The Real Killers of Jamal Khashoggi: The context of honesty regarding Trump’s defense of Saudi Arabia–never forget Seth Rich

Now we are seeing the evidence of how things became so screwed up before the Donald Trump presidency. As Black Friday dawned across the American continent and gas prices were down on average by .25 cents per gallon the issue of morality came up regarding public relations between our White House and the Saudi Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman’s direct relationship with the Washington Post reporter Jamal Khashoggi. For some reason we were all supposed to be worried that the Prince put the hit out on the reporter and cut up his body in an embassy in Istanbul. The reporter himself was a friend of Osama Bin Laden saying of him, “I collapsed crying a while ago, heartbroken for you Abu Abdullah”, using Bin Laden’s nickname. “You were beautiful and brave in those beautiful days in Afghanistan, before you surrendered to hatred and passion. Khashoggi to put it simply in a very complex story was a liberal progressive on the world stage and had the sympathetic ear of all liberals trying to advance the world in a direction it didn’t want to go. Like most liberals they tried to use peer pressure applied through the media to destroy the lives of people whereas the Crown Prince still used old world tactics like death and torture to maintain power. So in such a world of vast immorality, How can any value be determined? Essentially in the power of the United States economy. That is where morality resides.

The reports are that it took seven minutes to die as assassins had injected the reporter with a numbing agent to alleviate the pain and stop the screaming. The hit squad listened to music on their head phones as they started cutting up the body, while still alive. They removed the body parts piece by piece and destroyed the evidence, just as Democrats had with their email evidence was well as our own F.B.I. in their attempts to have a coup against the incoming President Trump before he took power., and once the killing occurred, everyone went about their business. Turkey was outraged that the United States wouldn’t take action against Saudi Arabia who tried to dredge up the memory that it was Saudi Arabia who had backed the attacks of 9/11. But what they failed to mention was that it was the Jamal Khashoggi faction that supported the terrorism as he was a supporter of The Muslim Brotherhood. You might remember those guys who had personal invites to visit President Obama in the White House often from 2008 to 2015. It’s not a conspiracy theory or a “whisper campaign” to discredit the radical Khashoggi, but rather a fact. Ultimately in the war of power alignments in the Middle East with Israel in the middle of it all and Saudi Arabia to stand in direct conflict with Iran and Syria the urgings of the progressives are that all that should come to an end just because one of their own was killed in the conflict.

But there are other ways of destroying people, not just in cutting them up into little pieces and getting rid of the body so nobody will ever really no the gruesome details. Liberals in America literally did everything they could to destroy the life of Brett Kavanaugh prior to being confirmed on the Supreme Court. Liberals try desperately to destroy the careers of anybody who stands against them in the press, such an example would be the best-selling author Bill O’Reilly, formally on Fox News. They had no problem trying to use a phony sex scandal to destroy everything O’Reilly stood for, the media was so vicious that they didn’t care if he ever showed his face in public again. Did they physically kill O’Reilly, no, but that’s not how people destroy other people in civilized nations. In the Middle East, they still kill people literally. In the West, enemies of others try to kill the social footprint a person has in the world using democratic peer pressure to do the messy part of the work. We are talking about a double standard such as how the media did not hold Sherrod Brown from Ohio who had a history of domestic violence but ignored it so that the senator could defend his seat from the challenger Jim Renacci. Liberals don’t care about Khashoggi or moral clarity, they only care that they lost a voice in their attempts at global progressive crusades. They care about how they can change the world and gain power using ever manipulative tactics to do so. But nothing more.

And the people from the so-called conservative branch of things within the GOP such as Bob Corker and Bill Kristol, all Never-Trumpers who are raw displays of who various factions of the political right and left are still enemies of the President and the people who elected him, much the way the conflict between the Crown Prince and Khashoggi were. In Saudi Arabia they kill each other, in America we fight it out in the press. Is that better than killing a person, arguably it’s still aggression and conflict. Kristol isn’t going to be killed by Trump but the conflict is just as real between them. Enemies of the President would love to trap him into making enemies with Saudi Arabia so that by 2020 the American economy would be a wreck and people would blame Trump for the high gas prices and further instability in the Middle East. Why should Trump change all that over some progressive reporter who was against him too? Where is the incentive?

And Senator Menendez who just won reelection in New Jersey, by a little bit, is crying for morality over the Khashoggi murder too. Menendez the federal corruption charges guy who had all kinds of trouble in 2018 after a judge declared a mistrial barely saving him from serious jail time is on the lecture trail promoting action against Saudi Arabia. This is the same person who has an “F” with the NRA and anywhere else in the country besides liberal New Jersey wouldn’t be able to be elected on a one-person ticket suddenly has international credibility because he has come out against Trump’s support of Saudi Arabia. These are the kind of people who are standing against President Trump—these people aren’t any different from the assassins who chopped up Jamal Khashoggi. The only real difference is that they aren’t as literal in their villainy. But the are all villains attempting to change the world to their own version of it.

The only real morality of all these scandalous characters, and Trump clearly understands it, is the American economy. By siding with the Saudis in the world it gives him negotiating leverage for all future deals but more than anything it keeps gas prices down through the critical Holiday season. One bad move with the economy and all that positive GDP growth that the United States is experiencing could turn negative, and that is really what the liberal press and RINO conservatives like Corker and Kristol are after. Nobody ever cared about Jamal Khashoggi being cut up into little pieces, only that they in the media didn’t want the same thing to happen to them. But they will use anything to attempt to bring down President Trump, even if they can trap him into making an error in moral judgment that would destroy the American economy. And that military equipment that the United States is selling to Saudi Arabia, that is worth so much money, it means more than just jobs to Americans who make it, it’s all about having a friend in the Middle East that can stand against Iran and protect Israel. That is really what the liberal press is after, they want America out of the complicated Middle East so that progressivism can be ushered in on the backs of Islamic radicalism. And for that they will kill anybody literally or metaphorically. The American economy is the bright light that saves so many lives around the world, and without that light many more people die and are plundered out of existence by radical progressives and even members of America’s own intelligence agencies who still hope and pray for a one world order. The assassins cutting up Khashoggi were probably much more morally fit than the typical liberal operative, like James Comey, Hillary Clinton or even Peter Strzok. At least the assassins were conscious enough to listen to something pleasant while they did the dirty work. American liberals in many cases are much, much, much more brutal and uncaring. They can do the deed and lie to our faces without having to listen to any music, and that makes them very dangerous.

Just remember something, Seth Rich……………………………………The New York Times certainly didn’t do a big investigation on that murder directly attached to the DNC.  Hmm, and I don’t recall Saudi Arabia forcing a resolution on that murder.  So why Jamal Khashoggi?  Well, watch all these videos and use the questions that come from them be your guide to reality.  And when the question comes up about law enforcement covering up evidence to help create a political story, never forget what the F.B.I. did for Hillary Clinton.

Ultimately, this is why I support Julian Assange at Wikileaks.  I’ve been to the embassy there and I think the Trump administrating should stand with him as the world closes in to remove his journalism from the reporting of global news.  I personally don’t trust the media and their ties to governments.  This is just one case that shows the dangers.  I stand with Julian Assange!  That’s me in the picture at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London where Assange lives.  I consider it one of the few places in the world where real freedom of the press exists. 

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.

Killing Bill O’Reilly: When attacked you always have to fight back–any way possible

He’s a little too New York liberal for me, but I like Bill O’Reilly quite a lot.  I watched him on Fox News for many years like a lot of other people and have enjoyed his books.  He’s a very smart guy and I think he’s the best that there is in the news business.  But sometimes he’s dead wrong and one of those times was when he advised Donald Trump to settle out of court to make the parade of women seeking an apology for sexually inappropriate behavior to go away so he could focus on winning the presidency. That is always the wrong move.  When these people come after you in every case you have to fight them.  It doesn’t matter if they are men or women—if they attack your reputation, you have to fight them.  In that regard Bill O’Reilly should have never settled the cases against him because the media used that as an admission of guilt and Fox News simply didn’t have the backbone to defend O’Reilly in public.   O’Reilly may have wanted to protect his family from long court cases where he’d eventually be proven “not guilty,” but having the money sitting in a bank account to make the problem go away, Bill did what he thought Trump should have done and that’s just pay the extortion to shut everyone up so he could do his work.  And that was the wrong move which was now obvious as Bill went on Glenn Beck’s radio show for the first time after being fired at Fox News to talk about the situation.

Bill O’Reilly being a nice old-fashioned guy is exactly the type of person that Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals was designed to freeze and pummel in the court of public opinion.   Not that O’Reilly is a conservative, but compared to the extreme liberals of today, Bill is a traditional guy from an older time who believed that taking the high road would eventually pay off.  And in O’Reilly’s life, he was enormously successful so why would he do anything different?  But when the unthinkable happened and Fox News went soft and wouldn’t defend Bill, suddenly he was exposed.  These strategies have worked against conservative people for years because Saul Alinsky knew that decent people would always yield to evil due to the Christian premise of always turning the other cheek.  Alinsky didn’t believe in God, so that gave him and his followers a tremendous advantage over people like Bill O’Reilly who believed that by taking the high road that they’d always come out on top.

I’ve personally seen this process up close and many people whom I know have gone through it.  But I’m part of a new generation who have decided that we’re going to take this whole Rules for Radicals strategy head on and throw it back in their smudgy liberal faces.  And the way to do that is to not turn the other cheek.  If they come after you—you go get in their face and you fight them.  You start off legally and use the tools there to the extent you can.  But if that doesn’t work, then you hang the bastards’ upside down over a bridge and you skin them alive and make a metaphorical flag out of their hide.  You have to have that attitude to beat people who follow Saul Alinsky’s teachings which at this point are most of the people on the political left—most popularly Hillary Clinton herself.  You can’t beat those people being nice to them and you certainly can’t beat them with an intellectual argument because they aren’t interested in facts, charts or honor.  You have to take it out of their hide and when Bill O’Reilly settled, he admitted guilt and gave them everything they wanted—true or not.

The gains that the big government types have made over the years in both parties is with their forceful instance on admitting guilt from innocent people.  Even if innocence was the truth teller those gains have incorrectly advanced liberal thought and destroyed many aspects of American culture.  Once they have from you a confession, even if they beat it out of you by using your family and friends as hostages, then they own you forever and that’s why they throw in the case of Republicans like Trump a parade of women who would likely give a blow job on a sidewalk for the right amount of cash—to put a powerful person on the defensive and make them admit something against their will under duress.  That clearly was happening to Donald Trump during the election.  Nobody but maybe me and a few others I think thought he was right to fight back the way he did–which I had done on a much smaller scale in the Cincinnati media a few years prior.  Trump was the first to do such a thing at the level of the presidency and that was a relief.  Thankfully Donald Trump didn’t listen to Bill O’Reilly because if he had, the same thing would have happened.  When someone attacks you and you are fighting on the side of conservatism, you have to fight back.  You can’t do this turn the other cheek thing and expect to win any of these arguments.  The other side doesn’t believe in God—they are emphatically evil, and they will do anything to destroy anybody or anything that is in their way.  So you can’t play nice with them and unfortunately Bill O’Reilly has had to learn the hard way.

Right after Bill O’Reilly was taken off the air at Fox News the same lunatics turned their guns toward Sean Hannity who did the right thing and gassed up his defense.  He had the money to put some lawyers on retainer and he put them to work at attacking even small media outlets for falsehoods against his name—and that’s what you have to do.  Glenn Beck hasn’t held up too well over the years, his Blaze news outlet isn’t nearly as successful as it needs to be.  I’ve done my little things to help Beck and so have many others but Beck shifted toward the political center under great pressure and this fight wore him out—and that’s what the political left does. They beat on you until you either give up or you just are destroyed beyond hope—and in a lot of ways they managed to Kill Bill.  Bill O’Reilly played respectable with them and that gave the political left a way into his fortress to destroy everything he built over his many years of broadcasting.  And the political left needed the victory because time is running out for them with the successes of the Donald Trump Executive Branch—so they had to make their move now rather than later.  O’Reilly additionally made the mistake of telegraphing his response to the sex allegations when he advised Trump on the air to settle.  Insurgents at the George Soros funded outlets knew exactly how to get at Bill, all they needed were some washed up, do anything for money types to say publicly that they felt threatened and that was the end of Bill O’Reilly.

I do hope that O’Reilly takes Beck up on his job offer.  I’m not the biggest Beck fan these days—but he does have a media company that could use someone like Bill O’Reilly.  And if things took off it would stick the more centrist Fox News in the eye and contribute greatly to their downfall, which at this point obviously needs to happen.  There needs to be consequences for actions and the people running Fox News, the Murdoch boys, need to learn a lesson starting with their pocket-book.  That’s how you have to think about war, and this is war.  Don’t make any mistake about it.  In war, you have to be willing to take a life for a threat, an arm for a finger, and a tongue for a whisper. While I admire people who take the high road and try hard to live by Christian honor—I say if someone attacks you in any way you utterly destroy them.  Trump gets it, and listening to Bill O’Reilly on his radio interview with Glenn Beck I wish he would have not been so naive, because this experience has obviously hurt him.  He’s too good of a guy to suffer through that.  I’d like to see him get back on the horse and charge into battle once again.  But this time—don’t pay off the bitches.  Because that’s all they were—they put themselves out there for fame, fortune, but more than anything—the fantasies of insurrection.  Don’t settle court cases ever again.  Fight them until there is nothing else and make sure they are utterly destroyed—because that’s really the only way you can make them stop and do justice to our nation.  These people are villains and nothing else—and they deserve complete conquest without an ounce of sympathy.  That’s how you beat them which we must do if we want to keep America–America.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707  Use my name to get added benefits.

cropped-img_0202.jpg

Bill O’Reilly’s Question about Donald Trump: Defining a divided party and why Glenn Beck has lost his mind

Bill O’Reilly asked an important question when he wondered why members of his network, Fox News were so divided over Donald Trump.  The same could be said about the different between Donald Trump and Ted Cruz—who are the clear front-runners in the 2016 presidential race. The divide is unusually deep because the two candidates properly represent the philosophic divisions that are taking place within the Republican Party.  As much as hard-core establishment supporters would hate to admit it, Ted Cruz represents what they seek in a president, someone from within their political ranks that is a person of faith who gets their guidance from prayer and deity submission—religiously pious.  They also hold that the presidency is America’s version of royalty, and they that take that oath of office very seriously.  Trump on the other hand represents the fighters, the businessmen who have bent over backwards to one too many regulations–the financially independent—the self starters.  Trump appeals to people who turn toward themselves first for an answer before soliciting government help or prayer to a deity whom has never physically manifested in a logical way.  That last type of conservative has never really had a candidate—they have held their nose and hoped that they might get lucky because options were limited—which is often not how they do most things in their life.  But with Trump, they finally have someone running for the White House who thinks like them for a change.  To confirm my statement just read the linked article from Glenn Beck about why no Christian should vote for Donald Trump, and you’ll get the gist.  Glenn Beck whom I used to like—has lost his mind.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/274267-glenn-beck-no-real-christian-supports-trump

Personally I liked that Thomas Jefferson answered the door to the White House in his night robe.  I liked that Teddy Roosevelt skinny dipped in the Potomac River—just a century ago.  I liked that Andrew Jackson would target shoot from the White House grounds.   I’m not big on formalities and in regard to the President of the United States—I feel as Jefferson did, as an Anti-Federalist, such tokens of ordainment should be cast away in America and dropped from assumption.  We should go out of our way to strip away formality anywhere we can in regard to the White House, not increase it.  We don’t elect a king, we elect a public servant—and we should treat them that way.

We also need a president who makes decisions based on their life experiences and the use of cold hard logic.  I don’t want a president who gets his decisions from “praying.”  For instance, let’s look at the reasons that John Kasich decided to expand Medicaid—which he did in Ohio against an amendment to the Constitution passed to protect residence from the grips of Obamacare.  Kasich claimed when he went against voters and the Ohio legislature that God told him to expand government so dramatically when pressed by reporters.  Well, screw that.  We didn’t elect “God” to run our public offices.  With all the bad dreams and insanity that goes on in any civilization it is difficult to tell God’s providence from the claws of insanity.  While I can claim many similar stories of providence—as miraculous as Andrew Jackson’s assassination attempt by the unemployed painter who tried to kill him with two guns—that both misfired—I don’t make decisions based on providence or the hope of it.  You can only make decisions based on what you know or see.  If God decides to help out, that’s fine.  But such an ill-defined character cannot be a part of any strategic plan—because there isn’t enough evidence to count on such things.  You don’t think with your heart—you do with your head—and having faith that things will just work out is not enough.  When faced with a problem I want a president who works through it, not one that sits at the side of their bed and “prays.”  I don’t care what George Washington did—if he prayed less and acted more—he probably would have won more often.  If you want to pray, be a preacher or volunteer at church.  If you want to lead a nation—come to the table with self-reliance.

http://www.redstate.com/diary/jasonahart/2013/06/19/gov-kasich-god-wants-ohio-to-expand-medicaid/

Kasich, the closet liberal that he turned out to be could have misread his inclinations.  We as a voting public have no way to know if what Kasich said about God’s desire is true or not.  God did not have a press conference with us and tell us to expand Medicaid.  And we didn’t elect a “leader” to be some ancient go-between between God and man in the form of a priest holding some kingship based on the merits of “godly access.”  This is exactly why we were supposed to have a separation between church and state—not one where the church runs the state.  If people want the church to run the state—as Glenn Beck seems to—you might as well sign up for communism.  Capitalism requires self-reliance and logical thought—not altruistic sacrifice to divine will.   The worst time to make a decision of any kind is after a bad dream where some figure speaks to you in the form of some disembodied spirit.  The even dumber thing to do is to assume that the voice is “God.”  It in all actuality could be anything—some ghost from the past, some vengeful demon, some inter-dimensional terrorist—or it could be the lingering effects of an emerging insanity where deep-seated insecurities manifest into a mythological story played out among the brain’s neurons.  You never know.  When we elect a president, we elect a manager and we expect that person to make hard decisions based on reality as we can observe it.  That is the best that we can do given the limited scope of our human senses.

Then there is this ridiculous notion that the presidency should be beneath earthly squabbles.  I watched Republicans for well over thirty years play the moral high ground game and lose every time—especially George W. Bush.  He thought the office of the president was so elevated that he could not, or should not answer his many critics.  Well, that was the old alcoholic coming out of him, and the kid who was in the Skull and Bones society who participated in embarrassing hazing rituals.  When you are elected by the people for the people—you don’t surrender yourself to the political left by becoming a punching bag—using the “high office” excuse to mask internal fears.  You don’t sit in the White House on my behalf and make yourself a “pussy.”  You are expected to fight when attacked and to represent the constituency that elected you into office.  The office is not a higher authority than the people who put you there.  That kind of thinking leads to kingship—and we should not think of an American President as a king or as royalty.  He’s just a manager.

Just a few weeks ago I had an opportunity to shake Donald Trump’s hand.  I could have certainly had him sign any of my books–easily.  But I didn’t do either—even though I love the guy for president.  He’s on a job interview as far as I’m concerned and I’m the boss.  The boss doesn’t seek autographs and tokens of friendship from the people they employ.  Given that, if President Obama broke down in front of my house and needed to use my car jack or even the phone—I would tell that bastard to get off my lawn.  I wouldn’t shake his hand; I wouldn’t be getting a selfie to show that I had managed to get my picture next to a “powerful” person.  To me he’s just another person and in the case of his actions—he’s conducted his presidency as a domestic enemy that any constitutionally minded person is sworn to protect the nation from.  Needless to say, I will never shake the hand of president Obama under any circumstances.  He doesn’t rule over me, he doesn’t make decisions on my behalf, and he is a proven incompetent that has not earned the right to shake my hand.  And to be fair, I feel the same way about George W. Bush—he blew it.  I don’t care that he made some mistakes—but he was a lot like Glenn Beck—a former alcoholic who turned to “God” to straighten out their weak lives. I don’t fault them for their mistakes but they are smoking crack if they want to tell a person like me—who has never been addicted to anything, who doesn’t drink, has never smoked, has never done any drugs of any kind—who even avoids pain killers for surgery or at the dentist—and assumes that they have some place between me and the everlasting.  Give me a break!  They are not qualified to be in that position, and really, I can’t think of a single person on earth that is—even religious leaders.  If they have my high standards on personal living, I might listen to them—but short of that—forget about it.

Ted Cruz is way too much of a “god boy” to me.  I don’t want someone in the White House praying for answers.  I want someone who can extract answers from reality by sheer will.  I don’t want someone who will only enter the Oval Office with a jacket and tie on.  I want someone who will work there for 14 to 16 hours straight if needed to accomplish whatever task is on the table.  And I certainly don’t want a king—but I equally don’t want a self-sacrificial lamb that is willing to be plucked apart by the political opposition.  So to answer Bill O’Reilly’s question about Donald Trump there are still too many Republicans who want a president for all the wrong reasons—all the types of things that George W. Bush represented—meekness, sacrifice, divine providence-and policy concocted by voices from God which in all actuality were their addictive pasts calling out to them to return to the bottle.  For all those reasons I support Donald Trump—he’s a self-starter, he’s never been addicted to drugs or alcohol, and while he’s respectful of religion—he tends to guide himself before seeking the council of some otherworldly creature.  That’s good because I don’t have to worry about him waking up and starting wars based on dreams he’s had about “weapons of mass destruction,” or expanding Medicaid because God told him in a dream to help people.  I just want someone to do the job as president for the first time in the modern era.  I don’t want a king—I want someone to do the job—and I certainly don’t want a politician with ties to any lobbyist.  The deep divide over Donald Trump within Republican ranks is that not all conservatives quite understand what they want out of a public servant.  They know what they’ve had and are basing everyone on those examples.  But to me, what we’ve had was never good enough.  And the answer is not in more of the same—but in an entirely new direction.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707  Use my name to get added benefits.