Friday, May 27, 2016

Another Side To Winston Churchill?!


*******
Why Did Churchill Have Josslyn Hay Murdered?
January 11, 2016
The "Ugly Secret" of World War Two
By Henry Makow Ph.D.
(Revised from Dec. 7, 2007)
The Man Who Knew Too Much
What "ugly secret" did this British aristocrat and colonial official know that caused the British secret service to murder him in 1941?
My hunch is he was illuminati and knew that Winston Churchill and Adolf Hitler were both Illuminati and World War Two was a charade.
SOE "Operation Highland Clearance" involved more than 100 people. In the early stages of the world war, why was it so important for the Churchill government to silence this man?
Josslyn Victor Hay, 22nd Earl of Erroll, (1901-1941) a senior British colonial (Kenyan) official, knew the real cause of World War Two and had the stature to be heard.
Winston Churchill ordered the Secret Service (Special Operations Executive) to kill him.  What "ugly secret" would make the British government go to so much trouble to murder a prominent British politician?
Significantly the conspirators chose the codename "Operation Highland Clearance" for Erroll's murder. The brutal eviction of Scottish tenants from their farms in the early 1800's is a fitting symbol for the dispossession of the human race by the New World Order, which the Second World War did so much to advance.
The popular version of the Nairobi, Kenya murder was depicted in the 1987 movie "White Mischief" starring Charles Dance as Lord Erroll and Greta Scacchi as Diana Broughton.
Erroll's body was found in the early morning Jan. 24, 1941 kneeling in the front passenger foot well of his car with a bullet wound behind the ear, murdered execution style. Erroll, 40, a widower, was having an affair with a married woman Diana Broughton and had dropped her at her nearby home after midnight.
Suspicion was cast on Diana's much older husband Sir Henry Broughton, who was tried but acquitted. The movie pins the blame on him and the decadence of the white settlement in general.
The murder would have remained unsolved but for a retired SOE insider who, informed of a terminal disease, gave the information to a colleague Tony Trafford who composed a 100-page memo. Trafford, since deceased, gave it to an author, coincidentally named Errol Trzebinski who was writing "The Life and Death of Lord Erroll: The Truth Behind the Happy Valley Murder" (2000). 
At 6 foot 2" with chiselled Nordic looks, Lord Erroll was a natural leader, heir to an ancient Scottish lineage, organized and intelligent, an excellent speaker with a photographic memory. A member of the Kenyan colonial legislature, he held the post of Military Secretary with important military and intelligence duties.
errol.jpg SOE "Operation Highland Clearance" involved more than 100 people. In the early stages of the world war, why was it so important for the Churchill government to silence this man?
THE GREAT RUSE
Essentially, Hitler was not interested in a world war. His design was to conquer the USSR in a "Nordic" alliance with England. Erroll belonged to the "Cliveden Set" a powerful section of the British elite that supported this alliance.
Churchill's backers, the Illuminati Jewish-owned Bank of England set Hitler up as a means to control Stalin, have a world war and destroy Germany once and for all. War enables them to concentrate power and wealth in their hands and slaughter national elites who might interfere with world government.
The bankers used the Cliveden types to fool Hitler into thinking England approved of his plans. Like proud proteges, the Nazis entertained the English and gave them information on their military build-up. Hitler probably saw himself as a British ally or even agent. The Nazis were set up. This is the real meaning of the "Policy of Appeasement."
The Cliveden Set divided into two groups, those who were aware of the trap, and those who were not. Erroll was one of latter who sincerely believed Hitler represented a bulwark to Communism. When the war broke out, Erroll did his patriotic duty. But he knew too much. He was aware of how Hitler and Churchill belonged to the same homosexual occult secret society and he may have spoken of it within range of MI-5 assets. 
DEEP BACKGROUND
Errol's father, Victor Hay, was the British High Commissioner in the Rhineland. At age 20, Errol was the private secretary to the British Ambassador in Berlin. He spoke German and French fluently, knew the Prince of Wales, and was part of the European elite.
(Left: Hay with first wife) His diplomatic career hit the rocks in 1924 when he married a twice-divorced woman. Idina Sackville, eight years his senior. He followed her to Kenya where she had a large estate won in a divorce settlement. They had a daughter.
Erroll visited England, joined Oswald Mosley's Fascist party but later quit. He was a close friend with the Duke of Hamilton who was a linch pin in the Bank of England's "Hitler Project."
In May 1941, three months after Errol's death, Rudolf Hess, the Deputy Fuhrer, flew to Scotland to present Hamilton with a generous peace proposal. Both men were homosexuals. Hess was Hitler's homosexual lover in the Landsberg Prison and helped him compose "Mein Kampf." 
It is probable that Hitler was created by a largely homosexual occult secret society that spanned both British and Nazi elites. This was called the Thule Society in Germany and the Order of the Golden Dawn in England. Aleister Crowley's Ordo Templi Orientis was the common link. (See the book  by Kevin Abrams & Scott Lively, "The Pink Swastika", online Chapter "Homo-Occultism")
Winston Churchill, a Druid, was part of this occult scene. (He was also a friend of Edward VIII, considered a Nazi sympathizer.) But the Nazis branch was not aware of the hidden English agenda. Erroll was silenced because he opposed Communism and knew Hitler had been set up. He could discredit Churchill and the British war effort.
(See Churchill's homosexual connection. )
THE MURDER
On Sept 7, 1940, a highly placed group including Douglas Douglas-Hamilton, the Fourteenth Duke of Hamilton, met in Scotland and decided to terminate Jocelyn Hay, Lord Erroll. The matter was to be handled by SOE Cairo station.
Jock and Diana Broughton, left, were MI-5 assets who entered Kenya in Nov. 1940 to discover Erroll's intentions and to involve him in a love triangle that would obscure the real purpose of his murder. In December, another agent-couple entered Kenya and on the night of the murder, pretended to have engine trouble. They requested a ride back to town for the female who shot Errol. There were radio-controlled teams following Erroll.
Jock Broughton was tried but found innocent. He "committed suicide" shortly after returning to England. Diana who died in 1987, went on to marry one of the richest men in Kenya.
Trezebinski's retired SOE contacts try to put a slightly different spin on events suggesting Erroll was murdered because "ex-appeasers " in the establishment including "the Duke of Hamilton, senior figures in Chamberlain's last cabinet, close friends of Edward VIII and Edward himself" would be embarrassed by what Erroll knew. (p.280)
One insider told her Rudolf Hess, Lord Moyne and Erroll shared knowledge of some "ugly" secret. Jewish terrorists ostensibly murdered Lord Moyne in 1944 for this reason. Other Cliveden members who died mysterious and premature deaths were Lord Lothian (1940), Lord Rothermere (1940), Sir Harry Oakes (1943) and the former Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain who died of "cancer" in Nov. 1940 six months after leaving office. Hamilton conveniently died in action in 1944. The two SOE agents also conveniently died in action.
According to this insider, the "ugly secret" is "not that Churchill had discovered the conspiracy [to make peace with Germany] and had been enraged but that he had been part of it."  My hunch is that Churchill, Hitler, Stalin and FDR were part of the same kabalistic secret society (the Illuminati.)  Lord Erroll opposed Communism but knew Hitler had been set up to fail.  This is why Lord Erroll had to be silenced.
CONCLUSION
The ultimate "ugly secret" is that the USSR was a creation of British Freemasonry, financed by the Bank of England. They may have lost control of Stalin and created Hitler to menace him. But Stalin would have had to do something terrible for the British to have joined Hitler. Russian Communism was one half of their NWO Hegelian dialectic. We see it today in the form of arbitrary state power, repression and indoctrination. Nazism was also a dry-run for the New World Order but it was their Plan "B"
As Erroll's fate makes clear, intelligence agencies work for the Masonic central bankers, not for the countries they pretend to serve. They are used to eliminate any genuine threat to the banker's credit monopoly and world dictatorship agenda.
The real point is that history is a hoax, contrived by cabalist central bankers, to advance world tyranny.  They empower satanists, perverts and misfits to create war and mayhem. For example, chaos relieved Winston Churchill's chronic depression. He confessed at the onset of WWI: "Everything is tending to catastrophe and collapse. I am interested, geared up, and happy. Is it not horrible to be built like this?"
These monsters are our leaders.  Subverted by a Luciferian cult, the moral bankruptcy of Western society is masked by material prosperity but this cannot last. Thus, they are erecting a police state while the intelligentsia and masses can still be bought with their own credit. 
Also See:
The White Mischief Murderess: 70-year-long mystery over murder in debauched Happy Valley set finally solved
By Tasha Colin
Updated: 23 September 2010
During her heyday, Alice de Janze kept a pet lion in her house and was seldom seen without a small monkey on her shoulder.
Rich and exquisitely beautiful, she captivated men from London to Nairobi with her dreamy grey eyes, bee-stung lips and fashionably boyish figure.
Nor was the exotic American heiress averse to their attentions. In an age when the average Englishwoman guarded her reputation like a priceless jewel, Alice was famed for being a party-girl who drank eye-wateringly strong Absinthe cocktails and could lure any man she wanted to her bed.
And there was plenty of opportunity for sex in Kenya's Happy Valley, the decadent Shangri-La created by upper-class white colonials between the wars.
White Mischief Murderess: Alice de Janze is now thought to have murdered Lord Erroll in Kenya
As a key member of the Happy Valley set, she thrilled to the continual round of louche parties, fuelled by alcohol and sexual intrigue  -  where one daring after-dinner game involved male guests sticking their appendages through holes in a sheet so the women could vote on their favourite.
For all that, Alice would have been long forgotten but for one detail: her passion for Josslyn Hay, the Earl of Erroll.
Not because their affair, which outlasted two marriages on both sides, caused any great scandal  -  but because he was cut down in his prime at the age of 39.
The shockwaves caused by the violent death of this good-looking aristocrat have continued to reverberate to this day.
At least half-a-dozen books have been published about his murder at a deserted crossroads in the dead of night, and a movie about it  -  White Mischief  -  even featured Alice as a minor character, played by the actress Sarah Miles.
No one, however, has yet come close to solving the mystery of who killed Lord Erroll. Until now.
The breakthrough, 70 years after the event, comes not from a professional historian or forensic investigator but a retired international businessman who has doggedly pursued fresh leads for the past 12 years.
Paul Spicer started his quest with a considerable advantage: not only had he lived for two extended periods in Kenya himself but his mother, Margaret, had been a good friend of Alice since meeting her in 1925 when they both arrived in Kenya.
Colourful characters: From left, Raymond de Trafford, Frederic de Janze, Alice de Janze and Lord Delamere
Patiently, he returned again and again to see the very few remaining survivors of the Happy Valley era, collecting ever more compelling evidence.
To his astonishment, it all seemed to point to just one culprit: the fun-loving Alice de Janze. Far from being little more than a footnote in history, it appeared that she had literally got away with one of the most celebrated murders of the 20th century.
So why would Alice have wanted to kill her lover? And how can Spicer be so sure that she pulled the trigger? To answer these questions fully, we must go back in time to her first marriage  -  to a French count.
Alice Silverthorne  -  as she was then  -  was the daughter of a millionaire from Buffalo, New York, and had been packed off to Paris at 21 when her relatives grew alarmed at her growing closeness to a young mobster.
There, she soon met and married Frederic de Janze, a mild-mannered French count who remained steadfast and loyal to her until the end of his life.
For Alice, though, the marriage was a disappointment. The unfortunate de Janze lacked the powerful masculinity and sexual chemistry that she was later to find with other lovers, and she was soon casting her dreamy gaze elsewhere.
It had been Count Frederic's idea to whisk his young wife off to the balmy valleys of Kenya  -  then called British East Africa  -  after the birth of two daughters in quick succession left her feeling listless and trapped.
And their host there was none other than Lord Erroll and his new wife, Idina, whom they had met briefly in Paris.
In 1925, Erroll was already a pivotal figure in the new community of British aristocrats and rich socialites, who left their black servants to tend to their farms and their kitchens while they hunted, partied and played polo.
Blond, clever and an ace card and polo player himself, the Earl had begun devoting a good deal of his energy to seducing women, especially those who were married.
Everything conspired to intoxicate the previously listless Alice: her sexy host, the hot sun, the high altitude and the carefree bohemianism of her hostess.
Far from the restrictions of British society, Idina and Erroll had cast old repressions aside with abandon, sometimes throwing parties that would last for days at a time.
It was even rumoured that every person had to sleep with someone other than the one they'd arrived with before the party could finish.
For now, though, Idina was pregnant and she preferred to titillate her houseguests by inviting them to watch her take her daily bath or by asking them to dress in pyjamas and dressing-gowns for dinner.
As for Alice, she quickly swapped her Paris designer wardrobe for the loose shirts and corduroy trousers favoured by her hostess. And she was soon having secret sexual rendezvous with her host.
Charles Dance as Lord Erroll and Greta Scacchi as Lady Diana Broughton in the 1987 film 'White Mischief'
By all accounts, Lord Erroll was an extremely accomplished lover, so he may well have been responsible for her sexual awakening. Certainly, Alice could not hide her new-found joy.
Her forgiving husband decided to wait patiently till she came to her senses. Idina, meanwhile, positively encouraged the affair as she grew ever larger: better that Erroll bedded someone she knew and liked than an outsider, she reasoned.
Not surprisingly, Alice decided that she wanted to live in Kenya, and persuaded her husband to buy a nearby property, Wanjohi Farm. The affair with Erroll continued sporadically for nearly 20 years. Not that Alice let it cramp her style.
A year after her arrival, she fell wildly in love with the 26-year-old youngest son of a British baronet, who had decided to try his hand at big-game hunting and farming in East Africa.
The darkly handsome and athletic Raymund de Trafford was also a gambler and a cad, who had already left a trail of broken hearts. And once again, he behaved true to form.
After first promising Alice he would marry her if she left Frederic, he abruptly changed his mind a year later while they were both on a visit to Paris. Deaf to her anguish, he told her he'd be leaving on the evening train.
That afternoon, Alice went into a gun shop and calmly bought a 3.8 pearl-handled Colt revolver and shot him in the chest, before turning the gun on herself.
The scandal made headlines all over the globe as the lovers hovered for weeks between life and death.
But they both pulled through; and at the ensuing trial, Alice received a six-month suspended sentence for what was viewed by the French as a magnificent crime of passion.
The sweet-faced Alice de Janze had definitely proved that she was capable of shooting a lover.
Afterwards, she returned to Africa, where Lord Erroll had by now divorced his wife and acquired another  -  apparently more for her money than her beauty.
Alice resumed her affair with the dashing Earl, though she also pined for Raymund, pursuing him to England for regular visits.
In the end, her long- suffering husband agreed to a divorce and Raymund finally agreed to marry her. It was a pyrrhic victory, however.
Marriage, it seemed, brought out the worst in her new husband, who within weeks was gambling away her money and rowing with her in the street.
They quickly agreed to part, and she returned alone to Kenya to resume where she'd left off with Lord Erroll.
Perhaps Erroll and Alice would have continued their liaison for years had it not been for the sudden arrival in November 1940 of a new couple in their midst: Sir Jock Delves Broughton and his bride Diana.
(Right: Greta Scacchi in a scene from 'White Mischief')
Almost immediately, 27-year- old Lady Diana  -  who was 30 years younger than her husband  -  became the new reigning beauty of the Happy Valley. Everything about her conspired to irritate Alice.
Not only was the newcomer much younger than herself, but she was Alice's exact opposite in looks: blonde, blue-eyed and so voluptuous that there was much comment on her blatant sex appeal.
Nor did it contribute to Alice's peace of mind to discover that one of her potential beaux, a dashing Coldstream Guards officer called Dickie Pembroke, was completely smitten  -  though Diana evidently turned him down because he didn't have a title.
Lord Erroll, though, was another matter.
By Christmas, he and Diana were regularly being seen dancing together at the Muthaiga Club in Nairobi, in a manner that some members considered indecent. And very soon it became obvious they were having a raging affair.
Within weeks, Diana's husband, Sir Jock  -  a friend of Erroll's  -  gracefully bowed to the inevitable and agreed to a divorce. But Alice, who had never known her lover to be so enthralled, was consumed with jealousy.
At 40, she suddenly became aware that the powers of seduction that she had always taken for granted were finally on the wane.
Perhaps to prove to herself that she could still attract a man, she took Diana's leavings and threw herself into an affair with the snubbed Dickie Pembroke.
She was in bed on the night of January 23, 1941, when he rolled in from a night out at the Muthaiga club and reported to her that Sir Jock had just proposed a toast to the future of his wife and her lover.
He had then told Erroll to make sure his soon-to-be ex-wife was back at the marital home by 3am.
So Alice planned her revenge. She knew when Lord Erroll was likely to be driving his Buick back alone to his own house.
No one can be exactly certain about what happened next, but we do know that he was persuaded to stop at a crossroads leading to his home.
Two shots from a .32 calibre revolver were then fired at close-range. His body was discovered by two African dairy workers not long afterwards, and they alerted the police.
Even after everyone had trampled over the scene of the crime, it was still evident that there was a second set of tyre tracks that were peculiarly thick. No one appeared to make the connection with Alice's DeSoto car, which had enormously wide tyres.
When news broke of the murder, Diana was inconsolable  -  but Alice, far from breaking down, immediately demanded to see the body at the mortuary.
An ex-lover who accompanied her there remembered her passionately kissing Erroll's cold lips and declaring: 'Now you are mine for ever.'
The most obvious suspect, of course, was the cuckolded husband, Sir Jock Delves Broughton.
He was duly charged with murder  -  even though many could have attested that he was drunk on the night, had a broken wrist and suffered from night blindness.
Alice, who had never previously shown any desire to befriend him, became one of his most regular visitors in jail as he awaited trial. He could not possibly be found guilty, she assured him, because there was no evidence.
To her friends, however, she talked incessantly about how worried she was that the trial might go against him. Was she dreading that she might have to confess in order to save him from the death penalty?
When the trial finally got under way, Alice attended court every day, always arriving early to secure a good seat and taking copious notes.
Among those who gave evidence was her lover Pembroke, who had been brought in by the Crown to rule her out as a possible suspect, and duly testified that he'd been in bed with her at the time of the murder.
The prosecutor, meanwhile, had been sent two anonymous letters suggesting that the killer might be a discarded mistress, for whom Erroll would naturally have stopped his car. He chose to ignore them.
In the end, Sir Jock was found not guilty. At least two authors who have written about the case since believe he did commit the murder, and one writer is even convinced that Sir Jock's wife Diana was responsible.
In virtually every depiction of the Erroll murder to date, Alice is described, suspected and cleared of suspicion.
Eight months after Erroll's death, Alice told several friends over lunch that the first of her two 'deep wishes' had already come true, and now she wondered if the second would occur. She then drove straight to the graveyard where her lover was buried.
Twelve days later, on the morning of September 27, 1941, she went into her garden to collect several armfuls of flowers. Returning to her bedroom, she placed some in vases and scattered the rest over her outsized bed.
Then she wrote out tags with the names of close friends and attached each to a piece of furniture  -  including two large African drums that served as night-tables.
Finally, after putting on her best nightgown, she swallowed a huge dose of Nembutal, lay down on the bed and shot herself through the heart.
Alerted by her hysterical servants, her doctor, William Boyle, arrived to find five letters at the scene: one to Pembroke, two to her daughters, one a suicide note and one to the police.
No one knows where the one addressed to the police is now. The contents were never officially released, possibly because the coroner was so shocked at their implication that he handed the letter to the attorney general.
If so, the attorney general  -  who also happened to be the prosecutor at Sir Jock's trial  -  may well have decided not to re-open that particular can of worms.
But Alice's friend Dr Boyle had already read the letter before handing it to the police, and he had also shown it to his wife. It contained nothing less than her full confession to Lord Erroll's murder.
Paul Spicer had known about the existence of this letter, but was unaware of its explosive contents until he tracked down Dr Boyle's daughter, Alice Fleet.
Only after meeting him several times did she decide finally to reveal what her mother had told her about the letter.
It made perfect sense. After all, Alice had the motive. She had the knowledge of Erroll's movements. She had the nerve, having already tried to shoot a previous lover dead. She had always been a good shot and seldom left home without her revolver.
Her route to the crossroads would have been swift, and Erroll would have immediately recognised her slim figure in his headlights.
But what of her alibi that she was with her lover Pembroke at the time? Spicer believes that it's certainly possible that Pembroke slept through her departure and return on the night of the murder.
And even if he'd heard her coming back, he loved her enough by then to want to protect her.
Other small pieces of evidence also slotted neatly into place.
Julian Lezard, another of Alice's lovers, had always suspected her, and had said as much to friends in later years.
Mary Leslie-Melville, a neighbour of Alice's, had told her daughter-in-law that a few years after the murder, a revolver of the exact calibre used to shoot Erroll had been found under some rocks on the border between their properties.
What did you do, asked her daughter-in-law. 'Nothing,' said Mary. 'Erroll was dead. Alice was dead. What good would it have done to tell anyone?'
Spicer was plagued with one unanswered question: why didn't Alice kill her hated rival instead of her lover? He discovered the answer after finding Alice's old housekeeper, Noel Case.
Alice, recalled Case, had been obsessed with the occult and firmly believed she would meet all her loved ones on 'the other side'.
Suddenly, the meaning of Alice's words to her friends about two 'deep wishes' was illuminated. Her first deep wish had clearly been to kill Erroll. Her second was to kill herself so she could join him on the other side.
Now that 70 years have passed, the evidence against Alice is likely to remain circumstantial. But it does appear overwhelmingly probable that she did indeed murder the man she loved, goaded beyond endurance by his love for her rival.
Certainly, any remake of the film White Mischief could no longer get away with featuring Alice de Janze as a bit-part player.
Adapted from The Temptress: The Scandalous Life Of Alice, Countess De Janze by Paul Spicer, to be published by Simon & Schuster on April 29 at £14.99. To order a copy (p&p free), call 0845 155 0720.
*******
Was Winston Churchill secretly GAY?
It's a suggestion many will consider an outrageous - and utterly implausible - slur on Britain's great hero. But in an intriguing new book a respected historian asks... Was Winston Churchill secretly GAY?
Churchill acquired a reputation as a misogynist who could be notoriously rude to women
He seemed relaxed in company of homosexuals and regarded their (illegal) activities as a subject for good-natured ribaldry
He married Clementine Hozier which is usually regarded as a love-match but reality seems cold-blooded
He became very close to Minister of Information Brendan Bracken and private secretary Edward Marsh
By Michael Bloch For The Daily Mail
Published: 22 May 2015  | Updated: 26 May 2015
While still in his 20s, Winston Churchill acquired a reputation, which he would never lose, as a misogynist who could be notoriously rude to the women he sat next to at dinner parties.
Even his first meeting with the woman who later became his wife was inauspicious. Characteristically, the young politician began by lecturing Clementine Hozier at the dinner table about himself, finally ignoring her altogether.
Did Churchill subsequently fall head-over heels? His marriage to Clemmie in his mid-30s is usually regarded as a love-match (he concludes the memoirs of his early life with the bald statement that they ‘lived happily ever afterwards’). In reality, it seems to have been rather cold-blooded.
By the time he proposed in the romantic surroundings of Blenheim Palace, his birthplace and ancestral home, he had become a privy counsellor and Cabinet minister.
Intensely ambitious, he needed a wife for career reasons. With his strong dynastic sense, he also wanted children. Clemmie, with her virginal beauty and upright character, seemed the best of the candidates on offer. According to some who knew him well, his approach to marriage was certainly less than romantic.
Violet Asquith, the sharp-witted daughter of the Liberal Prime Minister, would have liked to marry Churchill but she consoled herself with the reflection: ‘his wife could never be more to him than an ornamental sideboard.’ Similarly, Jock Colville, his future private secretary, wrote that Churchill looked to his wife to provide him with ‘a well-run household, ambrosial food, children and a loyal heart’.
Clemmie certainly supplied all this, but he seems to have taken her contribution for granted. He thought nothing, for instance, of buying Chartwell, his country house in Kent, without even consulting her, or of abandoning her for months on end, often to stay with one of the many friends she disapproved of.
Between the wars, Clemmie became increasingly exasperated by his emotional unresponsiveness and constant demands, and on several occasions considered leaving him. She bore him five children, but Churchill seems to have had a low sex-drive and to have been uninterested in lovemaking except for procreative purposes. On the other hand, he had strong romantic feelings which were generally focused on his own sex.
Was it possible that the man who led his country to victory in World War II had a gay side? I asked myself this question, not just about Churchill but also various other 20th century politicians, after completing a biography of former Liberal leader Jeremy Thorpe. Although Thorpe was gallant with ‘the ladies’, married twice, and fathered a son, he led a secret homosexual life.
Indeed, like all politicians of similar persuasion, he had to keep his gay life secret — for all homosexual activity was illegal until 1967, and continued to attract intense social disapproval for long after that.
A man's man: During his career, Churchill was close to his Minister of Information Brendan Bracken (pictured together around 1941)
I noticed that the skills which Thorpe developed as a clandestine homosexual (or ‘closet queen’, to use an expression which came in during the Sixties) were not dissimilar to those which made him such an effective politician; quick wits, acting ability, a talent for intrigue and subterfuge, a capacity for taking calculated risks.
In Thorpe’s case, there also seemed to be a psychological link between the thrill of ‘feasting with panthers’ (as Oscar Wilde described the dangerous allure of casual homosexual encounters) and the general excitement of politics. I wondered whether the same might be true of other homosexual or bisexual politicians, of which I suspected there might be more than generally supposed, because the fact of their being actors, risk-takers and intriguers would tend to draw them towards the profession.
Identifying my subjects was not easy; closet queens are by nature secretive. They do not, as a rule, keep diaries or write letters casting light on their sexuality, nor, if they can help it, do they allow gossip to circulate regarding their tastes.
In addition, they often destroy their papers or arrange for them to be destroyed after their deaths. If their biographies are written, their families usually ensure that the homosexual or bisexual aspect of their lives is barely mentioned.
So, is it fair to pose questions about the sexuality of long-dead politicians who can no longer answer back? In the not so distant past, to describe anyone, let alone a public figure, as a homosexual was a slur, but now that in most Western societies homosexuality is generally accepted, it is surely time to try to understand the strain of ‘closet-queenery’ which runs through recent political history.
This certainly implies no disrespect to these often brave and gifted men, and to the tribulations and disappointments they endured.
The British Prime Minister was also close with his private secretary Edward Marsh (pictured together in 1907)
Were these men hypocrites? Possibly, but hypocrisy is not one of the seven deadly sins; it can spare feelings, avert trouble and act as a useful social lubricant. It is, after all, said to be a very British quality.
As a schoolboy, Churchill may have had some encounter with the phenomenon at Harrow, which had one of the more homosexual reputations among the major public schools.
And then there was a curious episode at the outset of his career. Around the time of Churchill’s 21st birthday, one A. C. Bruce, a fellow subaltern in the Fourth Hussars, accused him of having ‘participated in acts of gross immorality of the Oscar Wilde type’ while they had been cadets at Sandhurst a couple of years earlier.
Bruce had just resigned from the regiment, claiming that Churchill and others had hounded him out of the Army on grounds of snobbery. His ‘case’ was taken up by the journal, Truth.
Wary of libel, Truth did not refer directly to the homosexual allegations, but Bruce’s father mentioned them in February 1896 in a letter to an officer who was buying his son’s military gear.
While still in his 20s, Winston Churchill acquired a reputation, which he would never lose, as a misogynist.
Less than a year after the trial of Oscar Wilde, which had ended with his being imprisoned for homosexual acts, this was the most serious imaginable slur. On being shown the letter, Churchill issued a writ for libel. Unable to prove the veracity of what he had written, Bruce senior settled the matter by issuing an apology and paying Churchill £500.
From boyhood onwards, Churchill had been consumed with ambition. If he did indeed have homosexual inclinations, Bruce’s allegations would have given him a serious fright and determined him to keep such feelings firmly under control.
Certainly there were elements in Churchill’s make-up which might have aroused suspicions of homosexuality. He was intensely narcissistic and exhibitionistic. He had an emotional personality, being easily moved to tears; he was a sybarite with a passion for silk underwear and he felt self-conscious about his short and hairless body, seeking to compensate for it with daring feats of endurance.
There were also elements in his background which might have nurtured a homosexual outlook. In boyhood, he worshipped his mother and his nanny while seeing little of his father, the maverick politician Lord Randolph Churchill. Moreover, during his teens, Churchill was profoundly affected by his father’s rapid physical and mental decline (rumoured to have been the result of syphilis).
This may have instilled a generalised suspicion of women which possibly explains why, unusually for a dashing cavalry officer, he seems to have had no significant physical experience of women before marrying.
In 1900, Churchill, now a war hero after his greatly self-publicised exploits in India, the Sudan and South Africa, entered the House of Commons as a Conservative. For the next three years, his closest friends were four other rebellious young Tory MPs, of whom one was outstandingly handsome and the other three were confirmed bachelors.
They called themselves ‘the Hughligans’, after Lord Hugh Cecil, youngest son of the Prime Minister Lord Salisbury. They also regarded Lord Rosebery, the former Liberal prime minister who was widely rumoured to be homosexual, as their mentor.
When he first met his future wife, the young politician began by lecturing Clementine Hozier (pictured on the occasion of their engagement 1908) at the dinner table about himself
Churchill subsequently switched to the Liberals. When they came to power in 1905 and gave him junior office as Undersecretary for the Colonies at the age of 31, he caused surprise by demanding to have a minor official named Eddie Marsh, whom he had recently met at a party, as his private secretary.
Marsh, two years older than him, was good-looking in a rather prim way; he had a high-pitched voice and effeminate mannerisms and was already known for his ‘crushes’ on handsome young writers and actors. He was also a foot-fetishist, who enjoyed pulling off the boots of young men returning from hunting at country-house parties.
After becoming Churchill’s private secretary, Marsh became slavishly devoted to his master, whom he continued to serve in the same relatively humble capacity in every ministerial post Churchill occupied for the next quarter of a century.
‘Few people have been as lucky as me,’ wrote Churchill to Marsh in 1908, ‘as to find in the dull & grimy recesses of the Colonial Office a friend whom I shall cherish & hold on to all my life.’
Churchill was introduced by Marsh to such ‘queer’ theatrical personalities, as Ivor Novello and Noel Coward, in whose company the politician seems to have been at ease.
In 1914, Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty, met Marsh’s bisexual protege Rupert Brooke, and arranged for ‘England’s handsomest poet’ to be commissioned into a military unit under his control.
When Brooke died the following year, it was Churchill who wrote the eulogy in the Times: ‘Joyous, fearless, versatile, deeply instructed, with classic symmetry of mind and body, all that one would wish England’s noblest sons to be.’ There was another youth of almost equally angelic beauty, with whom he established a close and mutually dependent relationship lasting a decade. Sir Archibald Sinclair, a Scottish baronet and cavalry officer, hoped to become a Liberal MP and Churchill offered to launch his career, though the baronet’s looks were not matched by much in the way of brains.
He married 'Clemmie' in his mid-30s in what is usually regarded as a love-match (he concludes the memoirs of his early life with the bald statement that they ‘lived happily ever afterwards’). In reality, it seems to have been rather cold-blooded
When war broke out, Churchill was determined to ‘keep Archie safe’, securing for him the appointment of aide de camp to a friend who was a general.
In 1916, when Churchill went to command a battalion on the Western Front, he pleaded, successfully, to have Sinclair appointed his second-in-command. More jobs for Archie followed: as his friend’s military secretary in 1919, as his ‘assistant, confidant and Man Friday’ in 1921, and as Churchill’s air minister in 1940.
The baronet’s subservience to the prime minister earned him the nickname ‘the head boy’s fag’. Much of their early correspondence seems to have been lost, but what survives shows a mutual affection that verges on the amorous.
became the youngest Tory MP in 1924. Soon afterwards, he became Churchill’s parliamentary private secretary.
While having relationships with women (including the wife of fellow Tory MP, Harold Macmillan), Boothby also had a lifelong taste for working-class ‘rough trade’, eventually becoming a friend of the Kray Twins.
Violet Asquith, the sharp-witted daughter of the Liberal Prime Minister, would have liked to marry Churchill but she consoled herself with the reflection: ‘his wife could never be more to him than an ornamental sideboard'
Sinclair, Boothby and Marsh came from backgrounds not altogether unlike Churchill’s. The same could not be said of Brendan Bracken, a wild youth who was not yet 22 when he swept the 48-year-old politician off his feet in 1923.
He was a conman on the make, claiming (among other tall stories) to be an Australian orphan educated at an English public school. In fact, Bracken was from Tipperary, the self-educated son of an Irish stonemason of republican sympathies. Though not exactly handsome, he had a striking appearance: tall and perky with a shock of flaming red hair.
In his early 20s, while serving first as a prep-school master who was famed for his flogging, then as a junior employee of a publishing firm, Bracken used to gatecrash smart parties in London and boldly introduce himself to well-known personalities. Some were sufficiently impressed to ask him to dinner.
One was the editor of the Observer, at whose table Bracken met Churchill. The politician was immediately smitten. ‘Who is this extraordinary young friend you’ve been hiding away?’ he asked the Observer editor, ‘I would like to see him again.’
He did not have long to wait: within days, Bracken found an excuse to visit Churchill at his London house in Sussex Square.
The only obstacle to their friendship was Clemmie, who was antagonistic towards Bracken and could not understand why Winston liked him. Because of her hostility, they ceased to meet in Sussex Square, but during 1923 Churchill moved into Chartwell, where Bracken became a constant visitor.
As Clemmie acidly remarked: ‘Mr Bracken arrived with the furniture and he never left.’
Indeed, Bracken became Churchill’s devoted fixer and henchman and, when war came, his parliamentary private secretary and then minister for information, a role to which this great fantasist and fixer was ideally suited. Churchill appointed him First Lord of the Admiralty in 1945, then asked him to serve with him again in 1951, saying: ‘I want you beside me, my dear.’
Was Bracken (who never married) homosexual? A diary he wrote as a young man hinted at goings-on involving Boy Scouts, and among the friends who helped him up the ladder, while also lending him large sums of money, were two rakish homosexual heirs to fortunes and peerages: Gavin Henderson and Evan Morgan. Later, Bracken’s two handsome (and heterosexual) assistants, Robert Lutyens and Garrett Moore, believed he was in love with them.
Churchill also fell for another handsome Scot: Robert ‘Bob’ Boothby (pictured with Churchill and his daughter Diana)
Bracken was one of a trio of devoted Churchill henchmen in the Thirties and Forties. The others were the intelligence officer Desmond Morton and the Oxford physics professor Frederick Lindemann (later Viscount Cherwell). Both of them were bachelors and Morton (who arranged for his papers to be posthumously destroyed) was reputed to be homosexual.
There is no shortage of other examples of Churchill taking a fancy to young men. These included the attractive homosexual Conservative MPs Victor Cazalet, Alan Lennox-Boyd, Ronnie Cartland and Jack Macnamara (a great favourite whom he promoted to important military roles during World War II).
Churchill also liked the writer Somerset Maugham’s ‘queer’ nephew Robin Maugham, whom he encouraged (unsuccessfully) to enter politics and to seek the hand of his youngest daughter.
He even warmed to the raffish Soviet agent Guy Burgess, then a 27-year-old BBC talks producer, whom he invited to Chartwell, presented with a signed copy of his speeches and offered to employ in the event of war.
The list goes on and on. He was taken with Anthony Eden’s handsome private secretary Valentine Lawford (later the lover of the male photographer Horst), whom he often ‘borrowed’, and was devoted to his wartime stenographer Patrick Kinna, still fondly remembered in Brighton’s gay community.
During the war, he became infatuated with Andre de Staercke, a seductive young Belgian diplomat who frequently found himself summoned to late-night drinking sessions by Churchill.
Churchill, pictured on the quarter-deck of warship on way to North Africa during World War II, summarised the traditions of the Royal Navy as ‘rum, sodomy and the lash
Churchill’s quixotic attempt to help Edward VIII save his throne in 1936, made against the advice of his friends and at some cost to his career, may have owed something to the sovereign’s Prince Charming looks.
As a rule, Churchill disliked women. He had been the member of the pre-1914 government most vehemently opposed to the suffragettes.
Apart from a few relations with whom he played cards, and his younger daughters Sarah and Mary, the only women whose company he enjoyed were pretty young ones who flattered and made a fuss of him, such as the Duke of Rutland’s daughter Diana Cooper in the Twenties, his socialite daughter-in-law Pamela (later Harriman) in the Forties, and Wendy Reeves, the wife of his literary agent, in the Fifties.
On the other hand, he seems to have felt relaxed in the company of homosexuals and regarded their (illegal) activities as a subject for good-natured ribaldry.
When the louche homosexual MP Tom Driberg caused surprise in 1951 by marrying an unattractive woman, Churchill quipped: ‘b*****s can’t be choosers.’ He also summarised the traditions of the Royal Navy as ‘rum, sodomy and the lash’.
When, in November 1958, the Foreign Office minister Ian Harvey was caught with a guardsman in St James’s Park, Churchill commented: ‘On the coldest night of the year? It makes you proud to be British.’
In old age, Somerset Maugham is said to have asked Churchill whether he had ever had a homosexual experience. Churchill allegedly replied: ‘I once went to bed with [the musical comedy composer and star] Ivor Novello: it was very musical.’
If such an event took place, we may assume that it was incidental. Yet it seems clear that his closest relationships were with men, even if they stopped short of the physical.
Adapted from Closet Queens: Some 20th Century British Politicians by Michael Bloch, published by Little, Brown on May 28 at £25. © Michael Bloch 2015. To buy a copy for £20, visit mailbookshop.co.uk or call 0808 272 0808. Discount until May 30, free p&p for a limited time only.
*******
Also See:
Winston Churchill - War Hero OR War Monger?
10 December 2007
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2007/12/was-churchill-hero.html
*******

Thursday, May 26, 2016

Did Obamacare Pass Because Americans Are Stupid?

*******
Average Americans Are Stupid?
America's elitist class: millions of average Americans are irredeemably, hopelessly and unrelentingly stupid
By  Arnold Ahlert -- Bio and Archives 
May 26, 2016
It began with MIT economics professor Jonathan Gruber in 2014. Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes amplified it a couple of weeks ago. And now, in an equal opportunity bashing from the other side of the political dividing line, The Federalist senior editor David Harsanyi has offered yet another look at one idea that apparently unites America’s elitist class: millions of average Americans are irredeemably, hopelessly and unrelentingly stupid.
Gruber led the elitist charge, revealing the Obama administration’s behind-the-scenes efforts to get the Affordable Healthcare Act passed. “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” he stated. “And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass… “
 Note the inherent contradiction. Gruber is calling voters stupid—even as he admits a lack of transparency was required to get ObamaCare passed. That’s because ObamaCare “was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies,” Gruber explained. In other words, if the “stupid” American public knew what was really going on, the healthcare bill would have gone down in flames.
ObamaCare has been the law of the land since 2010 and ever since, a substantial majority of “intellectually-challenged” Americans remain opposed to it. Why? Maybe it’s because those identifying themselves as “smart” Americans put together a disastrous healthcare.gov website, whose cost had exceeded $2.1 billion by 2014. Or maybe it’s because ObamaCare premiums will rise 20.3 percent on average this year, or the fact that more than half of the ObamaCare healthcare co-ops had gone out of business by November 2015, and eight of the remaining 11 face the same fate. Or maybe it’s because millions of “stupid” Americans were assured by our president they could keep their doctors, their existing policies, and save an average of $2500 per family under ObamaCare—every bit of which turned out to be bold-faced lies.
One might be inclined to believed such “knowledgable” Obama administration officials would be chastened by such a debacle. Not a chance. In fact they doubled-down, choosing not only to deceive the American public, but orchestrate that deception with the help of gullible members of the media and Congress with regard to the Iran deal.
Again, note the inherent contradiction. It’s the American public who is stupid, but it was Ben Rhodes who bragged to the New York Times how successful he was in “shaping” the Iranian narrative. “In the absence of rational discourse, we are going to discourse the [expletive] out of this,” he said. “We had test drives to know who was going to be able to carry our message effectively, and how to use outside groups like Ploughshares, the Iran Project and whomever else. So we knew the tactics that worked.”
Not tactics. Outright lies. Lies so blatant a portion of a 2013 State Department tape—in which administration spokeswoman Jen Psaki essentially admitted direct talks with Iran had begun long before the so-called “moderate” government currently ruling that nation came into power—was initially deleted. The State Department blamed it on a “glitch,” much like the excuse the White House used when French President Francois Hollande’s statement about “Islamist terrorism” suffered the same fate.
Rhodes also derisively dismissed the nation’s entire foreign policy apparatus as “the Blob,” and was just as condescending with regard to the media. “The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns… They literally know nothing,” he insisted.
What about a deliberately know-nothing Congress that decided a treaty wasn’t a
treaty, so they could eliminate the Constitutional requirement of a two-thirds majority vote necessary for one’s approval? That bit of legerdemain allowed Obama to get his deal when Senate Democrats successfully filibustered 
opposition to it, essentially abdicating anything resembling responsibility for a disaster that even Obama himself admitted will allow Iran to eventually acquire nukes. The very same Iran that continues to develop missiles now capable of destroying Israel in “less then eight minutes,” according to Iranian senior military adviser Ahmad Karimpour.
And the very same Iranian deal a “dim” American public opposes by a whopping 57 percent to 30 percent margin, according to Gallup.
Unfortunately, such contempt for the average American is not wholly owned by progressives. “Never have so many people with so little knowledge made so many consequential decisions for the rest of us,” pontificated Harsanyi in a column for the Washington Post.
He was just getting warmed up. “A person need only survey the inanity of the ongoing presidential race to comprehend that the most pressing problem facing the nation isn’t Big Business, Big Labor, Big Media or even Big Money in politics,” he continued. “It’s you, the American voter. And by weeding out millions of irresponsible voters who can’t be bothered to learn the rudimentary workings of the Constitution, or their preferred candidate’s proposals or even their history, we may be able to mitigate the recklessness of the electorate.”
Harsanyi understands that weeding out voters he doesn’t like resembles the “ugly history of poll taxes and other prejudicial methods that Americans used to deny black citizens their equal right to vote.” But he nonetheless insists some unnamed entity tasked with improving the voting quality of the public “should ensure that all races, creeds, genders and sexual orientations and people of every socioeconomic background are similarly inhibited from voting when ignorant.”
In a subsequent column for his own website, Harsayni reveals a bit of his own ignorance while still advocating for some kind of voter test. “I’m unsure why the test would ever need to be changed,” he writes. “The Constitution does not change.”
Twenty-seven amendments suggest otherwise, Mr. Harsayani.
Though it might never occur to this trio of intellectual snobs or their like-minded soul-mates, the ostensible stupidity of the average American might not be the nation’s biggest problem. Perhaps our biggest problem is the unbridled arrogance of those with a wholly unwarranted belief in their own superiority. People who self-identify as America’s “best and brightest,” while ignoring the inconvenient reality these very same best and brightest have given us the housing crash and financial crisis of 2008, $19 trillion of federal debt, a Middle East completely in ruins, and the ongoing decimation of the middle class—just to name a few of their “enlightened” accomplishments.
It might also be useful to remind them that when their grand schemes blew up in their collective faces, millions of average Americans were called upon to pick up the tab. The same average Americans invariably called upon whenever our nation’s freedom is threatened, the people who really put the “exceptional” in our nation’s exceptionalist mindset. And perhaps more to the point in the current election season, average Americans who have had it up to their collective eyeballs with being force-fed a “superior wisdom” that is neither superior nor wise.
The late William F. Buckley Jr., one of a handful of genuine intellectuals responsible for elevating the American conversation, put it best. “I’d rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University,” he said.
Amen to that.
*******
Obamacare: Voters, are you stupid?
By Jeremy Diamond, CNN
Tuesday, November 18, 2014

Washington (CNN) -- Years-old but newly scrutinized videos of MIT economics professor Jonathan Gruber ignited a political firestorm this week because the self-described architect of Obamacare thanks "the stupidity of the American voter" for leading to passage of the president's signature piece of legislation.
With Obamacare open enrollment set to begin over the weekend and the Supreme Court set to weigh in again on the law next year, Republicans pounced, using the videos as additional ammunition in their case that President Barack Obama and his administration misled the American public on Obamacare.
Obama on Sunday dismissed the idea that his administration and other proponents of the law misled voters about the legislation, noting that "we had a yearlong debate."
"The fact that some adviser who never worked on our staff expressed an opinion that I completely disagree with ... is no reflection on the actual process that was run," Obama said.
So why should old videos of an economics professor matter?
Here's the gist: Gruber called voters stupid, Republicans are calling him the Obamacare architect, and Democrats are calling it all a big misunderstanding.
Still confused? This will help:
Was Gruber the "architect" of Obamacare?
Not exactly. This is a law that was passed by both houses of Congress and written in different forms by several Congressional committees. It's many thousands of pages long and has a myriad of different provisions. But Gruber clearly played an important role in crafting the idea behind the series of exchanges, subsidies and taxes that form the law's centerpiece. He continues to argue the country is better for Obamacare -- but we'll get to that.
And he doesn't look nearly as cool as this guy, who actually goes by the name, "the architect."
So why is he being called that? And what did he actually do?
Gruber's work did shape the Affordable Care Act in three key ways:
1. Gruber played a crucial role in crafting the health care law passed in Massachusetts during then-Gov. Mitt Romney's tenure. Gruber modeled the impact and effectiveness of that state's plans to implement an individual mandate -- the controversial policy that essentially forces people to get covered, or get fined.
And this matters because the 2004 Massachusetts law was the model for Obamacare. The "individual mandate" became a key component -- and political lightning rod -- of the health care law most people now call Obamacare.
2. Gruber was hired in 2009 as a consultant by the Obama administration -- and paid nearly $400,000 -- for a year of his work. What'd he do? Gruber has called it "technical support" and "analysis." What he really did was take a bunch of numbers and model the effects of proposals that would later become the Affordable Care Act.
"If they hadn't had this kind of analysis, well, the law would not be designed as well," Gruber said on the O'Reilly Factor last year, discussing his work.
3.  At least eight states called him in to counsel them on how to implement the health care law and set up state-run health insurance exchanges. So he's pretty important to Obamacare.
O.K. but this guy is still calling voters stupid! I vote. Am I stupid?
No, you're not stupid. At least we don't think so.
So why is he calling us voters stupid?
Let's first look at what Gruber actually said: He was defending the fact that the law was written behind closed doors and he said Democrats intentionally made the law confusing to mask the fact that the law instituted a new tax to pay for health reform. Why'd the Democrats do this? Voters don't like new taxes. Gruber said it was more important to get health reform than to be up front.
"It's a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter," Gruber said at the Honors Colloquium 2012 at the University of Rhode Island.
And: "They proposed it and that passed, because the American people are too stupid to understand the difference," he said at Washington University at St. Louis in 2013.
The brunt of Gruber's argument is that policymakers crafting the law had to take politics into account. And politics means that politicians prefer to vote for a tax on insurance companies that will ultimately get passed on to consumers, rather than voting for a tax on consumers outright, for example.
Gruber's "stupid" comments are summed up his contention that people don't want to pay more taxes, even when they want cheaper or better things. For instance:
- Want better public education?
- Sure!
- Want to pay higher taxes to improve public education?
- Eh...
This also applies to voting for the individual mandate "penalty," as the Obama administration refers to it, rather than a "tax," as the Supreme Court ruled in 2012.
And it turns out that Gruber always knew a tax on expensive insurance plans would eventually grow to hit almost every insurance plan. He admitted as much in yet another video that surfaced on Friday. The White House and Democrats, by the way, promised up and down that the so-called "cadillac tax" wouldn't affect most Americans.
The guy who thinks voters are 'stupid'
But the controversy over whether the mandate is a "tax" isn't news, right?
Nope. But it is giving Republicans' claims that the Obama administration misled voters on the "truth" of the Affordable Care Act more credence.
So why are Democrats trying to distance themselves from Gruber?
Democrats clearly don't want Obamacare tarnished anymore than it already has because of one guy. And they definitely don't want him to be the face of Obamacare or Democrats' view on the law.
What they're trying to do is downplay Gruber's role in crafting the law.
On Sunday, President Obama speaking from the G20 summit in Australia called him "some adviser who never worked on our staff."
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Gruber "didn't help write our bill" and claimed not to "know who he is."
She wasn't being entirely up front on that point. Pelosi actually cited Gruber's work approvingly in 2009 and even mentioned him by name in an interview that same year.
Obamacare architect discussed misleading public in 4th newly uncovered video
Was Gruber making a larger point here that we're missing?
Definitely. If you can get past his condescending tone and insults, Gruber's speeches actually offer some insight into how policy is impacted by politics.
"If you had a law which said healthy people are going to pay in -- if you made it explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed, OK?" Gruber said.
And while the (impartial) jury on the Affordable Care Act is still out, the law has lowered that national uninsured rate and, so far, the law is proving to be cheaper than expected.
Either way, Gruber has said he believes the U.S. is better off with Obamacare than without it.
And if less transparency helps implement better policy, he's O.K. with that.
But am I? Are you?
*******
ObamaCare - Health, Euthanasia, Life in Jeopardy!
(Part 1)
20 July 2009
and
(Part 2)
10 August 2009
and
(Part 3)
27 August 2009
and
The Last Word on ObamaCare - Maybe!
20 March 2010
and
Coming Soon - Death Panels!
23 August 2010
and
How is Obama's Healthcare Working Out?
14 October 2010
and
More about ObamaCare!
24 January 2011
and
ObamaCare is Still an Issue!
(Part 1)
03 April 2012
and
(Part 2)
28 June 2012
and
(Part 3)
08 August 2013
and
(Part 4)
27 October 2013
and
(Part 5)
19 December 2013
and
Will ObamaCare be Reversed?
(Part 1)
03 January 2014
and
(Part 2)
30 March 2014
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2014/03/obamacare-is-american-catastrophe.html
*******