Tag: Bullwhips

Donald Trump Making Looney Toons out of Everyone Else: Being poor is a choice in America

At this point it’s obvious, the Democrats are like the Looney Toons characters of Yosemite Sam and Wile E. Coyote compared to Donald Trump who is to them a combination of Bugs Bunny and Road Runner all rolled up into one terrifyingly president of the United States. Nobody out-thinks the “Trump” I suppose is the way the situation should be phrased.  Trump is playing chess while everyone else is playing some child’s game in the media and within the Beltway. Trump has totally turned upside down even the most terrifying Deep State insurgents and made them look stupid just five months into his presidency—and I’m so glad to see it.  I hoped this would happen, but Trump is even more successful than even my wildest imagination could articulate and I’m loving it.  Yet when Trump made a small remark about the kind of people he had in his administration who were handling the economy—for which the political left has been critical because Trump’s people are very wealthy—Trump said to an Iowa rally audience that he wanted rich people instead of poor people managing economic affairs and this was somehow controversial.  When I heard it I didn’t think anything about it until I saw the reaction of the media the next day, and I have to say I was shocked that they were so shocked.

In covering this episode of leftist babble Sean Hannity made a good point, he said on his Fox News show that out of all the jobs he had ever done in his life from busboy to radio station on air talent—he never worked for a poor person. As I thought about that it was obviously a correct statement.  I reflected on my own colorful past of work experience and it was true, I never did work for a poor person.  I can think of one guy who did struggle to pay for his monthly bills but that wasn’t because he didn’t have access to financial resources—it was because he was reckless with his money.  After all he had just spent $23,0000 dollars on a stripper in Newport, Kentucky—so that did soak up some of his expendable cash during that time period.  But nobody was ever poor who signed a pay check to me—and there’s a reason for that.  Job creators are those who have financial resources beyond what they can handle themselves to manage—they have access to productivity which places them in a category of understanding that is beyond the concepts of a poor person.

As the poor are described Biblically, as people with limited resources who were not part of the political structure of their times, I can understand the nobility of being free and clear spiritually to live life simply and close to God. But the term is no longer relevant today with the invention of the United States of America.  In America, you can be religious and wealthy and there is nothing wrong with it.  It’s not like you have to live in sin to appease the Roman Empire or the Pharisees to hold wealth.  America made it so that any person who wanted to work hard regardless of their social stature could become wealthy and that is essentially what is wrong with liberals today—they don’t understand that.  They still want to apply merit to the poor because like most churches, it holds people’s minds to socialism and communism.  Poor people to the socialist is a badge of honor.  To an American conservative who loves their guns and their Bible—they are just lazy pot smoking losers.

There is no reason to be poor in America. There is always a job that needs to be done in a productive society and if you want to hold three or four jobs to climb out of a financial hole, you can do that.  I know I have.  I also know that Sean Hannity has.  The main reason I enjoy listening to Sean Hannity is because he has a similar background experience as I do.  I have nothing in common with news commentators who get up and go to work around 9 am and are pretty much done for the day by 3 pm.  I get up at 5 am every day and I go to bet around 11:30 pm and I work pretty much all day on and off.  Even in my leisure I’m still working on something—and that’s how it’s been for me for four decades now.  Sean Hannity always worked hard, and so does Donald Trump—even now.  The primary reason he’s running circles around everyone is that he’s used to this pace, and the swamp in Washington isn’t—and they look like fools trying to compete with him—because they aren’t prepared.  People who are poor in America are that way because they made a choice to limit their income to only 40 hours a week—or less.  There are 168 hours in a week and people who are poor likely are only being productive a quarter of that time.  For those under that ratio—they are even worse off—and that is by their own inclination.

To dig out of a financial hole I once worked 96 hours a week at a regular job then on weekends I had a paper route and I worked for a tree trimming business. Essentially, I worked seven days a week on a primary job, then in weekend slots I trimmed trees all over Cincinnati and my wife and I shared several paper routes and that was the time we spent together.  I was in my late 20s and 30s when I was doing all this.  And I still found time to spend with my kids.  We still went to see movies together.  We still went out to eat and took nice vacations.  We had Kings Island season passes and went often—we made it work.  I never felt like I wasn’t getting enough sleep.  I read at least a book a week still and I felt I lived a very good and productive life—and we weren’t poor—that’s for sure.  We didn’t have unlimited money to throw at things and had to manage it, but we had to do that with every hour of our work day.  When my kids need braces or musical instruments we bought them.  Whatever they needed, we took care of it and we never used any form of welfare or government assistance to get through life—even though we could have.  If we needed more money—I just took on another job.

In that context, I have no sympathy for the poor or those who complain about not having enough money. Being poor in America is a choice and there isn’t merit to it when you drag all your loved ones through a depressed lifestyle just because you are too lazy to work.  The Bible for such people is often used as a mask—they might say something stupid like, “well you can’t take ‘it’ with you,” meaning material possessions and other justifications to explain away their inherit lazy nature—but it’s only an excuse for laziness.  I don’t admire the mountain man or the monk who decides to quit life and retreat to their thoughts on top of a mountain and devote themselves to poverty and lack of possession.  But I do admire the person who works 18 hours per day and employees over a 100 people—because they are the keys to being a productive society.  Those are the type of people who should be in charge of the economy.  Not some driveling idiot who hates money, wealth, and production. And in that context, we should all thank God that Donald Trump is finally in charge so we can talk about these things properly instead of with a bunch of emotional flap designed to hide a lack of personal ambition.

It’s not against the law to be lazy, or poor. If that is what people want to do, then let them have it.  But, they don’t have a right to skunk up the works of a perfectly successful, and wonderful capitalist economy where the natural spillover of productivity makes even the poorest people in America far better off than some of the richest in the godforsaken third world countries of the world—where political connections and aristocracy still rule the who has from the wish they dids. In America, it’s a choice and that is what makes America such a beautiful and moral country.  The best of the best are the job creators—because they bring opportunity to those who enjoy working hard.  By their very nature, they are not poor.  Rich people give jobs because they have produced an excess in their lives—poor people do not.  So to Trump’s point it’s quite clear he understands the difference—and for that we should celebrate with the flare of a Bugs Bunny as the stupidity of Yosemite Sam blows up his carefully laid plans in his face yet again as America cruises one more day toward a prosperity that was attempted to be robbed from future generations—but in a nick of time—wasn’t.

.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

The Truth About Stonehenge: Comments about the absurdity of summer solstice rituals

Visiting Stonehenge for me recently was one of the most important things I’ve ever done. It wasn’t just a bucket list item that I wanted to see at least once in my life—it was crucial. I have read so many books starting at a very young age where Stonehenge was contemplated that I needed to see the place in person. But to get to it you have to make a trip to England—and to do that you have to see a lot of other things and London usually has some part to play in such an expedition—so enough time in a schedule is necessary to accommodate such a task. However, this year I was able to get there and it was everything I expected and more. More than anything I was extremely impressed by the position the Neolithic complex held on the high plains of western England and the relation that all the mounds in the surrounding countryside had with the ancient stone ritual center. I think Stonehenge is remarkable in many different ways and its history is quite vast—much deeper than what the type of people who showed up at the summer solstice events which happen every year where druid loving people watch the sun rise on the longest day of the year.

I watched the events that these types of people participate in and it actually makes me pretty mad. The druids were not in any way involved with building Stonehenge. Their Celtic heritage is just another rendition of the modern nature worshipping hippie—the earth first losers who plague our modern politics with wishy-washy sentiment rooted in a new religion—making Mother Earth the new Yahweh or Shiva. For them and their followers of the modern age—Stonehenge is an earth worshipping symbol that a bunch of second handers from the region of Germany adopted to have sex parties and conduct themselves foolishly while under the ground dating back over 10,000 years were the relics of civilizations’ origins waiting still to be discovered. The reasons for Stonehenge’s alignments to the sun and other celestial bodies go far beyond the natural worshipping druids.

Yet like the American Indian the true meaning of the people who built Stonehenge goes undetected because intellectual curiosity cannot get past the necessity for spiritual redemption. Even the people studying Stonehenge cannot help but be pulled into the earth worship distortion that people like these druid lovers bring to the site during real archaeological study. When I was there the obvious layers of observation was distinctly obvious. On the surface, you have all these conclusions that are wrapped up in the methods of druid mythology which has always been associated with the site—unjustifiably. The druids came along many centuries after the final stages of construction at Stonehenge in 2500 BC. But to look properly at Stonehenge you have to be willing to look at Old Sarum to the south and Avebury to the north—as well as many hundreds of earthworks over the 50 miles of regional coverage. There was a lot going on in that region of England dating from the end of the last Ice Age to the relative present of 4000 years ago. For many millenniums—much longer than our present age—the Stonehenge region was very important and it goes well beyond the need to worship the earth.

Dating back 10,000 years—at least, are the skeletons of many sacrificed animals. What we know of Stonehenge and its modern rocks were built on the sacrificial site of these animal bones. Even in recent years—the last stages of Stonehenge after final construction, human sacrifices where happening with frequency—many of them quite brutal. I’m inclined to think that the stone alignments with the various solstices had less to do with celestial worship and more to do with keeping track of their progress throughout the year—likely to mark the points in time where interactions with important events occurred—such as when it became known how to calculate complicated mathematical concepts among a bunch of supposed nomads hunting and gathering for their entire lives and doing nothing else. Somewhere along the line of this 10,000-year span something happened that made people do remarkable things in that rather unremarkable landscape.

Then there is the problem of understanding that the builders of Stonehenge were not a regional phenomenon, but a global one. I am quite convinced after visiting Stonehenge and seeing things with my own eyes that the same people who built that place were also in North America building the many similar structures still seen all over the Americas. We are likely looking at a society that was much more advanced than we give it credit for, and was likely part of the culture that existed all over the world prior to the time the Book of Genesis was written. Many calculate that the Great Deluge took place around 2348 BCE which is just a few hundred years after the final touches of Stonehenge so we are dealing with more than just mythology and Earth worshiping killers. We’re dealing with a particularly potent hidden history that is right in front of our faces—yet we hide the truth behind our recent religious inventions—and that is compelling.

Evidence of life—even giant stones like what we see at Stonehenge do not last very long. Once you apply 20 or 30,000 years of wear to anything it often becomes unrecognizable and that to me is the most compelling aspect of the Neolithic monuments surrounding the Stonehenge area. Without question to me the same culture that built Stonehenge ended up in some way in North America and likely China. Without question, there were global sea trade routes moving all around the world at a time when we think of the people of Stonehenge as being separate and rising independently. The evidence simply doesn’t support that if you look at everything instead of just the Stonehenge complex. And then there is the case of the American Indian—they are obviously from the China region and settled in North America as a separate transaction of migration and they were interacting with these Stonehenge people—whoever they were—well before the druids walked out of Germany. All this is very revolutionary and certainly changes what we know about our own history. That’s why I so badly wanted to visit the site in person as opposed to reading about it as I have so much. It is clear that even lifelong researchers into Stonehenge are trying to fit it into what we know about science, instead of letting history properly tell its story with us being a willing audience. We’ve tried too hard to shape the narrative to fit our comfort level.

The biggest question about Stonehenge is—why there, and likely that answer is due to events that occurred before the Ice Age even happened. The uneventful plain of land in western England did not suddenly just pop up all these really remarkable monuments—something inspired people to do these things at a great cost to themselves—and that is where we need answers—and we’re not going to get it by watching a bunch of hippies worship the sun. I think the reason the sun was so important to all these ancient people clearly marks their need to demonstrate to the political masses a way to tell time. The sacrificial elements that often come out of collapsing societies tend to be what we study but the initial cause is where the focus should be. Why, and why there?

The mathematics involved alone extend well beyond the achievements of Greek study—it is time to accept that Greek and Roman empires were only ages and that all this had come before in times long forgotten. I think Stonehenge says to us that society wasn’t so primitive—at least aspects of it. People may have come from the surrounding countryside to become part of something bigger, and wiser at Stonehenge, and Avebury, but the people who built all these things were far less nomadic than we want to admit. They were rather advanced and that is something we need to deal with. They were a global society, not a regional one. It may take us 100 to 200 more years to find enough evidence to support some of the things I’ve said here, but the evidence is stacking up, and much of this is obvious. We just need more evidence before re-writing history books. But mark what I’m saying here, these druid rituals are just a bunch of left leaning hippies who are trying to use history to justify their religion of Mother Earth worship. They are as loony as the fools who sacrificed other human beings at Stonehenge trying to make it rain. They are not the builders of Stonehenge, or the causes for why it’s there to begin with. They are just more of a second-hand civilization riding the coattails of greatness and hoping that they can loot the credit for it over the lens of history. So far it has worked for them, but the evidence emerging is telling us the truth, and they are certainly blind to it.

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

‘The Book of Henry’: More than a film review–but an articulation of the very nature of evil

I was stunned by the movie reviews for The Book of Henry—they were illustriously bad.  In fact, they were so bad that there was often hatred in the utterances of the reviews.  Some people just hated this movie.  Yet, I have been very excited about it and did go and see it on the opening weekend—and I thought it was an absolutely brilliant film.  It wasn’t just a little good—it was great and in any other time, it would win many awards.  So how could all the critics be so wrong—well, to get to that let’s study the reaction to just the trailer that Grace Randolph from Beyond the Trailer provided when she reviewed the preview back in March.  I’m not picking on Grace, I usually lover her opinions even when I don’t agree—but this reaction is one of those raw–primal hatreds that certainly influenced all the negative reviews and that is why this is such a brilliant film.  Watch closely.

I think it said a lot about Colin Trevorrow that he wanted to even make this movie between the blockbusters of Jurassic World and the ninth Star Wars film upcoming.  He could have made any movie he wanted yet he picked The Book of Henry, which features a boy genius, 11 years of age who knows that there is great evil in the world and he spends much of his time contemplating how to stop it.  Trevorrow brought in some great talent, wonderful editing, great composer, great actors, great cinematography—great film business people from top to bottom and gave a project like The Book of Henry a top notch indie film treatment.  It’s a movie with a lot of heart but it has a judgment and that is what has people so outrageously upset with the movie and seek to punish it with their own needs to deflect their own guilt for the theme for which the movie is about.

The little girl next door to where Henry lives with his single mom and his little brother is being sexually abused by her step father who happens to be the police commissioner. So let’s answer Grace’s question from above, because her reaction was pretty innocent but some of the people in the film review business, from Variety to Rolling Stone are no doubt like the Sarah Silverman character—whom I don’t like as a political activist.  But she played a wonderful normal person in this movie—a person that likely 90 percent of our population could identify with.  She’s a loser, a hard-core drinker who misses work too much and has an ugly tattoo on her breast which she shows off most of the movie—she is the best friend of Naomi Watts who plays Henry’s mom.  And what a poor creature she is—she represents another large segment of the population who have lost her way in life.  She’s not a bad person, but she’s afraid to make her mark on the world and she drinks and plays too many video games to hide from that inclination—and she is totally dependent on her oldest son Henry who is an impeccable genius.

Most of the reviewers have commented that Henry seems otherworldly and un-relatable. After all, there just aren’t 11-year-olds out there who are as mature and wise as Henry.  But movies are supposed to take us to places we can’t go in normal life and meet people worth the hard work that usually goes into making movies.  And lucky for me, I completely understand Henry.  I knew people like him and there are parts of him that I can directly understand.  There is a scene in the movie that I thought was particularly powerful, it’s where Henry, his brother and his mom are at the grocery and they see a guy beating his girlfriend as they are having an argument. Nobody does anything to help the woman, but Henry is inclined to get involved and his mom stops him telling him its none of their business.  “Don’t get involved.”   Later that night Henry and his mom are in bed talking (innocently because the mother still reads books to her boys even though they are probably too old) and Henry tries to explain how disappointed he was in his mother for not wanting to get involved in the argument between the couple at the grocery store.  Of course his mother uses the excuse that she didn’t want to become embroiled in a violent episode.  Then Henry explains to her that violence isn’t always the worst thing.  Curious, his mother asked the young man what is the worst thing in the world.  Henry pauses for a second and answers, “apathy.”

When Grace Randolph was so outraged that The Book of Henry relied so heavily on a child genius to tell a rather ordinary story about revenge, redemption and family assimilation she made the mistake to assume that these things are normally very obvious to people—and they are in the third person.  After all, we are used to watching other people in the god-like position of viewer, with television and movies where we often have more information about what’s going on than the characters on the screen do and the drama we experience is in hoping that people we care about learn what we do in time to save themselves.  But in real life where stories are not broken down into typical three act plays, introduction, articulation of the conflict, then wrapped up nicely and on que to climax—events do not hold to that structure and because we have trained our minds in such a fashion—we often do not see evil sitting right in front of us.  Evil comes at us in subtle ways through loved ones, our jobs, our politics—even the kid who wants to mow our grass, install our cable, or check out our food at Wal-Mart.  We as human beings trust our structures and our institutions.  But most of the things that happen in the world happens outside of those organized elements and in the case of The Book of Henry, we see a society stuck in its structures and trust in institutional figures—such as the police chief next door who complains that the leaves of his single parent mother neighbor keep blowing into his yard giving him psychological leverage over her to hide his real crime—that he is sexually molesting his step daughter and using the institutions of government to keep inquiries away from him.  It takes someone free of those institutions—someone bigger than what human kind has to offer at that moment to see the evil—and that is why it was necessary to have Henry in this film be a brilliant kid.  Without that genius, nobody would have the courage to step beyond the veil of adulthood with all its trickery and diversion tactics meant to deceive themselves into believing they were living good lives—to see the truth.  That the police commissioner was destroying this poor little girl for extremely selfish reasons he deserved a style of justice that has nearly been outlawed in America. The Book of Henry nails all this and more making it a remarkable work of art.  That it has pissed off so many reviewers say more about them than the movie—for they are like the institutionalists in the film who failed the little girl while only Henry thought to act and took action to start the process. There are a lot of little girls—and little boys in the world who need someone to see how much trouble they are in but unfortunately their plight is invisible to most of our adult population.

The Book of Henry is a rare film that like all great art shows us what is difficult to see and in this case the plot device is genius to show it to an audience stuck in life much like the Naomi Watts character—not a bad person, but a person stuck in hundreds of bad decisions holding her down in life.  Her son Henry is pure and free of such things and it is through him that she comes to see the world for what it really is—and is compelled to act accordingly.  Even with some of the truly tragic story lines in this film it is an uplifting tale of optimism and genuine love of life. It is a truly remarkable work and something everyone should see at least once.  The reviews don’t like the film because it’s a bad movie—but because it makes them look at things they are partially guilty of creating—so that should not be a reason to avoid the picture.  Rather, The Book of Henry should be watched with open hearts and open minds and an honest assessment to what role the viewer might play on the side of villainy so that they can correct the situation for the good of everyone. The Book of Henry nails it and is certainly one of the great films of history and should still be remembered many years from now.

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

James Hodgkinson’s Assassination Attempt Wasn’t Isolated: Deep State Mueller and many others ignore Lorretta Lynch crimes to attack Trump

On the day of the shooting in Alexandria, Virginia by a radical left-winged terrorist by the name of James Hodgkinson, the special counsel investigation into the made up Trump/Russia collusion story announced that it was widening its investigation against Trump for obstruction of justice over the firing of James Comey.  If that is the case and the old FBI agent Mueller thinks that such an investigation is even appropriate—and that is the standard–then Loretta Lynch and Hillary Clinton need to be prosecuted immediately, because the evidence has already been produced against them.  The hatred that caused the simpleton fool Hodgkinson to do what he did in attempting to assassinate congressional Republicans begins and ends at the feet of the extreme leftists who are currently being protected by people like Mueller, Comey and the other members of the Deep State.  Then there is the media which has empowered the furtherance of real crimes, such as Comey’s illegal leaking of classified information as the Director of the FBI, which caused this special counsel investigation to begin with—they collectively created the vile creature that was James Hodgkinson.  The following video and information reported after the shooter was identified came right off his Facebook page and clearly tell the story.  I don’t know about you dear reader, but I’m not going to put up with it.  These are villains and they are attacking everything that America stands for—and they won’t stop with some liberal loser like James Hodgkinson.  They are desperate and they are killers.  They seek to use idiots prone to quick tempers and intellectual stupidity to do their bidding, but make no mistake about it—behind James Hodgkinson are the puppet masters of the political left—and their desire to commit violence to stay in power—at whatever cost–drives their every breath. Before Trump endures anything close to an investigation into “obstruction of justice” Lorretta Lynch needs to be convicted for her proven actions in that category.

James Hodgkinson was a 66-year-old from Belleville, Illinois.  On June 14th, he opened fire at several Republican lawmakers practicing for the Congressional Baseball game.

Political Views

James’ Facebook profile shows support for Bernie Sanders, FDR, and progressive causes while containing several posts that were hateful toward President Trump and his administration.[11][3]

 

His favorite television programs include Last Week Tonight, Democracy Now, The Rachel Maddow Show, Real Time with Bill Maher and The Daily Show.[3] James was a part of a number of left-leaning Facebook groups such as The Road To Hell Is Paved With Republicans, Join The Resistance Worldwide!!, Rachel Maddow For President 2020, The Democrats, etc.[3]

James volunteered for Bernie Sanders’ Presidential Campaign. He viewed Hillary Clinton as Republican Lite and wanted Bernie to be the Green Party candidate when he lost.

On the morning of June 14th, Republican Congressmen and their staff were practicing for the Congressional softball game in the Del Ray neighborhood of Alexandria, Virginia. Around 7 am, Hodgkinson opened fire on the baseball field. Five people, including House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and two Capitol Hill Police Officers, were injured.  Scalise was shot in the hip. Hodgkinson was also shot and died from his injuries. The weapon he used was an M4 assault rifle and witnesses report hearing 50 gunshots. The duration of the incident was between 5-10 minutes.

http://truthfeed.com/breaking-details-emerge-on-virginia-shooter-favorite-shows-include-maddow-trevor-noah/81556/

Look, this is a real war, these people are playing for keeps–and you better not turn the other cheek on them.  Its time to fight back, shoot back, and legislate back.  Hit them harder than they are hitting us–because its the right thing to do.  Failure to do so will only breed more James Hodgkinsons.

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

The Call to Adventure: A 52 Week Project which photographs authenticiy

It was strange recently getting yet another notification from the Ohio courts of Butler County that I’ve been selected for jury duty because my name ends up in the hat so often due to my voting patterns.  I noticed while filling out the form which included my wife and kids that none of them have what you might call—“traditional” jobs.  My wife is a happy housewife, my oldest daughter a professional photographer who is very highly sought after and my youngest is an illustrator.  As I write this she, (my youngest) is doing a commission piece on the Batman villain The Joker shown below.  But none of the ladies in my family have a “traditional” job where they go to work, punch in and sell away their day for cash.  I know that’s the typical way that we measure economic success, but I’ve always been a big supporter of that type of freedom—especially for women because they tend to invest more into children, households and the emotional nurturing of a family as a whole.  When people are free of that primary concern of having to sell away their time for money, it allows them to invest in less tangible aspects of family building, so it makes me proud to see that among the women closest to me, they are all on that type of path.  They don’t have a “boss” out there they must yield to, and that is something I think is very important to family development, because it makes them the authority figures of their own lives which is why that question is asked on a jury selection form.  Attorneys obviously want to know that the people in their pool are “normal” people miserable like everyone else—so the way I answered that question likely will knock me out of the selection process.

My photographer daughter has really impressed me; she is taking her business to a new level as seen in these included videos.  She’s doing something called the 52 Weeks Project where each week she is picking a subject to photograph then she shows how she comes up with the shots and how the editing process goes on arriving at the final product.  She’s a full-time mom, but on both of these efforts she was up at dawn before her little boy woke up wanting breakfast and conducted these pictures for her project squeezing in a lot of creativity into an already packed day.  She’s been busy with booked appearances for several weeks now and coming up shortly after this publication she has a photo shoot in Chicago.  So what you see here is a very developed photographer who is expecting herself to be one of the great ones.  What she does is out of pure passion which I liken back to having the ability to be free of having a “boss” in her life who governs her away from home while on a time clock. That freedom has allowed her to expand her personal life in ways that I think are quite extraordinary—and necessary to achieve the level of art that she is shooting for.

Even her subjects are unique in the scheme of the photographic community.  Her first entry into the 52 weeks project was “A Call to Adventure” which I thought she managed to squeeze a lot out of while working in a very limited area within Cincinnati.   For those who don’t understand why a “Call to Adventure” is important it’s a classic motif most appropriately defined by Joseph Campbell in the telling of mythologies.  Usually after the first act of a movie or the introductory phase of a novel the main character is faced with a jumping off point from the static patterns of their normal life and into the promise of adventure provoked by some dynamic force. For some people the “Call to Adventure” might be as simple as a stranger approaching you from the back of a cab at a stop light while you’re walking to work in New York and asks you to help them get to the airport.  You must then decide to help or not because if you do, the static patterns of your day will be disrupted and that could have unpleasant consequences.  Then for others it might be an opportunity to fly to Cambodia to do sex traffic rescue work in some steamy jungle nightmare, but while there you make a new archaeological discovery that changes the world perspective on our knowledge of history.  The “Call to Adventure” is often how you can dramatically enrich your life for the better with vast experience, but to do so you must step away from your static patterns and allow dynamic forces into your life.

For instance, a friend of mine who worked on the Trump campaign in 2016 called me on a very busy day last week and asked me if I could appear on CNN the next day.  I had scheduled a lot of events and I really didn’t have the time.  After all I had an oversea meeting planned at the very same moment I was supposed to be on with Anderson Cooper.  So did I answer the call and go on CNN which was likely just going to do a hit piece.  As it turned out the CNN people were very gracious and were not the kind of gotcha people who Rush Limbaugh surmised when he talked about the event on his show.  I did the CNN segment along with some other peers and it got people talking and was fun to do.  I still managed to get all my work done—although it was different from my usual day and I could point to many times in my life where answering the “Call to Adventure” directly led to some very unusual experiences which ultimately enhanced my life.

I have learned over time to never get too rigid about things.  The “Call of Adventure” is something I consider so important that I often go out of my way to find it with a very laissez-faire approach to living and personal management.  I may start the day with all kinds of planned activities but by the end of it, I end up doing things I never thought I would at the start and that comes from saying yes to the “Call of Adventure.”  So it made me particularly proud to see my photographer daughter out there capturing not only dramatic photos but articulating that difficult concept artistically.  She, standing at the entrance of a forest goes back to some of the great Arthurian legends of the Middle Ages where the knights would all enter the forest of their various adventures at different points basically to establish that no two paths of adventure were the same for other people.  People must pick their own paths in life to be living truly authentic lives so here was my kid showing this rather difficult concept to explain with a simple photograph.  But as you can see from the editing process, it’s not so simple.IMG_4644

This brings me back to the importance of my girls not being encumbered with a traditional job—especially while raising their children.  If they put their children in daycare, there would be many fewer opportunities for the kids to experience the wonder of a life lived authentically, because the static schedules of daily living prohibit it—and true intellectual learning is often crippled in children as a result.  But for a mother who is there ready to answer that “Call to Adventure” at the slightest provocation a simple trip to the grocery store on a sunny summer in July might lead to a lifetime of discoveries that stay with young people forever because if the schedule of acquiring food is relaxed there may be opportunities for adventure that come up along the way—someone might need help changing a flat tire or a snake may be caught under a car in the grocery store parking lot and need help getting over to the cool grass before somebody runs it over.  You just never know—but there is tremendous value in following the “Call to Adventure” and it makes me feel very good to see that my daughter has matured to a point where she can understand it well enough to photograph.  That takes talent!

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

Why Jim Comey Should go to Jail: How the former FBI director lied and how

Given the nature of the subject and the amount of time I personally gave to it last week this is sort of a three-part response to the Comey testimony provided on June 8th 2017 to the senate.  (Click here to review the previous entries.)  So for this let me answer the question that was given to me by CNN and explain my reasons—the question of course was whether or not I thought James Comey—former director of the FBI, should go to jail.  In my 20 second answer, I couldn’t give the kind of answer I wanted because of the necessary theatrics of television so here it is in writing.  Yes, James Comey should go to jail for lying under oath and for subversion of our republic.  I’m sure he was lying, and I’m sure he held back information deliberately which is in many cases equivalent to lying and he is for all practical purposes a villain.  Here’s why.

There was something that really bothered me about the way James Comey prepared his statements before the testimony, and the way he referred to tangible observations in such a lurid way.  As I said to CNN, Comey’s written testimony along with the delivery of additional information to the senate reminded me of the early James Bond novels from Ian Flemming–of a much more disgraceful and reckless British agent than we saw in the films with Sean Connery and Roger Moore.  The flair of Comey’s writing style reminded me not of a long time FBI agent—but actually that of a pent-up author wanting desperately to mater in the world just a few years before turning 60 years of age.  My comments below come from the experience of being an employer myself and working with people the same age as James Comey—and in reading voluminous amounts of books over the years—particularly the work of Ian Fleming.  I know all too well that when you hire fire and discipline around a thousand employees over a period of time some of them by nature will not agree with you.  Sometimes they will work against you, and at some point in time will think you are the most evil person in the world because they can’t get you to see things their way—and they find themselves on the outside looking in—which often hurts their feelings.  There are people out there who think I’m the most mean and evil person in the world.  Does that make them correct?  Of course not, but from their perspective their opinion is all they care about.  And this is what we are talking about with Comey—an ex-employee who gambled and lost his job and is now on the outside and it hurts him.  His testimony says all the things we need to know. If you know what to look for Comey spelled it all out before the hearing even took place by what he had written down, then illustrated gloriously during his sworn statements.

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/os-jcomey-060817.pdf?platform=hootsuite

Again, this is experience on my part that I offer this breakdown, but Comey opened the door to it by his own testimony.  Because he did that we have to account for the way he thinks and what his motives were based on the instinct of experience. For instance, below are a few of the Comey written comments that I found particularly damning for him so let me talk about them one at a time which will then be summarized to properly articulate my conclusion of why Comey should go to jail.  Here is the first:

The IC leadership thought it important, for a variety of reasons, to alert the incoming President to the existence of this material, even though it was salacious and unverified. Among those reasons were: (1) we knew the media was about to publicly report the material and we believed the IC should not keep knowledge of the material and its imminent release from the President-Elect; and (2) to the extent there was some effort to compromise an incoming President, we could blunt any such effort with a defensive briefing.

That’s not what the IC was doing on their January 6th meeting with Trump where Comey cleared the room to report the unverified salacious and unverified material to Trump.  They were showing the new president what they had on him and were warning him of information they “could” possess if needed for their own preservation.  They were guilty of trying to create the kind of leverage that Comey complained about later which indicates that they were prone to thinking this way themselves—as a point of reference.  The IC (intelligence community) was trying to throw Trump a bone so that they could win him over for their further employment.  When Trump failed to feel threatened by this attempt, the members of the IC were deeply concerned as they left Trump Tower that day and it was at this point that the leaks from the IC began to flow freely to the press.

I felt compelled to document my first conversation with the President-Elect in a memo. To ensure accuracy, I began to type it on a laptop in an FBI vehicle outside Trump Tower the moment I walked out of the meeting. Creating written records immediately after one-on-one conversations with Mr. Trump was my practice from that point forward. This had not been my practice in the past. I spoke alone with President Obama twice in person (and never on the phone) – once in 2015 to discuss law enforcement policy issues and a second time, briefly, for him to say goodbye in late 2016. In neither of those circumstances did I memorialize the discussions. I can recall nine one-on-one conversations with President Trump in four months – three in person and six on the phone.

By his own admission Comey never did this with any other president prior, but the meeting rattled Comey to such an extent that he felt he better start now because it was always his intention after January 6th to rid the Beltway of this Trump threat. That was the same type of behavior that an employee who knows they are about to be fired does in an attempt to save their job, they begin gathering written recollections to use in human resources later. Comey lacking personal courage reverted to a passive aggressive approach, which was writing everything down. Comey understood early that Trump had doubts about him and his leadership in the FBI so he began to keep notes that he could use later to extort his futher employment.

 

My instincts told me that the one-on-one setting, and the pretense that this was our first discussion about my position, meant the dinner was, at least in part, an effort to have me ask for my job and create some sort of patronage relationship. That concerned me greatly, given the FBI’s traditionally independent status in the executive branch.  A few moments later, the President said, “I need loyalty, I expect loyalty.” I didn’t move, speak, or change my facial expression in any way during the awkward silence that followed. We simply looked at each other in silence. The conversation then moved on, but he returned to the subject near the end of our dinner.

Here Comey is hoping to use his experience as an FBI agent and director to overcome any doubt about what he’s saying about Trump.  This detail about his personal dinner with Trump in the Green Room of the White House is particularly revealing.  First Comey wants to show that he has a story to tell and is trying to attract agents for a big book deal, or even a Hollywood movie based on his experiences.  The liberals of the Beltway who know film producers likely put the bug in his ear which he was receptive to after that January 8th meeting where Comey started writing things down.  The salacious details here say a lot about Comey’s motives because he goes into almost screenplay detail—which has nothing to do with facts the way you’d expect an FBI director to illicit.  Instead he relied on his feelings which are more aligned with the way a novelist would write.  People forget that Ian Flemming, the great British writer and creator of James Bond was a British Naval Intelligence Division agent before he was a writer and if you go back and read his first book, Casino Royal, it actually sounds a lot like the way Comey writes in his interactions with Trump.  Since Comey himself offered that “instinct” is admissible as evidence for the deduction of reason in this case, then I feel quite comfortable in concluding that Comey decided he was going to be a writer after his FBI career and Trump was going to be his villain that he’d write about.  He’d be the toast of the swamp as his friends around the Beltway would honor him for all time as the Boy Scout who saved them from the lunatic businessman from New York during a short-lived presidency.  The more he thought about it, the more alluring the thought became until it became so obvious that Trump could see it on his face.  Prior to that January 27th dinner meeting, Comey had hidden his fantasy—but Trump could detect it and it changed the way that Trump thought about Comey as director of the FBI.

On February 14, I went to the Oval Office for a scheduled counterterrorism briefing of the President. He sat behind the desk and a group of us sat in a semi-circle of about six chairs facing him on the other side of the desk. The Vice President, Deputy Director of the CIA, Director of the National CounterTerrorism Center, Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney General, and I were in the semi-circle of chairs. I was directly facing the President, sitting between the Deputy CIA Director and the Director of NCTC. There were quite a few others in the room, sitting behind us on couches and chairs. The President signaled the end of the briefing by thanking the group and telling them all that he wanted to speak to me alone. I stayed in my chair. As the participants started to leave the Oval Office, the Attorney General lingered by my chair, but the President thanked him and said he wanted to speak only with me. The last person to leave was Jared Kushner, who also stood by my chair and exchanged pleasantries with me. The President then excused him, saying he wanted to speak with me. When the door by the grandfather clock closed, and we were alone, the President began by saying, “I want to talk about Mike Flynn.” Flynn had resigned 5 the previous day. The President began by saying Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong in speaking with the Russians, but he had to let him go because he had misled the Vice President. He added that he had other concerns about Flynn, which he did not then specify. The President then made a long series of comments about the problem with leaks of classified information – a concern I shared and still share. After he had spoken for a few minutes about leaks, Reince Priebus leaned in through the door by the grandfather clock and I could see a group of people waiting behind him. The President waved at him to close the door, saying he would be done shortly. The door closed. The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, “He is a good guy and has been through a lot.” He repeated that Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President. He then said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” I replied only that “he is a good guy.” (In fact, I had a positive experience dealing with Mike Flynn when he was a colleague as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency at the beginning of my term at FBI.) I did not say I would “let this go.” The President returned briefly to the problem of leaks. I then got up and left out the door by the grandfather clock, making my way through the large group of people waiting there, including Mr. Priebus and the Vice President. I immediately prepared an unclassified memo of the conversation about Flynn and discussed the matter with FBI senior leadership. I had understood the President to be requesting that we drop any investigation of Flynn in connection with false statements about his conversations with the Russian ambassador in December. I did not understand the President to be talking about the broader investigation into Russia or possible links to his campaign. I could be wrong, but I took him to be focusing on what had just happened with Flynn’s departure and the controversy around his account of his phone calls. Regardless, it was very concerning, given the FBI’s role as an independent investigative agency.

Even going to the trouble to mention the grandfather clock in this segment of Comey’s testimony is more of an attempt to paint a picture of the moment more than just reporting the facts.  This only reiterates what I said about Comey wanting to be a novelist because the clock has nothing to do with the facts of the matter. The point of this entire segment is to paint Comey as the sole survivor of a treacherous cloud of villainy.  Comey knew that his Beltway friends would soak all this up so he added extra detail for the sake of drama.  In the contents of the discussion its obvious Trump wanted to protect his friend Michael Flynn from further embarrassment as the guy had just resigned a few days prior.  There was no conspiracy or ill intent on the part of the president—since “instinct” is now admissible as evidence.  What is particularly revealing here is the part where Comey tries to portray himself completely in control by saying “I did not say I would ‘let this go.” The president returned briefly to the problem of leaks.  I then got up and left out the door by the grandfather clock”—and so on and so on.  Listening to Comey speak in writing he was very much in control and was the protagonist of his own adventure, but from what he stated in his testimony he added that he was terrified of this one on one with Trump and he felt compelled that the weight of the office was upon him to stop the Russian investigation.

Essentially Comey decided some time before the election of 2016 that regardless of what happened he was going to seek money and fame in the private sector which likely shaped the way he handled the Hillary Clinton case.  If he had prosecuted her—like he should have, the agents and movie makers would have held it against him.  So days before the election when things were tight between Trump and Clinton he tried to take the light off her and help her out a few percentage points—because he wanted his book deal.  It would have paid a lot more than he made as an FBI director and he’d gain fame for he and his family—along with his professor friends who leak stories to The New York Times. From Comey’s perspective of trying to make a little money for his family he’s a hero—he’s the protagonist standing up to the president in the Oval Office like a Boy Scout honest, clean and full of pride in Amerca. But in reality he was just another swamp monster working against the American people, actively subverting justice to keep a political party in power and when none of that worked he became one of the big leakers to the media in an attempt to bring down a properly elected American president violating his employment agreement with the FBI and the natural trust his position carried with it as head of the intelligence community.

Comey lied because he took it upon himself to become an activist, he wrote down information on government computers to be used as a weapon—no wonder he let Hillary Clinton go—but he did not state these intentions which were clearly present.  Instead he painted himself as a bastion of the law who would uphold truth, justice and the American way. In reality he was just another cowering bureaucrat trying to hide in the swamp and ride out his years as he propped himself up as a future writer in the private sector.  He lied because he did not state his intentions correctly for why he actually became a leaker.  He said it was to preserve justice—but in reality it was to take down a president he didn’t like from the beginning and he wanted to be a hero to the left.  He also lied in saying that he wasn’t political.  His actions were very political and more than justified his termination without any further drama.  But we all know how that turned out. Comey placed himself on a pedestal hoping to play at being the sacrificial lamb for the good of the ”Beltway.”  But what he revealed of himself was that he was an activist for the preservation of the status quo and a leaker of information gathered in the Oval Office to be spread upon a salacious press in the way a plot from House of Cards might have a hard time believing.  Yet that is precisely what happened.  That is why Comey should go to jail. He abused the trust of his office. He sought to bring down an American president’s administration, and he misrepresented himself under sworn testimony. And he wrote down the evidence forcing us all to act on it.

And that’s that.

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

Kathy Griffin’s Lunacy: Remembering the cross-hairs of Sarah Palin

Kathy Griffin did make me laugh, which is what she says she aspires to, but not for the reasons she desired.  I laughed because her press conference was so insane that it was out of this world funny.  Griffin and her ridiculously idiotic lawyer, Lisa Bloom made absolute assess of themselves which provoked in me more laughter than I’ve had in years over their astonishing claims of victim hood.

It was Kathy Griffin who put herself in that situation by filming a scene of her holding the severed head of Donald Trump—a sitting president—obviously attempting to provoke enough anger among her base to trigger someone into committing an assassination attempt. If the political left’s standard of social responsibility is to be gauged the way that they did when Sarah Palin used gun targets on her website as a way to indicate elected positions that needed to be challenged by Republicans and was blamed for instigating assassination conjecture against Gabrielle Gifford—then what Kathy Griffin did can in no way be taken as anything but a direct threat against the President of the United States where jail time is mandated at the very least.  Yet here were these two lunatic women—people I traditionally refer to as latté sipping prostitutes because of my own experience with people like this who hide their crazy terrorism behind a social shield of femininity, actually held a big press conference and attempted to play the victim.  It was amazingly ludicrous.

You remember all that don’t you dear reader-the situation with Sarah Palin. Well, the social norms for this kind of thing were established by the media on the political left during that debate which really hurt Sarah Palin.  She never did really recover over what was technically an innocent use of a graphic to draw focus onto political districts up for grabs in future elections—yet the left insisted that what Palin did was wrong and grossly immoral.  So using that same standard what other bases do we have to go on over the pop singer Madonna’s threat to blow up the White House and now this celebrity comic seeking to incite an assassination attempt ISIS style against a sitting president because she doesn’t like the election results which literally just happened a few months ago?

How can we take what Kathy Griffin did as anything but a direct threat? It wasn’t funny in the least and she looked quite serious when she did it.  There are a lot of crazy people out there and all we can conclude was that she was trying to set one of them off with this reckless publicity stunt to kill the president.  So yeah, the Secret Service has a right to investigate her and probably prosecute her.  What she did was not only in bad taste, it was technically illegal.  The Trump family had a right to be upset about it and they acted with a lot of class in response.  The fault of the entire situation rested with Kathy Griffin and her handlers which Lisa Bloom was obviously part of and they all deserve what’s coming due to their loss in credibility.

Comics, actors and liberal lawyers don’t get to swipe at a lion then wonder why the lion eats them by screaming for the 1st Amendment to protect them.  Comics are not a protected class.  If it’s good for them, then they can get it coming back.  Kathy Griffin did destroy her career this past week when she held up that head of what was supposed to be Donald Trump.  If anybody had done something like that during Barack Obama’s presidency the person who did it would have been the subject of Ferguson style riots and they likely would have been lynched on the spot by the political left and their street level minions.  I remember being on 700 WLW radio with Doc Thompson several years ago when Obama launched a website called Attack Watch which people like us were on just for showing an opposition toward the president’s policies.  Listen below for review.  We remember how it felt to be the opposing party of a sitting president—and we remember how close we all came to tyranny in America.  Using the political left’s own criteria Kathy Griffin should be in jail right now, she certainly shouldn’t be having a press conference espousing victim-hood.

And that’s what’s so funny about this case, it truly shows how loony the political left really is.  I mean we’ve seen it for years and conservatives have sort of laughed it off—we certainly did when they went after Sarah Palin over the website controversy already mentioned, and we did when Obama showed how insecure he was with the Attack Watch threat to put people like me under the threat of government enforcement for just having a different political view.  I was always very careful not to do anything that could be construed as a threat even in my own home because I knew they were always listening waiting for me to make a mistake which they could twist into a prosecutable offense. If Kathy Griffin felt she could hold up a severed head in front of a camera imagine what she and her friends talk about at dinner parties and other places where they think nobody on the outside is listening?  I’m sure they’ve said things that would put them on a watch list for the Secret Service

We put up with the losers the left has given us for many years and occasionally I would speak with people who wondered why nobody had tried to kill Barack Obama—because we all hated him.  The guy didn’t represent us and he was constantly trying to use the power of the federal government to weaken our nation and intrude on our lives.  If you look back to that period where the political left made such a big deal about Sarah Palin—which was only 5 to 6 years ago as of this writing, we are a completely different nation now.  Even when I had my famous “latté sipping prostitute” scandal in that 2012 time frame we are not the same kind of nation now than we were then.  Many more people would agree with me today than they were prepared to admit even back then.  That was about as far as any of us on the political right would have went—none of us would have held up a severed head of Barack Obama and thought it appropriate.  Even the craziest Alex Jones antics on the air would have refused to have made a direct threat against a sitting president because we at least were that civil.  Instead we focused on using the election process to replace all these idiots—which is what we’ve done—and how things are supposed to work.  Making threats to kill someone is not appropriate under any condition.  And you can’t hide behind “art” hoping to provoke some loser out there into doing the dirty work for you.  Kathy Griffin should have known better and her crazy lawyer Lisa Booth shouldn’t have even been near a camera trying to defend what the comedian had done.

At some point the political left and right will cease to be—one side is going to win and one side will lose.  The Overton Window will move in one direction and stay there as a reflection of American culture and the left can see that they’ve lost their ground made psychologically over the many years of their insurgency.  I didn’t even know who Kathy Griffin was two days ago—but now she put herself on the radar of many conservative people—that vast red space on the political maps of our country that voted for Donald Trump. Kathy is only funny in her groups of liberal friends or with people just as dumb as she is.  At least half the nation doesn’t find her brand of comedy funny in the least.  I thought it interesting that Jim Carry came out in defense of her—notice he’s not in movies anymore.  Nobody wants to see him since he did his hit piece on the memory of Charlton Heston over gun rights.  That event pretty much ruined his career and what Kathy did was so much worse.  Yet these idiots keep doing these things thinking that they can take shots, but that the shots won’t come back at them.  No, that’s not how it works.

For those angry that Donald Trump is the president I have news for you.  He’s there because we put him there.  He represents people like me.  I got sick of the insanity and I wanted a politician in the White House who represented me and the type of people I know to fix the mess that the political left infected us all with.  I don’t want to live in their world with their rules.  I don’t want to associate with Jim Carry or Kathy Griffin’s wrinkled up old ass in any way.  I don’t want them on my television or in my movies and I certainly don’t want their advice. And like I said over seven years ago on a video I did, I don’t think they should even be in America.  If they want the kind of society that is typically found in Europe, then move there and live that life.  Leave us alone.  But Trump isn’t president because of any other factor than that we put him there as the other half of the nation that was just tired of people like Kathy Griffin being in our elected offices.  We had enough and voted for someone different and the political left doesn’t have an answer—and we know that.

We didn’t threaten to kill any of your people—not to your faces anyway—and we remained pretty civil even when we had a right to take many things very personal.  But we never did what Kathy Griffin did.  She did a lot more than cross the line—she showed just how terrible the political left is—and how normal lunacy is on her side of the political aisle.  She not only ruined her career, but she inspired many people to snap out of the spell that the political left has on their minds and made them see the light.  There are more people leaning right today than left because of Kathy Griffin—but that’s not what’s funny.  What made this whole thing such a laughable enterprise was that she actually expected to get away with it revealing the true insanity that was always there but hidden behind social convention.  But then to defend it as if she were a victim—now that was hilarious.

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