Note: No Miley Cyrus songs were actually listened to during the making of this video. Earmuffs!

Not only did I leave the multiplex misty-eyed and exhausted from the film’s emotional gut punch… but more strikingly, for the first time in a very long while, Hollywood made me feel truly proud to be a man.

Much like the sport of MMA, men in modern America are often misunderstood. One needs look no further than the hilariously ignorant review of “Warrior” from Andrew O’Hehir of Salon.com in which he describes MMA as “a theatrical hybrid of boxing, wrestling and kung fu.”

Ummm, no.

Firstly, Kung Fu plays little role in MMA aside from that of a debunked joke that died in 1993 when the sport birthed stars like Royce Gracie and Ken Shamrock. Also, as anyone who’s watched the sport can attest, MMA is often not theatrical at all. To the untrained eye, its game of human chess often looks like nothing more than two sweaty, bloody masses dry-humping each other into oblivion.

More importantly, elitist leftists like Andrew (who went on to call the movie a “pseudo-individualist, sub-Freudian, Tea Party-friendly fantasy”) seem to have little grasp of what it is to be a man in this century. Don’t worry, little guy, I’ll help you out.

Despite what feminists have peddled and regardless of whether one lives in a dual-income household, men will always burden themselves with the responsibility of providing for their family. Sustaining and protecting our kin can be seen as either our birthright, or our cross to bear. I can’t think of this ideal being better crystallized in recent memory than through the character of Brendan Conlon in “Warrior.”

A struggling ex-fighter-turned-teacher trying to support a family during a recession, Brendan returns to fighting as a means of keeping the family home. He falls firmly under the male archetype as being the head of the household, but more importantly he loves, honors and respects his wife. He exhibits a loving leadership over his household, but never dominance. “Everything I do is for them,” he says in a powerful scene, explaining his need to fight. His masculinity is that of a quiet strength, not that of an Affliction T-shirt wearing, nightclubbing, pseudo-macho uber-douche.

Enter the characters of his brother Tommy, and his father (played by Nick Nolte in the best performance of the year). One is a tattooed, drug-addled, super-athlete with anger issues and a checkered military past, the other is a former alcoholic/abusive father who’s now trying to get his life straight.  Unlike Brendan, they’ve both crumbled under the pressure of manhood, having lost their way and because of it, are now chasing redemption.  That in and of itself is a huge part of being a man; bettering one’s self. Not only to honor those who love you most, but because it is through trials and failure that we develop into true men.

**small spoiler below**

It is in the grinding legwork, the necessary selflessness and the understated self-improvement that we become men and it’s something of which each and every real man should be proud. “Warrior” bears no shame in celebrating this ideal for the viewer. One of the most powerful lines in the film, is when Brendan is in his corner, down on the scorecards in the last round of his most significant fight yet: 

“You want to go home?  … you don’t knock him out, you have no home.”

Sound cliché and unrealistic? Just ask Fedor Emelianenko, the greatest fighter of all time who once explained of his dominance: 

“Years ago we hardly had anything to eat… I see every opponent as a man that tries to put me back to that poorer period. That man has to be eliminated.” 

Thank God for real men.

This video explains the subject in a little more depth: 

—–

Note: No trash-talking cowards were actually pummeled during the making of this video.

Eh, it’s Hollywood folks. What can ya do?

—–

See, this isn’t about me. I’m fortunate enough to have a career and the ability to make my voice relatively public, but what about the people starting out, the people who haven’t yet discovered their own voice and instead decide to remain forever silent? What about the people behind the scenes, like my now former-manager who are forced to decide between acquiescing to the liberal establishment or representing their clients as they were hired to do?

Also, what about the pet rock? Whatever happened to those?

Listen, I’m not one of those folks who yells “free speech” every time I don’t get my way. Jon Stewart’s program is a private entity and they can do whatever they damn well please. Just know this from here on out; if you have a different point of view than Jon Stewart… you don’t get to work with Jon Stewart.

—–

   …Wait, did I just describe the Barack Obama circa ’08 or did I just describe Donald Trump? 

Let me first state that this is not an endorsement, nor a prediction regarding Donald Trump’s viability as a presidential candidate. I have no idea as to whether an iconic walking haircut with teeth can be elected to the Oval office, but the more I think about it, the less it would surprise me. What is important is that we remember this; Barack Obama the politician was never elected to office. Barack Obama the celebrity was. 

The Barack Obama with arguably the most far-left track record in the senate and when he wasn’t voting radically left, he voted a mere “present” at least one hundred and twenty nine times… America didn’t know a thing about that Barack Obama. The Barack Obama who graced the covers of men’s magazines, Hollywood tabloids and was declared “vewwyy sexy” by Barbara Walters, that’s the man who leads this country.  He had one thing that no other candidate had and that was his status as a pop-culture icon. 

That’s his game-changer, his golden ticket and against The Donald, Barack Obama loses the only trump card he’s ever had. 

See what I did there? 

Donald Trump takes a backseat to no one when it comes to celebrity (his fearful limo driver notwithstanding). The man was raised wealthy but he set out to garner his own fame. A larger than life character with a polarizing demeanor, everybody knows the Trumpster and they know him well. 

As a nine year old, I thought Donald Trump was an absolute jackass. I’d read a magazine interview in GQ where he said something to the effect of “After shaking somebody’s hand, I would never eat bread.”  Was he just that arrogant, or does he have a world-class sense of humor?  Over twelve years later, I’m still not sure. One thing remains unchanged; I know who Donald Trump is. Whether it’s his number-one rated show on NBC (as he reiterates in every interview he’s ever had) or his list of best-selling books, Trump has created the kind of single-name recognition that few manage to cultivate. 

More importantly, it’s becoming more seemingly clear that Donald Trump could just be Obama’s Buster Douglas.  

Once a legendary figure of the boxing ring, Mike Tyson ruled the fighting arena.  Most importantly, Iron Mike struck so much fear into the hearts of his opponents that one could easily see in the stare-down that they’d had lost the match before the bell had even been rung. That all changed with Douglas. Buster Douglas went in with nothing to lose, and a willingness to engage that Tyson had never seen before. Buster went in and bullied the bully. The Bully was baffled. 

That’s Donald Trump today. Whether it’s his raising of the once taboo birth certificate issue (and turning it into a mainstream discussion while doing it), or his running roughshod over Meredith Viera exposing her liberal bias in the process, Donald Trump has shown a willingness to take center-ring like no other candidate in recent memory. He has no fear of the president and win, lose or draw, he’s going to get right in his punim. 

Most importantly, Mr. Trump genuinely has nothing to lose. He doesn’t need the money, he doesn’t need the power and he certainly doesn’t need the fame. It seems that Donald Trump genuinely thinks the country is “going to hell” and simply doesn’t want to wait on the sidelines as it happens. 

Can he win?  Who knows? One thing’s for sure; if Barack Obama makes this another election placing personality over substance, celebrity over accomplishments, I can see only one outcome… Barack Obama, you’re fired.

—–

“Bend & Break” explores young relationships and the cluelessness of men in search of direction. Set in beautiful Montréal, a group of twenty-somethings struggle through the misguided awkwardness that comes with early romance. They learn the value of personal responsibility, stick-to-itiveness and that in the end, becoming a man is pretty hard. The themes should be universal but they’ll without a doubt resonate with conservatives more than most modern leftists.

Bryce meets a French girl one day in the city. Jules runs into an old flame he has secretly been in love with for years. Blake realizes that his friend’s sister is suddenly “all grown up” and these young men are forced to come to grips with the unknown… women.

In the quirky vein of Diner and The Brothers McMullen, this ensemble-driven comedy will endear itself to anyone who has suffered and savored being a young adult.

Bill Maher is that monkey.

See, Bill Maher’s a smart guy. None of us can deny that. A nuisance at worst, a more than worthy adversary at best, Bill Maher is the kind of intellectual whose worst enemy is his own pride. Smart people generally don’t make intellectual miscalculations; they make careless errors.  Sometimes, a mistruth is so often repeated in society that even smart folk like Maher accept it as fact. A good example would be Bill Maher’s constant claim that the Bible encourages slavery and the founding fathers were anti-Christian.

Firstly, Bill would be right to say that the founding fathers were anti-religion.  One could say the same thing about most pastors heading churches throughout the United States today. A disdain for man-made religion does not equal a hate for personal faith in God. 

As a matter of fact, oftentimes as one grows in their relationship with God, they find themselves saddened by the state of the modern church. People like John Adams and Benjamin Franklin (the same people whom Maher loves to quote) would be perfect, powdered-wig crystallizations of religion-hating, God-fearing Christians. A simple glance through the founding documents or personal journals of the founding fathers confirms it.

As for the Bible being a rampantly pro-slavery piece of literature… false.  It’s true that there are passages in the Bible dealing with slavery, which when read in modern America without the proper context, seem cringeworthy at best. Nowhere in the bible, however, is there an open-ended encouragement of the practice and in multiple places, being what we would consider slavery today is thoroughly condemned.

See, we have to understand that the slavery referred to in the Bible is most often not slavery as we know it today. In both Old and specifically New Testament times, people would go into slavery themselves if they were unable to pay their debts, or unable to pay their own cost of living (which would then be covered by their master). They would have more in common with a lower class worker or a college student still mooching off of their parents than the race-based slavery we’ve known in the Western world.

A prime example of where one does see race-based slavery in the Bible, is when a little group of people were enslaved by the Egyptians solely because they were Hebrew (Exodus 13:14). Anyone know what happened next?

Anyone? Anyone?

…God was pretty ticked. Angry enough to bring the freaking plagues. [Note: They were kind of a big deal.]

The Bible also does address the act of “man stealing,” (exactly the kind of thing that Africans did to their own people) and had this to say about it: “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16).

God then went on to put such folks in the same category as murderers and rapists. I guess you could say he had a thing about that.

In the end, don’t blame Bill Maher.  He’s just accepting common mistruths because he doesn’t know any better… and nobody will tell him. Maybe he needs an uneducated, God-loving, gun toting, tea-partying, redneck in his Hollywood entourage.  You know… just to keep him in the know.

They nearly threw their backs out.

—–

In SNL’s opening sketch, we see the truly talented cast return to the “Tina Fey Doctrine.” This Doctrine, responsible for SNL’s dark ages, gives priority to the given political agenda du jour, while resting “comedy” firmly on the backburner. SNL decided to open with its weakest sketch in recent memory, by attacking Fox News.

Major Failure ensued.

The talented Bobby Moynahan was set to impersonate Sean Hannity. Always a gamer, with a chubby, Belushi-like charm, I was sure he’d knock it out of the park. The pretty Nasim Pedrad was slated to do Michelle Malkin. Nasim is one of the strongest female cast members to have been brought to SNL in recent years, acting as a refreshing change of pace from Kirstin Wiig’s “I’m so repetitive and annoying that it’s funny!” schtick. This was going to be epic…

…And then something happened.  As the sketch began, the key players weren’t doing impressions at all. Like unenthusiastic teenagers on their last Halloween runs, they might as well have just showed up in street clothes with a drugstore mask. When it came time to do impersonations, they didn’t even give it an effort. Even more offensively, they weren’t even trying to be funny. Not a single, genuine belly laugh to be had.  And believe me, I’m no tough audience.  Give me a couple of beers and a whoopee cushion, and I am one entertained bumble.

The sketch did serve to perfectly encapsulate what is wrong with the entertainment industry. Conservatives are always willing to give the leftist establishment’s content a look and a chuckle when it’s warranted. It becomes a problem only when the political agenda is so repetitively blatant that it sucks out any fun to be had in the first place.

Even worse, later in the episode, Anderson Cooper made a guest appearance declaring his baby blues to be a “national treasure.”  No Mr. 360, four hundred thousand viewers on a good day and dead last in your timeslot does not a national treasure make.

It should be noted, that there was one funny component to the sketch, however. Bill Hader’s hilarious impression of the ragin’ Cajun himself, James Carville. How fitting it is that when parodying an ally on the left, SNL can once again focus on the funny.  With no pre-emptive agenda to push, Bill Hader simply used his James Carville impression as a vehicle to entertain, instead of a platform to attack.

A comedy show… being entertaining?

Now there’s an idea!

It’s no secret that I’ve never been a fan of Moore’s, but I’ve often said that the last thing I’d call the man is “stupid.” Afterall, a man who cons Americans into paying $9.99 at the local Cineplex only to watch him sermonize on the evils of capitalism must be one of rapier wit. One would think that either he’s a clever graduate from the school of Andy Kaufman, or he’s the embodiment of pure evil held back a grade from the kindergarten of Michael Meyers.

As it seems now, he’s neither of those.  It’s becoming more and more glaringly apparent that the man is dumb. Pure and simple. In a recent interview with MSNBC’s Richard Maddow, Michael Moore stated that people own guns because they are racist. He prefaced his comments with this:

“Everybody’s packing there… everybody has guns. Yet they all said that we have a very low gun murder rate here in Tuscon.  So why do you have a gun then?”

Ummm… How about, so that the gun murder rate remains low?

I’d never pictured Michael Moore as being so dense that he could answer his own question without tasting the irony. Gelatinous yes, but dense a good filmmaker does not make.

High gun ownership in this case, would seem to be the cause for low-gun murder rates, not the effect.  Criminals have told us time and time again, they’re worst fear is that the person they’re mugging or the one who’s house their breaking into may be armed.

• Fact: Bad guys hurt people.
• Another Fact: Bad guys don’t like being shot.

The More You Know!

Rather than see the absurdity in answering his own question, Michael Moore went on to explain that the only reason Americans own guns is due to their racist fear of black people breaking into their homes:

“That imaginary person that’s going to break into your home…and kill you. Who does that man look like? You know, it’s not freckle-faced Jimmy down the street is it?”

Well thank you for educating us, Mr. Moore. I only have one question; What about the black people in the United States whom also own guns?  Are they racists, merely afraid of the not freckled-face folk, too? Or is it that they’re only afraid of white people breaking into their homes? What about Latinos/Latinas? Or am I supposed to believe that they stick with mere cutlery?

Of course, Michael Moore and Maddow then went on to cite the fallacy that a gun owner is more likely to be disarmed and have their gun used against them in a self-defense situation.  No facts or logic need apply. They sort of hop-scotched the actual research in order to get to the part where they call all of the middle-American gun-owners nothing more than racists.

Let me be the first to say, that I own a gun.  I’ve never thought myself to be a racist but maybe today, Maddow and Moore have proven me wrong. Perhaps they’ve proven us all wrong. 

What say you, other gun owners out there? Do you own guns simply because you’re filthy racists? 

Moore and Maddow are betting you do…