon entering the room.

I went back to the room and I can’t remember if it was because she didn’t come down to the meeting because I expected her to have a short meeting and then come to the meeting. And so I went back up to the room and when I went back into the room and she was just very, very upset. She was crying.

And the thing I think I remember most is that her mouth was all swollen up. It was cut. And she just told me. She started then telling me the story of how he had just basically overtaken her and bit her lip in order to keep her quiet and to keep her from trying to leave or get away from him. And then she proceeded to tell me that he had pushed her onto the bed, and had raped her.

Her pantyhose were all ripped. And she was just in a terrible state. Crying and just, she began telling me, you know, what had happened.

But in the meantime she was starting to get her things together and she said we are leaving now. And you know we just started getting our stuff together and I drove her home.

Asked whether Broaddrick’s lip was bleeding, Rogers replied, “There were obviously open spots where he had bitten her. It was open but not openly bleeding. You know it was just open spots on her lip.”