They did not want to admit to the possibility. The woman was a 78-year-old conservative. She was a staunch defender of free speech, a direct opponent to leftist cultural Marxism. She was also an advocate for the commonsense Reform Party. The woman was against abortion, gay rights, transgender advocacy and in general, anything that smelled woke.
The woman was beaten to death in her home Wednesday July 8th around 12:30 PM. Her assailant did not know her personally. He drove 270 miles to kill her.
Immediately the British police said her murder was not politically motivated and not connected to foreign or domestic terrorism.
Really? Really! It must be nice to have such a closed mind.
So, let’s break this down a bit. A man drives five hours in a car to someone’s residence that he does not know personally. This man then proceeds to brutally murder this woman who he does not know. Just what could be the motivation for this obvious, premeditated, calculated and targeted murder?
This is the politically correct police and political establishment (along with help from the media) in the UK trying desperately to bury what is obvious to everyone else about Ann Widdecombe’s murder.
Who was Ann Widdecombe?
Lipton Matthews shares his insights:
Ann Widdecombe was a firebrand politician who was unafraid of sticking to her convictions. She was never one to shy away from controversy. She was among the few British MPs to oppose the 2008 Climate Change Act, a piece of legislation that has since committed the British economy to moribund energy policies and an unrelenting drive toward decarbonization.
Her faith was never a private matter kept neatly apart from her public life. She left the Church of England over its decision to ordain women, a move she regarded as a departure from scripture and tradition rather than a mere administrative reform, and she found her spiritual home instead in the Roman Catholic Church. That conversion said much about her. Ann never adjusted her beliefs to suit the prevailing mood of an institution. If the institution moved away from what she believed to be true, she was the one who moved—not her convictions.
Free speech was another cause she refused to abandon, even as it became fashionable in certain circles to demand protection from words rather than from harm. Ann believed that liberty had to be defended in practice and not merely praised in principle, and she held that nobody possessed a right to be shielded from speech simply because they found it offensive. It was a position that put her at odds with a culture increasingly inclined to treat discomfort as a form of injury, but she held it regardless.
When many were praising the sensational #MeToo movement, Ann was not afraid to criticize women who had chosen to consort with lecherous men, only to claim victimhood later, once the movement became fashionable. Nor was she unwilling to criticize the welfare state, calling out benefit claimants whom she considered simply work-shy. On immigration, she was similarly tough, often arguing on GB News that immigrants should have skills in fields only where Britain genuinely faced shortages.
Her views on sexuality were conservative, and she was candid about them at a time when candor on the subject invited real consequences. She defended traditional marriage and traditional teachings on sexual morality, and she took a great deal of flak for it, much of it bitter and personal. She never seemed to flinch. That, in the end, was precisely why so many of us loved her. She was a principled woman in an age that increasingly rewarded the unprincipled, and she never once traded her convictions for an easier reception.
Tuesday, the establishment threw in the white flag.
The British Counterterrorism Police (BCP) took over the investigation of Ann Widdecombe’s murder. “Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, said that as a result of “new information and evidence,” specialist counterterrorism officers were “now leading on the investigation into the horrific murder.””
On Wednesday, the BCP admitted that Widdecombe’s killer had a library of communist and Marxist ideology. Of course, as is the standard jargon in these cases, he was not known to the police before this.
Sundance notes:
Leftism is a violently dangerous ideology.
Those who believe in Diversity, Equity, Inclusion as well as cultural rights and genderisms are intolerant in the extreme. Their ideological arguments do not stand up against scrutiny, natural laws or historic outcomes. As a result, their emotions drive the internal sense of self-hate outward to attack others. These are deeply disturbed, emotionally unstable people.
Democrats, Socialists, Communists writ large are extremely dangerous once they achieve power.
The larger the population they control or target, the larger the killing field.
Some 100 million people from the last century were killed in the pursuit of Leftist power around the world. These people hold signs like those seen below at an insurrection in Austin or Oakland.
The idea that there is equal violence on both sides of the political aisle disappears like dew on the grass on a hot summer morning in the face of the constant stream of news of leftist violence that the media is not able to suppress. It’s almost always the leftists, the fanatical progressives who kill their political opponents. Yet, the leftist media propagates that the real danger are well-behaved conservatives.
What will be the outcome of this case? Most likely, it will be a case of “poor, mental health” exacerbated by some traumatic event in the assailant’s life. Then there will be a blanket appeal for ALL sides to be careful about inflammatory rhetoric.
For those on the left who jump to the Kyle Rittenhouse name as an example of right-wing violence, let’s be reminded that Kyle was defending himself from a group of “mostly peaceful” leftists who were trying to murder him.
if anyone persists in pointing out the obvious, that only one side regularly indulges in such inflammatory language and encourages their supporters to take violent action, you will be labeled a racist, a right-wing conspiracy theorist, a Nazi, a Maga supporter or most likely, all of the above.
Ann, often a figure of ridicule, was a shining light for everything we should hold dear. And everything the debauched, evil forces which have destroyed Great Britain despise.
There is evil in this world. Ann Widdecombe fought the good fight. She will be missed in the UK.