Tag: Atlas Shrugged

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 Genius 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.


Theory H Utilization: Thinking correctly about Trump’s “workplace development” week

Since this has been “workplace development” week for the Donald Trump White House it would be proper for me to contribute a few cents to the value of this discussion.  As our economy functions from ever-increasing unemployment numbers—which is a wonderful thing—many people out there in the position to hire workers get stressed out in how to acquire new talent.  Just a few months ago when discussing supply chain challenges downstream from me, I suggested that by opening up a second and third shift that they could dramatically increase their productive output.  So the question came back to me–how would we go about doing that?  I looked at them for a moment mystified that they really didn’t comprehend how to do something so simple—and the more I speak to people all across America, they are really lost as to how to acquire new talent and how to get proper productive output out of all 24 hours of a day. It just happens that this is another one of my specialties and given this week’s White House emphasis, I’ll share a few things to help those most in need given the urgency created by such a booming economy such as what we now have—thanks to President Trump.

I get each week dozens and dozens of offers from job recruiters who offer to help solve a company’s recruiting needs—because honestly this is one of those things that most companies are terrible at.  It’s hard to know what kind of people to hire and how to build teams out of those people once you’ve hired them.  As I’ve stated before, some of the past occupational fields that I’ve been inclined to besides archaeology—which is a study of human cultures, so it’s related to these modern enterprises, was psychiatry.  I’ve always been interested in what makes human beings tick, so when it comes to interviewing and recruiting the right people for the right job-it’s always been something that comes naturally for me.  Then team building with those individuals brings another level of challenge because people often resent being placed together in ways that are not authentic to their experiences—so given all those dynamics, most employers just throw up their hands and hope that other people can be hired to handle those problems for them—the way an attorney might handle all the legal issues.  However, I would say that recruiting is the most important thing a company does aside from figuring out what their product is and how to deliver it to the marketplace.

There are a lot of these “Theory X” people out there who have been taught for two generations that the best way to work with people is with this kind of authoritarian relationship where essentially workforces are communist camps full of Marxists and whatever the “superior” says is what the mass collective must do for the health of the company.  I have sat stunned in many meetings where people who call themselves conservatives politically have this archaic relationship with their workers who actually believe that people should give up their individual rights for the good of the company they work for—and that this is somehow productive for the end use intentions of the organization.  Not at all.  Theory X motivations get a rebellious work force that will tell you one thing to your face, but they’ll do everything they can to drag ass something without constant cattle prodding and discipline to evoke productive results.  People who are obsessed with Theory X are terrible at managing multi-shift production needs.

Theory X

Theory X is based on pessimistic assumptions of the average worker. This management style supposes that the average employee has little to no ambition, shies away from work or responsibilities, and is individual-goal oriented. Generally, Theory X style managers believe their employees are less intelligent than the managers are, lazier than the managers are, or work solely for a sustainable income. Due to these assumptions, Theory X concludes the average workforce is more efficient under “hands-on” approach to management.[1] The ‘Theory X’ manager believes that all actions should be traced and the responsible individual given a direct reward or a reprimand according to the action’s outcomes. This managerial style is more effective when used in a workforce that is not intrinsically motivated to perform. It is usually exercised in professions where promotion is infrequent, unlikely or even impossible and where workers perform repetitive tasks.[2]

According to Douglas McGregor, there are two opposing approaches to implementing Theory X: the “hard” approach and the “soft” approach. The hard approach depends on close supervision, intimidation, and imminent punishment. This approach can potentially yield a hostile, minimally cooperative work force that could harbor resentment towards management. The soft approach is the literal opposite, characterized by leniency and less strictly regulated rules in hopes for high workplace morale and therefore cooperative employees. Implementing a system that is too soft could result in an entitled, low-output workforce. McGregor believes both ends of the spectrum are too extreme for efficient real world application.[3] Instead, McGregor feels that somewhere between the two approaches would be the most effective implementation of Theory X.

Overall, Theory X generally proves to be most effective in terms of consistency of work. Although managers and supervisors are in almost complete control of the work, this produces a more systematic and uniform product or work flow. Theory X can also benefit a work place that is more suited towards an assembly line or manual labor type of occupation.[4] Utilizing theory X in these types of work conditions allow the employee to specialize in a particular area allowing the company to mass produce more quantity and higher quality work, which in turns brings more profit.

Theory Y

“Theory Y is almost in complete contrast to that of Theory X”. Theory Y managers make assumptions that people in the work force are internally motivated, enjoy their labor in the company, and work to better themselves without a direct “reward” in return.[5] Theory Y employees are considered to be one of the most valuable assets to the company, and truly drive the internal workings of the corporation.[6] Also, Theory Y states that these particular employees thrive on challenges that they may face, and relish on bettering their personal performance.[2] Workers additionally tend to take full responsibility for their work and do not require the need of constant supervision in order to create a quality and higher standard product.[4]

Because of the drastic change compared to the “Theory X” way of directing, “Theory Y” managers gravitate towards relating to the worker on a more personal level, as opposed to a more conductive and teaching based relationship.[5] As a result, Theory Y followers may have a better relationship with their higher-ups, as well as potentially having a healthier atmosphere in the work place. Managers in this theory tend to use a democratic type of leadership because workers will be working in a way that does not need supervision the most.[4]

In comparison to “Theory X”, “Theory Y” adds more of a democratic and free feel in the work force allowing the employee to design, construct, and publish their works in a timely manner in co-ordinance to their work load and projects. A study was done to analyze different management styles over professors at a Turkish University. This study found that the highly supervised Theory X management affected the research performance of the academics negatively. In general, the study suggests that the professional setting and research based work that professors perform are best-managed with Theory Y styles.[5]

While “Theory Y” may seem optimal, it does have some drawbacks. While there is a more personal and individualistic feel, this does leave room for error in terms of consistency and uniformity.[3] The workplace lacks unvarying rules and practices, and this can result in an inconsistent product which could potentially be detrimental to the quality standards and strict guidelines of a given company.[1]



I’m not particularly in love with Theory Y either, because of the last paragraph of the explanation above, but it is far superior in the modern marketplace—especially in this climate where unemployment is low and workers have a lot of options to work with.  So new inventions are needed and that’s what I spend most of my time working on professionally, such as what we might call a Theory H, for “Hoffman.”  Employees take on a job for many reasons, primarily so that they can make a living—they exchange their time for money—which they naturally resent at an instinctual level.  But, an opportunity to do a job that has structure and purpose bring with it a currency that often isn’t acknowledged in economic measuring patterns.  So I would suggest that while hiring, hire the best people by determining in the interview if they are working just for a paycheck, or if that is just one aspect of their desire for a job.  If there are other elements to their job seeking desires, such as “getting out of the house to have their own thing,” or they are hungry to build a life for themselves as a young person, if you can see a light on behind their eyes there is usually something you can work with if you are willing to coach them along.  I wouldn’t say that a democratic process is the optimal one because as everyone who reads me knows, the collective is not superior to the individual, but you can’t have a bunch of individuals running around doing whatever they want either.  So you have to get individuals to bring their magic to the table without killing their ambition with too many collective considerations.  As a manager you have to pick and choose what you’re points of emphasis will be, unlike the Theory X person who acts like a communist dictator and tries to make a job into a work camp in Siberia.  Once you’ve defined your critical path points the individuals you’ve hired will go to great measures to help you get where you want to go—because all people like to be a part of something successful.  So let them share in that success and most of your employment needs will be solved.  It’s not always about money with most people, often it’s about having the opportunity to feel pride in the work they do and not have that pride robbed from them by a Theory X tyrant.

It is one of the great privileges in life to be able to offer a job to someone.  They get a chance to do well for their families and you get contributors to a vision that is the engine to productivity in the nation’s GDP.  Each employee should be treated as an asset with life potential with whatever company they happen to work for. Team building comes naturally out of setting the proper objectives for a workforce so that they can be a part of a winning opportunity.  Once they see that they will often do great things to achieve a victory and be a part of a winning team.  It is not enough to ask them to be a part of a team and to sacrifice their individuality to the group enterprise.  They must want to win for their own selfish desires.  When they do that the team does win, so when recruiting, hire people hungry to win at life.  Then, and only then can productive exploits on second, third and weekend shifts be properly explored with all the new opportunities coming forth from this new Trump White House—the hiring process is only scary to the Theory X people.  They need to retrain themselves to think properly in this modern economy.  The recruiters out there exist essentially to help all the out-of-date Theory X types—but that’s not necessary if you understand who you are bringing in and give them the opportunity to be successful.  If give that chance—most people will thrive if they still have that glimmer in their eye left over from childhood that still has hope that they can be a part of something that’s great so they can sleep well at night knowing that they aren’t just on a job—but are a part of something really magnificent.  It doesn’t matter if the product is just making straws for Burger King or if you are making spaceships for commercial flight—greatness is in doing extraordinary things with everyday events and once you establish that, everything else takes care of itself.

Rich Hoffman

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


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.


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.


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.


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.


Fighting Back: It feels good, doesn’t it

It’s always been a war; the only difference is that some of you out there are just coming to realize it. Welcome to the battlefield, many of us have been waiting for you.  I’ve known it was war for a long time and have been often mystified why other people didn’t see it.  Most notably for me personally was when I was in the situation that Sean Hannity is in now at Fox News and people associated with me were having their businesses boycotted by fat-assed neurotic activists who called themselves moms looking for a free baby sitter in public education because I was leading the effort to keep tax money out of the pockets of a school system that had been mismanaging it.  Now eight years later they all know what I was trying to tell them—the school wouldn’t miraculously make their children great by throwing more money at them.  Those kids are now on par with the rest of the world—most of them are losers, and with all their bullying, that leftist playbook of boycotts and hitting the political opposition in the pocketbook have yielded nothing positive since Saul Alinsky started teaching those techniques to his slack-jawed followers.  I know how it feels to be Sean Hannity and these other voices who today have a big platform, but it could all be ripped away in a moment’s notice—like what happened to Bill O’Reilly.  I’ve always taken an aggressive stance against leftist insurgency—particularly the economic kind.  But now, finally with Sean Hannity standing his ground at Fox News—people are starting to learn to fight back.  And it feels good, doesn’t it?

As Sean featured the efforts of the group, Media Equalizer.com Kathy Griffin saw major blowback from her political stunt which featured her holding the severed head of Donald Trump. As a liberal comedian and part of that disgusting other side of the war—the war against traditional American values, she thought she was immune to ridicule.  If any conservative had done what she did there would be calls from the political left for their execution on the spot.  Instead, it took several hours for the good Christian people who make up a large part of the conservative viewpoint to become enraged—which they eventually did.  Griffin quickly apologized and hoped that was the end of the story.  The media tried to take the light off her by pointing to a Trump tweet featuring the word “covfefe.”  But it didn’t work, Republicans are now learning that they have to at least fight fire with fire.  I would suggest they fight fire with complete conquest, but for now I’ll settle for fire.  The lesson that everyone has had to learn is that you cannot leave evil unchecked.  And regardless of the vantage point, the political left is evil because the premise of their existence is against life itself—pro abortion, anti-family, support of terrorism, not defending the values of American morality supported by competition through capitalism—I could go on and on, but the essence of them all is anti-life—“evil.”  We cannot yield to evil in any form.   We must fight it!


My sister-in-law and my father-in-law live in a very expensive area in the east of Louisville off Brownsboro Rd where the homes range on average between $500,000 and $1,000,000. Visiting there often I can personally report that I don’t see a lot of lazy terrible people there.  Everyone has a job, everyone is working hard at life taking care of their lawns, cars and families—it is a very productive place to be and I enjoy going there for family visits.  The political left demonizes these wealthy people essentially because these hard-working homeowners make the lazy people on the left feel bad about themselves and through wealth redistribution, the leftists want a piece of the action off Brownsboro.  For my father-in-law’s 73rd birthday we gave him Bill O’Reilly’s Killing Lincoln book and he was so happy to get it that he literally read the first three chapters there in the kitchen where he unwrapped his present.  He has been sad that Bill was off the air—and over the many years I have watched the political left take severe shots at him because he’s always been well off financially.  He’s always been too nice to fight back, so it has always pained me to see him have to endure the idiots who simply hate him because they don’t want to match his efforts at life.  I mean the guy has several degrees, particularly a masters in geology.  He’s been a school teacher for several decades after he was as successful businessman.  He worked hard all his life and he deserves to live in a million-dollar home if he wants to.  But who is a guy like that going to watch on television—some idiot like Racheal Maddow—and other socialists on CNN, ABC, and NBC?   No, he’s going to want his news from other savvy people much like himself—someone like ol’ Bill O’Reilly. But you see, the left wants to smoke out people like my father-in-law, and my sister-in-law who also lives in a million-dollar house—because she and her husband work hard at living, raising their family and doing the right things.  They have nothing in common with the people on CNN—but the left wants to choke off information to people like them so that they can advance their own liberal positions without the fear of competition to slow down their message.  Slums are created by the political left, go into any neighborhood with a high crime rate, drugs and a disproportionate number of people on welfare and you’ll see the work of Democrats—and that is something that should be punished, not rewarded.  People like Kathy Griffin should be running for the hills in shame, not holding up the bloody head of Donald Trump simulating an assassination attempt and expecting her liberal friends to send her cookies.  Complacency has empowered these vile, evil people.  Kathy Griffin is evil for what she did.

Conservatives have been too quiet, they let ESPN cut off Curt Schilling last year and now this year it’s the great Bill O’Reilly. They attack conservative movie stars like Tim Allen and they attack publishers who put out conservative titles in exactly the same way that they attacked my business partners in No Lakota Levy many years ago.  When the left can’t beat the message, they attack the pocketbook which is coercion of force—and is the epitome of evil.  All I can say is that I thank God we have Donald Trump as president finally pushing back from the White House and now Sean Hannity who is fighting for his very life on Fox News.  So don’t feel bad about using Media Equalizer.com to go after the advertisers of Racheal Maddow, Stephen Colbert, Bill Maher and the entire network of CNN.  Go after their throats.  Sean Hannity doesn’t want to use those words because of his large platform—but I will—go after the political left’s jugular.  Don’t go see their stupid movies.  (Wonder Woman is the exception because Warner Bros. does supporter conservative filmmakers.)  But otherwise, take the money out of their pockets.  If an advertiser supports liberal programs—don’t buy their products.  Give it to the political left for a change and let them once and for all feel the pain we have been feeling.  It’s OK to stick them in the eye.  It’s not good to always allow yourselves to be picked on.  Allowing evil to increase in power through complacency is the same as being evil yourself.  Don’t feed its spread and support efforts to attack it—starting with their own pocketbook.   The reason it feels good to fight back is because it’s the right thing to do.  So do more of it dear reader—for the benefit of the United States and all it has stood for

Rich Hoffman

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


‘Dead Men Tell No Tales’ was Great: Don’t listen to the critics, Disney needs to make a lot more Pirate movies

I think if you’ll look carefully dear reader you’ll notice two things about the newspaper reviewers who gave Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales, a bad review.  They are severe liberals who hate Donald Trump and they are suffering from “daddy issues,” meaning they have some predilection toward not wanting to think about their dads for whatever reason.  One thing that was extremely obvious about Dead Men Tell No Tales—which is a recurring theme in all the Disney Pirate movies, is that the famous Joseph Campbell Hero’s Journey of reconciliation with the father is used extensively.  If there is any fault in the film it’s in that the writers and producers are primitively stuck on that one theme—which for Disney is the formula.  To understand why, just read The Hero with a Thousand Faces, the classic Joseph Campbell work and you’ll understand why.  But other than that, Dead Men Tell No Tales is a great movie that was a lot of fun.  It’ll be a very successful movie and Disney should continue making a lot of them.  Hopefully they will.  The movie remarkably lacked any politics.  Disney wasn’t trying to slide any gay characters under the door and the romance themes were traditional and the whole thing was about adventure and discovery.  It’s one of those movies you leave the theater feeling good about much the way the ride in Disney World feels.  And Disney could continue making Pirate movies forever and people would still see them because they want to feel those things when coming out of the theater in their home towns since they can’t go to Disney World everyday.

But this hatred that reviewers had, particularly at The New York Times and at the ultra liberal Rolling Stone magazine was so pathetic for its desperation.  Their primary premise of hate was that the Pirate movies where the same old story lines—nobody had evolved.  Jack Sparrow’s story arch had no evolution to it—he was the same character that he was in the first movie. Basically, the reviewers have this idea that unless a movie deals with progressive causes like gay rights, feminism, wealth redistribution and plot points where the state takes care of everyone—then any movie is a bad one.  Of course Dead Men Tell No Tales isn’t about any of those things which is one of the reasons its good.  I mean I’ve been very hard on Disney for leaning toward progressivism when clearly their primary audience is Trump conservatives and they have been hurting their own market share by sticking in gay plot points and other acts of lunacy to appease the Democrats who now run Disney as a company.  But that mistake wasn’t made in this fifth Pirates film.  And it’s certainly not a conservative film by any means, but what movie is?  Conservatives are used to being ignored at the box office.  As the weekend numbers came in I found myself happy to see people went to see the movie in spite of the negative reviews showing the big newspapers how irrelevant they truly are in the 21st century.

All these industry people have already put their own nails into the coffins of Hollywood film making.  The grim reality for them is that only movies like Pirates from Disney can really be economically viable in this modern environment where they view the film making industry to be on the solitary mission of spreading liberal causes to the world.  Instead of making a movie that everyone can make money off of from the actors down to the promotional people, these industry idiots provide critics of movies as if the only reason people pay a lot of money to see them instead of waiting for the home market to show them from the comfort of our living rooms is to lectured to by Hillary Clinton supporters who would demand we all be more liberal.

There was nothing wrong with Jack Sparrow or Johnny Depp’s performance.  There’s nothing there to reflect the off-camera trouble of Johnny Depp’s rough divorce or his financial issues.  Anybody who writes anything otherwise is reaching—and trying to make something out of nothing.  If I were to give Disney any advice I would say make more Pirate movies and make them less as giant ensemble pieces and more about the adventures of Jack Sparrow.  All Pirates of the Caribbean movies don’t need to have huge casts like Dead Men Tell No Tales did and they all don’t have to be pinnacles to the survival of the human race to be good movies.  The character of Jack Sparrow is a lot like Bugs Bunny.  People would go see Pirate movies just to see how Johnny Depp’s character would get out of the latest mess.  Watching the execution scene in Dead Men Tell No Tales made this very apparent.  Jack Sparrow makes these movies fun and people would pay money just to see that character survive some new invention of malice, like at the opening of the movie where he wakes up inside a bank vault with the wife of the mayor trying to rob a bank but instead had passed out drunk and in need of escape.  Jack Sparrow could travel the world on such adventures and people wouldn’t mind a bit.  They’d still spend a billion dollars per picture at the box office and Disney could save some production costs.

On that note I think the Pirate films should be more like the new Star Wars movies—a new one should come out each year.  Bring the production costs down into the $150 million range and just let them do their thing.  There was nothing “lazy” about this Pirate movie as reviewers seemed obsessed in disclosing.  It’s not easy by any means to make a movie that looks as beautiful as Dead Men Tell No Tales from the special effects people, to the costume design to the wondrous score this time by Geoff Zanelli using themes created by Hans Zimmer.  This was movie making at its best and every new Pirate adventure doesn’t have to be on the scale of Dead Men Tell No Tales or At World’s End.  Like the classic Bugs Bunny cartoons, we knew and expected the animated rabbit to survive the aggressions of Yosemite Sam and the Martian, but what we wanted to see was how.  Disney has a nearly perfect character for that kind of thing in Sparrow and they should use him more.  Who cares what the industry thinks about milking the Pirate franchise for everything they can?  People in Hollywood want to work don’t they?  I would personally love to see a new Pirates film every year and if they only made $800 million each—so be it.  It would be good cash flow for a company that needs it—everyone needs it.  So why not do it?

Everyone should go see Dead Men Tell No Tales.  Don’t listen to the critics; they have no idea what they are talking about.  Movies are all about the feeling that this latest Pirates films provides—good fun that the whole family can enjoy together.  The correct formula for a motion picture really isn’t any more complicated than that.  I know when I’m having a bad day I put on one of the Pirate movie soundtracks and let the Jack Sparrow theme song cheer me up with his laissez-faire approach to life.  It works, in the same way that the character works in the movies.  I know that may be hard for the Disney Corporation to get their minds around, but all they really need to do is put Johnny Depp on-screen dressed as Jack Sparrow—pick some point on the map  and let the story tell itself.  Add the special effects in post production to fill in the gaps and just pump out as many Pirate moves as you can over the next decade and let movie fans have some fun without the politics.  Everyone would be better off.

Rich Hoffman

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