Category: Movies

Bill Murray: Our Moonrise Kingdom Needs More Personal Responsibility

Posted on by 1 Comment
When someone speaks of personal responsibility on national television they open themselves up to cries of "coded" racism by Princeton University professors. So when Bill Murray did just that on CNBC the other day, it took people by surprise.

Bill Murray was on CNBC the other day, and the famous comedian set off alarm bells in liberal circles everywhere when he dared to speak of “personal responsibility.” Doesn’t Bill know that, according to Princeton’s African American Studies professor, Melissa Harris-Lacewell, that he’s using racist “code” language? Regardless, he went there:

CNBC Host: Do you have…a view on this country and what we need to do and where we are in time?

MURRAY: I think we ought to be personally responsible. I think if you can take care of yourself and then maybe take care of someone else then that’s sort of how you’re supposed to live. It’s not a question of asking other people for help or being rescued or anything like that. I think we’ve sort of gotten used to someone looking out for us, and I don’t think any other person is necessarily going to be counted on to look out for us. I think there are only so many people that can take care of themselves and can take care of other people, and the rest of the people—they’re useful in terms of compost for the whole planet—but there are just certain people who are going to go up, and certain people that are going to stay the same, and certain people who are going to drop. So, you’d like to be that person who is going to elevate. And if you can do that you can take care of yourself, and if you’re really good enough you should be able to take care of about this many [ the panel of four ] people.

CNBC HOST: Are you saying that America was founded on individualism, as opposed to Europe? Are you making a contrast—

MURRAY: This country really is a pioneer country. We forget the kind of discipline they had to have to get from—occasionally it seeps in that they came in wagons from Illinois to Oregon or whatever it was. That they came in wagons and the wheels broke, and you see it. The [researchers say], “Gee, that must have been hard for those women to push that wagon up the mountain.” And that’s what they had to do.  There was no option but to do it yourself, to have your own personal responsibility. There is no turning back. This is your life. As we say to one of my brothers, “This is your life. This is not a dress rehearsal.”

Bravo, Bill. He makes incredibly lucid points, which seldom happens with Hollywood stars. I highly suggest watching the entire interview, if for no other reason than to see just how carefully Bill treads. He seems to be a very smart man, and throughout the entire interview you can see him very delicately addressing the issues, as if he knows all of Hollywood is watching. Conservatives in the entertainment industry—or even those with tinctures of conservatism—need to lay their cards on the table with a pitter-patter, while “comedians” (I use the term loosely) like Rosanne Barr or Joy Behar get to blurt out liberal brain-farts without a care in the world.

Regardless of Bill Murray’s voting patterns (he may very well be a Democrat), it’s obvious that he at least realizes just how far of a departure the country has made from its founding. Whereas we once road rickety wagons across the Great Plains to realize our dreams, we now have kids who are on their parent’s health care coverage until age 26 complaining about how hard things are. We’re at an all time low and we don’t even realize it because our friends overseas are in an even sorrier state of affairs.

While I commend Bill Murray for even broaching the subject of personal responsibility when asked about his worldview, I can’t help but find it sad that in this time and place common sense earns a pat on the back. Since I probably won’t run across Murray in public anytime soon, I’ll just check him out in Moonrise Kingdom on opening night.

The Amazing Spider-Man: Driven by Guilt, but will Garfield Deliver?

Posted on by Leave a comment
What do you do if you vowed to always do what is right, but also to never to take a man's life, when the right thing in a given situation IS to kill? We probably won't find out with The Amazing Spider-Man, but the trailer is still good.

The new Amazing Spider-Man trailer is out, and I must say that it’s better than expected. In November 2010, I blogged about liberal Hollywood activist Martin Sheen playing the role of Uncle Ben, and whether or not that would change his famous motto to “With great power comes other people’s money.” The message of the movie is still ultimately up for grabs, but at least the cinematography looks slick. While the franchise as a whole probably should have sat on the shelf for a few more years before an attempt at a reboot was made, it looks as if Andrew Garfield might turn out a respectable film after all.

Comic legend Stan Lee always said that Spider-Man was, “the superhero who could be you!” Peter Parker was picked on in high school. He had girl problems. He was skinny. That’s true, but what what was always so powerful about the character was the guilt Peter had to deal with for having let his uncle’s murderer get away when he had a chance to stop him. The message that one should always do the right thing is one that isn’t heard too often these days, in part because moral relativists have convinced large segments of the population that there isn’t a right thing. Because this new movie appears to concentrate on how the disappearance of Peter’s parents affected his life, more so than his culpability in Uncle Ben’s death, your Spider-Sense should be tingling.

Peter Parker has historically been driven by guilt, rightfully manifested when he refuses to so much as lift a finger (with his new super powers) to stop the man that would wind up killing his Uncle. Based solely on the trailer, The Amazing Spider-Man may be driven by guilt of a different kind, when he literally and figuratively gives Doctor Curt Conners a hand and it all goes wrong. It’s tough to say how these changes will impact the film, but the emotional weight of the character might suffer because of it. In one instance Peter must endure sleepless nights ridding the world of evil because he once let evil get away. In the other instance he must rid the world of evil because perhaps he was just too darned nice of guy. Or will he suffer both? It all depends on how much the writers decided to stay faithful to the canon at this point.

Finally, the one weakness Spider-Man stories have always had, and will continue to have for the foreseeable future, is that the character refuses to kill anyone. Anyone. That includes psychopathic nuts with superpowers. He makes a point to always use the minimum amount of force necessary to subdue an opponent, but has always ruled out ending their life (no matter how many times that villain returns to kill innocent victims). Sometimes the responsible thing to do is to take a life—something cops have to deal with every day. I’ve never understood why the writers of Spider-Man didn’t get that.

Regardless, on July 7th, 2012, check out The Amazing Spider-Man and let me know what you think.

Update: Head on over to Hotair to get Allahpundit’s take.

Kal Penn: Mocking Christians Is More Profitable Than Working for Obama.

Posted on by 14 Comments
Kal Penn will run to the Huffington Post crying if Joel Stein cracks a few jokes about Indians, but is perfectly okay making millions punching out priests (in 3D) for his stoner flicks. Maybe they should title his next movie Harold and Kumar Go Hypocrite.

Kal Penn once made a lot of money, in part, by making movies that make fun of Christians and Conservatives. He then got a job working for the Obama Administration as part of the White House Office of Public Liaison. Why?

“I’ve been thinking about [moving into politics] for a while. I love what I do as an actor. I couldn’t love it more…probably from the time I was a kid, I really enjoyed that balance between the arts and public service.”

Public service jobs don’t pay as much as making fun of Christians, so Penn returned to Hollywood to make A Very Harold and Kumar Christmas (or perhaps to Penn making fun of Christians is a public service?) Who knows. The one thing we do know is that he’s a bit more prickly when it comes to making fun of Indians; when liberal Joel Stein had some fun at the expense of Kal Penn’s heritage he couldn’t quite hide his hypocrisy:

Gags about impossibly spicy food? I’d never heard those before! Multiple Gods with multiple arms? Multiple laughs! Recounting racial slurs like “dot-head”? Oh, Mr. Stein, is too good! I don’t know how he comes up with such unique bits.

Indian jokes are off limits for Kal Penn, but Jesus in a strip club is hilarious! Indian jokes are off limits, but punching out priests (in 3D) is holiday fun you can’t miss! Comedians are only funny if they go after everyone. Guys like Kal Penn are just intellectual bullies, making jokes at the expense of people who don’t fight back. They’re like Kevin Smith, who is perfectly fine making horror movies about fundamentalist Christians, but scared stiff (or should I say Silent Bob) on jihad.

Remember when Kal Penn was robbed at gunpoint in Washington, DC? Instead of penning a scene for A Very Harold and Kumar Christmas that ridicules gun control laws that benefit violent criminals at the expense of law-abiding citizens, Penn opts to…shoot Santa in the face. Personally, I’d rather shoot criminals in the face.

Good luck with the movie, Kal. I hope you bring in sleighs full of cash. I just wish you realized what a hypocrite you are.

Jesus in a strip club is hilarious to Kal Penn. Jokes told by Joel Stein about the food Indian people eat? Blasphemy.


The Man of Steel’s One Weakness: Political Hacks

Posted on by 2 Comments
Is Henry Cavill's Superman the kind that fights for "Truth, Justice, and...All That Stuff", or will he fight for the American Way? The intensity in his eyes says director Zack Synder has the Man of Steel back on track.

The first images of Henry Cavill as Superman are up and about. He looks good. Case closed, which frees us up to ask the more important question: Who is the Man of Steel? Underneath all those bulging biceps—deep down inside—what’s really making him tick? What motivates him? Who is he at the center of his being?

Not too long ago moviegoers were asking the same thing about Captain America, and it turned out that despite the director’s best efforts at self-sabotage, it turned out to be a good film.

Because Superman is an American icon, writers and directors worth their salt need to have a firm grasp on America’s core principles. Superman should exude our highest ideals, which is why doing him “right” is extremely difficult. Placed in the hands of a confused writer or pseudo-intellectual, the character will collapse under his own weight. Writer Grant Morrison (who can be brilliant at times) misses the mark when he says:

“Each decade, these characters represent our own best idea of what we’d like to be, our own big idea…Superman started out as a socialist fighter for the oppressed in 1938, but that was the time of the Depression. In the ’80s, he’s a yuppie,” (H/T Four Color Media Monitor).

Wrong. Only bad writers are so lured by a sign of the time that they’d boil a character down to something that can be summed up in pithy pejoratives or political talking points. Only bad writers mistake universal rights for international opinion. Only bad writing essentially creates FDR’s Superman and Reagan’s Superman. Good writing transcends the kind of political sniping Grant Morrison sets the stage for.

So when Henry Cavill says he wants to “[be] as true as I can be to the original character and who the character is,” someone needs to follow up with the soon-to-be Clark Kent. They need to poke and prod his muscles with something deeper than, “How cool is it to put the big ‘S’ on every morning for work?”

I have confidence that Zack Snyder will do Superman proud. In fact, I would argue that his spot-on understanding of Dr. Manhattan (an awesome, yet cynical, take on what Superman would end up like if he existed) has prepared him for the task. He’s ready.

And now, it’s time to watch Rorschach die in all his awesomeness.

Captain America: A Conservative Review

Posted on by 1 Comment
How can you go wrong with a guy dressed in the America flag busting down doors, weilding weapons, and cracking Nazi heads? You can't. His "Howling Commando" friend with the derby hat, crazy mustache, and shotgun? Also very cool.

Captain America could have been bad. In fact, it probably should have been bad based on many of the director’s comments leading up to its release. Marvel’s decision to weirdly title the film “The First Avenger” in South Korea and Russia was also a PR blunder. But, in spite of the studio’s liberal tendencies, it’s been a financial success.

As it turns out, the grenade scene first witnessed in the full trailer was indeed a harbinger of good things to come! Want some honor, integrity, personal courage, and selfless service on a Saturday night? This is your movie. Captain America is by no means a perfect film, but it is good, solid family entertainment—the hero is wholesome, the good guys win, the bad guys lose, and it’s not necessary to shield (no pun intended) the kiddie’s eyes.

The biggest complaint conservatives should have about Captain America is that director Joe Johnson put together a good movie when he could have made a great one—if he had a better understanding of what makes America great:

“But I think that as far as good vs. evil, it’s something that is such a universal theme and there are translations of that good vs. evil theme in all times, and in all cultures, and all situations…but I think that it’s really more about the spirit of this guy, of our main character more than anything. And that spirit of determination and wanting to do the right thing is translatable into any nationality and any period really – it’s just sort of a universal theme.”

Joe is right, in that good and evil exist. There are universal truths. But this movie wasn’t about “this guy”—it was about Captain freakin’ America. And what makes America exceptional is that it’s one of the few nations throughout the history of the world with a respectable run on recognizing universal truths. It’s one of the few nations with an honorable human rights record. How disappointing is it that X-Men: First Class did a better job juxtaposing human beings’ dual nature than a superhero movie that takes place during World War II? (i.e., a young—innocent—Magneto must bring his nascent powers to the surface or watch his mother die if he fails, courtesy of the Nazi regime).

The Red Skull could have been Darth Vader evil. He should have been Darth Vader evil. Instead, he was this kind of cool, underdeveloped red and black guy with a lot of potential who got killed at the end of the movie—like Darth Maul. Joe Johnson went for a muted color palette when it came to Captain America’s final costume, but he also muted the good vs. evil dichotomy he wanted to highlight! It’s great that Steve Rogers was allowed to kill Nazis on screen, but even their nature was downplayed; Hydra is a splinter group of the Nazis shrouded in mystery. The Red Skull may have sought to take over the world, but at least he really did have superior genes, even if it was accomplished through the world’s first forays into gene therapy. Doesn’t his somewhat legitimate claim make him less evil than Hitler? If the guy in front of you has the strength and speed of a dozen soldiers it’s hard to argue with him when he says he’s a superior human specimen. But Joe Johnson doesn’t want you to think about it because you’re supposed to just think about “evil.”

Fair enough, but if Joe Johnson wanted a movie completely devoid of politics, perhaps Captain America’s World War II origin story wasn’t for him. Regardless, Kudos to the man for making a fun summer movie despite his best efforts at self-sabotage.

Cuban Zombie Flick More Accurate than Michael Moore Movies.

Posted on by Leave a comment

Michael Moore isn’t going to be happy with his Cuban filmmaker counterparts. The self-made millionaire who laments capitalism and the astute observer of freedom who said that it seems Cuba has “a doctor on every block” now might end up having to watch as a Cuban zombie flick sheds more light on life in Fidel’s “paradise” than Sicko ever did. The building that collapses at the end of the Juan of the Dead trailer even looks like the “showcase hospital” Moore was taken to during his tour of the country!

How sad is it that American kids will probably have to watch this Cuban horror movie parody to get a better education on the real Cuba than by attending classes in Washington, DC, Los Angeles, or Chicago? Perhaps the editor at Topless Robot put it best:

Unlike regular zombie flicks or even Shaun [of the Dead], Juan and his pals don’t seem to be afraid of zombies at all — it appears that given all the other [crap] that happens in Cuba on regular basis, zombies end up pretty unremarkable as a crisis. In fact, it looks like Juan immediately seizes the invasion of the living dead as a business opportunity. That’s pretty outstanding. Here’s hoping it makes it to U.S. theaters, or at least a domestic DVD release.

As The Heritage Foundation and Marco Rubio have already noted, Cuba has no problem creating zombies in the form of sex trade victims. Why should Cuban government thugs care about scarred children shuffling around when it’s part of a 2 billion dollar tourism industry for Fidel and Raul? Perhaps a more accurate assessment of Moore’s “there seems to be doctor on every block” claim can be attributed to staff treating the STD’s and psychological damage to young girls thrust into human trafficking. That is, unless Fidel Castro says otherwise:

There are no women forced to sell themselves to a man, to a foreigner, to a tourist…Those who do so do it on their own, voluntarily and without any need for it. We can say that they are highly educated hookers and quite healthy.

In the Juan of the Dead trailer, the government blames the zombie outbreak on “dissident groups paid for by the U.S. government.” Anyone who’s listened to Michael Moore, Sean Penn, Keith Olbermann, Janeane Garofalo and the rest of the left knows they would be the first to take the state run media’s account and run with it. When the real zombie apocalypse hits the one silver lining will be the entertainment provided by our nation’s useful idiot survivors.

If Juan of the Dead is a success the sequel should be Venezuela. Why? Because like Cuba, they’re also into sex trafficking. 40,000 – 50,000 child prostitutes in the socialist wonderland and counting. It’s a ready-made allegory for life under Sean Penn’s ideological hero.

Congratulations to the director of Juan of the Dead, Alejandro Brugues; your work of fiction is more accurate than a Michael Moore documentary and you weren’t even trying. If you get stateside distribution, I’m there.

Captain America: Grenade Sacrifice Scene a Good Sign

Posted on by 2 Comments
It's incredibly honorable to sacrifce oneself for the protection of others. We all have to go, and it's a good way to choose if you have the option. The fact that Marvel's Captain America depicts such a scene is a positive sign for moviegoers.

The new Captain America trailer is out. Regardless of what the film ultimately entails, someone should be given kudos for the selfless service scene involving a “scrawny” Steve Rogers attempting to sacrifice himself for what turns out to be a dummy grenade. It’s refreshing to see The Seven Army  Values (acronym LDRSHIP) on display: Loyalty. Duty. Respect. Selfless Service. Honor. Integrity. Personal Courage. Those values are sorely missing amongst our civilian population, and apparently more so with liberals who play heroes on the silver screen (like Matt Damon and Ben Affleck) before engaging in very real high stakes illegal poker games with hookers and cocaine the next room over. Wait. You’re saying it wasn’t their hookers and cocaine? I’m sorry, I forgot that modern “high functioning men” are allowed to hang in circles of power players flaunting the rule of law while sniffing powdery white substances to take the edge off…It’s tough being Matt Damon and Ben Affleck! But I digress.

The point is, past indicators made me think Captain America was made to appeal to Euro-weenies and guilt-ridden liberals here at home, but there may be hope yet. Yes, I’m still upset that Marvel is so shameless they’d only promote the movie as “The First Avenger” in Russia and South Korea…but if the content of the film draws upon the principles that make this country exceptional it can still be salvaged.

The good thing about World War II (if you can find a silver lining) is that it’s one of the few times in human history that the contrast between good and evil was on such stark display that our moral relativist friends (Oliver Stone aside) tend to shut up. The problems will come with the Captain America franchise that follows. Bring Steve Rogers into a world where Time magazine has the gall to ask whether or not the Constitution still matters…and things will fall apart. Sure, there are great men out there like David Azerrad (a Canadian, no less!) who know a thing or two about the Constitution, but don’t count on liberal scribes to pen memorable adventures of Cap in Iraq or Afghanistan.

I suppose we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it. As for now, count me in for Captain America on opening night.

Roger Ebert on Ryan Dunn’s Death Like Liberals After Giffords Tragedy.

Posted on by 6 Comments
Roger Ebert is a class act. He couldn’t even wait for the tears to dry over Ryan Dunn’s death before rhetorically rubbing salt in his family and friends’ wounds.

Do you remember when liberal know-it-all pundits were so sure of themselves that “the actions of a madman obsessed with ‘mind control’ and the Communist Manifesto were a harbinger of things to come with a Republican-controlled House? I do. And anyone who was on Twitter in the moments after the Gabrielle Giffords tragedy does as well. You would think that after being so grossly wrong on so many things that women like Janeane Garofalo and men like Roger Ebert would let the dust settle (or all the Congressional Twitter crotch shots surface) before running their mouths. Apparently not:

Before knowing for sure if alcohol contributed to the awful car crash that killed “Jackass” star Ryan Dunn and two others, Roger Ebert tweeted the following yesterday afternoon: “Friends don’t let jackasses drink and drive.”

If Roger Ebert had any class he would have put that Tweet away for a few hours, came back to it later, and then thought better than to rub salt in the wounds of those mourning Ryan Dunn’s death. But he has no class. And he couldn‘t resist, because the same liberal gene that tells him that small groups of men can “plan” 14 trillion dollar economies tells him he knows the crucial details of Ryan Dunn’s death before they’re reported. The liberal mindset that believes hundreds of millions of people can be controlled by a large central government—in a way that increases liberties while ensuring equal outcomes—(not possible) gave him all the confidence he needed to spout off.

Did I want to write a blog post in the moments after Ryan Dunn’s death was announced? Yes. There are valuable lessons that we can all glean from it (just as their are valuable lessons we can glean from any tragedy). However, I refrained in this instance because I didn’t want to make a mistake and possibly come across like…a jackass. It’s funny: Roger Ebert, the socialist, would tell you he’s for “the working class,” and yet when a story about a guy like Dunn comes around (can you get any more blue collar than the guys from Jackass?) he doesn’t even wait until the tears have dried before doing the rhetorical equivalent of “I TOLD YOU SO!” on Twitter for all the world to see.

“Friends don’t let friends drink and drive,” Ebert? Very true. However, friends also don’t let friends act like insensitive jerks. I’m afraid to contemplate what that means in regards to the number of people who consider you a true friend.

Red State’s Kevin Smith Plays Silent Bob on Radical Islam.

Posted on by 12 Comments
Silent Bob goes silent on jihad because it's easier to make fun of Christians (they tend not to murder you in broad daylight when they're offended).

Imagine if you will, a scenario where director Kevin Smith releases his indie horror film, Red State, in March of 2011.  Inspired by the infamous Westboro Baptist Church and the cultish followers of Fred Phelps, it causes quite a stir. One day as Smith walks the streets of Santa Monica, California after one of his popular podcasts an enraged Christian slits his throat and leaves a note behind, warning Lady Gaga that her advocacy of gay rights has endangered her life.

On the other side of the globe, a director by the name of Theodore Van Gogh releases a documentary titled Submission. Written by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, it pulls no punches in its criticism of Islam.  Although irate, the Muslim community in the Netherlands essentially shrugs its shoulders, issuing a few press statements and holding a few sparsely-attended boycotts.  A Dutch-Moroccan Muslim by the name of Mohammed Bouyeri appears on The Hofstad Network, a Fox News of sorts, where he has a spirited debate with a Dutch version of Bill O’Reilly.  No one dies.

If you experienced such a reality it would be time to worry, as it would be apparent that you crossed over into The Twilight Zone.

The reality is this:  Theo Van Gogh was murdered by Mohammed Bouyer.  An ominous note was left on the stabbed, bullet riddled, and bloody body for Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The Hofstad Network is composed of a group of individuals who would like to behead Hollywood’s inspiration for Social Network, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali requires security guards close at hand.  In the United States, however, Christians respond to “art” like Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ with, essentially, a collective grumble.

And that is why Kevin Smith made Red State instead of, say, Islamic State.

Hollywood artists were great at patting themselves on the back for speaking “truth to power” when BushHitler (one word) was in the White House, but the dirty little secret is that their courage generally only rears its head when the power they’re confronting shows absolutely no interest in sending them off to gulags (i.e., North Korea), stoning them (e.g., Iran), or assassinating them in the vein of Theo Van Gogh.  The reason why Kevin Smith is able—by his own admission—to make a movie that is “so fucking vicious and nasty and mean and stark…” is because he lives in the United States of America.  The country’s Christian heritage paved the way for the kind of rights Kevin takes for granted.  Those same rights he thinks are at risk because of inconsequential nincompoops like Fred Phelps and his followers—so much so that he used his own limited time and resources to make a horror movie about them.

The most puzzling aspect of Kevin Smith’s War on Ostracized Christian Outliers is that he comes from New Jersey.  He was a hop, skip, and a jump on 9/11 (a Silent Bob jump, nonetheless) from Ground Zero to see the smoldering rubble, twisted metal, and shattered lives because of the machinations of Islamic terrorists.  After comparing that national tragedy with the battle scars left behind by the Catholic outrage over his 1999 movie Dogma (note: there weren’t any), one wonders why he’d return to the Christian-bashing well.  Fear and cowardice have already been mentioned.  The other — desperation.

Kevin Smith needs a hit.  Badly.  Even his stronger offerings in recent years (Zack and Miri Make a Porno, Clerks II), while ultimately making the studio money, haven’t been breakout successes.  Consider this:  Zach and Miri was beaten out its first week by High School Musical 3: Senior Year.

The easiest way for a Hollywood liberal to immediately get fawning coverage is to douse their work in condescension towards the conservative worldview; it’s an accelerant for positive reviews by liberal leaning critics.  However, what Hollywood types don’t get is that accelerants are often used to commit arson, and a movie like Red State will most likely leave a big black hole in Kevin’s career—what’s left of it—where conservative fans once stood.

While the knee jerk reaction might be to boycott the kind of tired, predictable, cliched Christian-bashing Kevin Smith offers with Red State, that kind of attention is exactly what he wants.  Instead, I wish conservatives would familiarize themselves with the movie and flock to blogs in droves to ask why Kevin Smith keeps playing Silent Bob when it comes to radical Islam.

Inception and Liberalism: America Awakes.

Posted on by 6 Comments
They Want You Sedated. Conservatism Won't Allow It.

Liberalism is Inception. And the American people are starting to wake up.

“Americans approval of how President Barack Obama is handling the nation’s economy has dropped to its lowest level of his presidency, according to a new national poll.”

Liberalism is predicated on the notion that we can suspend reality, create

The liberalism Leo espouses is being exposed. Soon, he'll be pointing fingers. Americans know the statist dream is a lie. They're waking up, and that's a good thing.

worlds in our own idealistic image, and live there for decades just like the main character Cobb thought he could do. Proponents of liberalism seek to convince you that entitlement spending and record deficits mean nothing; Iranian Holocaust-denying police state presidents can be reasoned with; prosperity can be had through excessive taxation, and a laundry list of other ideas that can only be implemented with a heavily sedated population.

At one point in Inception Mal says to Cobb, “You keep telling yourself what you know. But what do you believe? What do you feel?” Cobb’s response: “Guilt.” Likewise, liberalism requires adherents to partake in healthy doses of guilt, whether it be America’s founding or the discovery of inequalities of any kind (regardless of the reasons for their existence).

I propose liberals are lying to themselves when they try and convince us that America must be fundamentally changed because of the more sordid side of its past, that being slavery.  The idea that somehow the Founding Fathers got it all wrong, or that we should cast off the system of government set up by the Constitution because its ideals weren’t fully realized at its “inception” is ludicrous.

Western Civilization was the first culture to cast off the chains of slavery, and for that we should be proud.  It is the critics of Western Civilization whose guilt runs deep, and they delude themselves by denigrating the freest country in the history of the world.  Deep down, they know the seeds they’re trying to plant in your head are pipe dreams.  They’re visions that can only lead to disappointment and heartache, and yet they sell them anyway…

As you come into your idealogical own, realize that conservatism is the “totem” that can bring you home.  Conservatism is rooted in reality: Great societies are created through the hard work, blood, sweat, toil, and tears of entrepreneurs; dictators and despots back down when confronted by a morally self-assured nation that is willing to use force (when necessary) to defend its people and the principles that allow freedom to flourish; millions of everyday people engaging in voluntary transactions, in the aggregate, are much better stewards of their life than small elite groups of central planners trying to micromanage trillion dollar economies.

At one point in Inception, Cobb tells his protege that she should never “create from memory,” which is fitting because liberalism, as much as it claims to be a student of history, is not.  Liberal politicians always claim to be creating something new, but the reality is often something starkly different.  They don’t want you to know it because the stale, stodgy, sad mess that is statism is always a political loser.  And, just like the “subconscious” in Inception, the American people will attack it like white blood cells on a parasite when it becomes apparent.

I believe that is happening right now.  And I believe that, just like the movie, liberals are going to go for broke to keep you sedated and confused.

As Cobb says: “Rely on your training.” The Constitution is your training. Our founding is the “map” to get you through the maze. If we as a nation use it, we’ll be fine. If we don’t, get ready to find yourself in limbo.

Now go out there and buy yourself a ticket to Christopher Nolan’s newest classic.

Liberalism relies on a heavily sedated nation, one that ignores basic economics and puts faith in Holocaust denying nuts from Iran to do the right thing. Concentrate on your "training" (i.e., The Constitution) and you'll be okay.