Director Andrew Niccol’s “In Time” opens with  a lot of promise and no small amount of tension, thanks to a terrific premise. Unfortunately, the narrative sputters and misfires in the second-half, but as a political allegory, by design or accident, we are treated to a damning look at what our culture and country might look like should Obama and his fellow leftists continue to prevail.

The year is 2161 and some years ago, due to fear of over-population, scientists not only discovered a genetic cure for aging, they implanted a clock in the forearm of every newborn that counts down the years, hours, minutes, and seconds you have left before you die. No one ages a day after they turn twenty-five, but once that birthday hits, you’re given a year to live. That is, unless you’re able to earn more time. Where Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) lives, a working class ghetto called Dayton,  your choices are limited to manual labor, begging, and crime.

Will’s not alone, either. In Dayton, the average person won’t survive the day unless they can earn more time. Here, a cup of coffee costs you four minutes, a bus ride two hours, and the rent a couple of weeks. Time is this nation’s currency, and with the cost of living always going up, it’s a hand-to-mouth existence for the half-million or so residents who live with their mortality constantly hanging over them and in the knowledge that something as mundane as missing a bus can mean you count down to zero and die on the spot.

The whole world isn’t like this; in New Greenwich, for instance, life is good. The average citizen has 347 years banked (some have millions) and most live in the kind of opulence we see today in Beverly Hills. This power and wealth is something these very few hang onto through control and manipulation. For instance, it costs years to cross the roadblocks that separate Dayton from Greenwich, and with the use of storm trooper-like police officers called Timekeepers (and the criminals they let run wild), no one in the ghetto is allowed to improve their station in life or to bank any real time.

As the saying goes, for one to be immortal, many must die.

Through a truly selfless act, a humane act in a place where humanity is in short supply, Will ends up with  a century and change from a man who tells him the truth about how the system is rigged to ensure the population growth is kept under control. It’s not that coffee and bus fare is more expensive today than it was yesterday due to the laws of supply and demand, it’s that those prices are manipulated in order to create invisible ripple effects that that keep the right number of people dying.

—–

Driven by this knowledge, his newfound century, and a personal tragedy, Will can afford to make his way into New Greenwich, which he does with the intention of blowing the lid off the whole thing. It’s among the profanely rich that Will meets a Time Baron’s daughter, Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried), and it’s also here that what had been a tense, fascinating and smart plot goes completely off the rails.

A disappointing plot, though, does not change the fact that “In Time” is a shockingly conservative film. The filmmakers might have thought they were making some kind of statement about the top 1%, and I suppose some could argue that “In Time” is an indictment of capitalism, but there is no capitalism in this world — just a godless society, genetically manufactured to control a population-growth problem (something only the left sees as a virtue) that doesn’t appear to exist. In fact, for a story that takes place in an urban environment, the lack of people is a noticeable part of the barren landscape.

What we are presented with is a two-tiered society where the ultra-elite live like kings while the rest are given no opportunity to better themselves. That’s not capitalism; that’s socialism. It’s the monstrous vision of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger’s eugenics institutionalized. In other words, this is big government, left-wing social-engineering personified, where oppressive equality is enforced by an elite few who don’t hold themselves to the rules they create.

Moreover, the dignity of the individual means nothing here, and God has been scientifically engineered out of the equation. Good heavens, the super rich even quote Darwin to justify their depraved indifference and the story presents immortality as something unnatural. In fact, the only sign of God that exists is in the form of a squalid mission in Dayton that selflessly gives LIFE to others.

“In Time” might not be a very good film, but if you want a peek into the mind’s eye of Barack Obama and his army of secular leftists who worship at the feet of oppressive equality but see themselves enforcing this “virtue” from the Hollywood Hills, this is about as close as you’ll ever come.

“In Time” is available at Amazon.

Lorraine Hansberry

Recently the Secretary of State appeared before the House Foreign Affairs Committee and confirmed it is the Administration’s goal of including abortion as an integral element of “reproductive health care” provided by the United States. In this context, I had the opportunity to raise concerns about her words of praise for Margaret Sanger, the notorious American racist who founded Planned Parenthood and advocated tirelessly for eugenic policies to eliminate persons she deemed inferior and unworthy to live.

Today, when twice as many Black children are eliminated through abortion than are born, Lena Younger’s stern words to her son, “We a people who give children life, not who destroys them,” evoke the strength, pride, and hope that characterized the soaring spirit of the civil rights movement. Her words should be lifted on billboards and sung through every corner of the world, but little mention is made of her stirring affirmation of life.

Instead, we continue to hear repugnant assaults on the dignity of minority populations reminiscent of Margaret Sanger, most recently from none other than Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  I was shocked to learn that in a recent interview with the New York Times, Justice Ginsburg commented that: “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.  So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion.”

Reflect for a minute on that: “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

Incredibly, it appears eugenics is alive and well in our nation’s highest court.

This reprehensible statement deserves a strong public rebuke. It is unfathomable to me that today, a Justice of the United States Supreme Court would hold and admit to such a patently genocidal sentiment.  Perhaps it is a sign of the times, a reflection of a society desperate for meaning.

Read A Raisin in the Sun. I think anyone can find that meaning in the words of Lena Younger, the great literary champion of the human spirit. We was going backwards ’stead of forwards–talking ’bout killing babies and wishing each other was dead…When it gets like that in life–you just got to do something different, push on out and do something bigger….” The “something bigger,” Lena’s great selfless gift of hope and love to her family, saved her grandchild. We, too, must aspire to something bigger. And I believe that we are big enough, and loving enough, as a nation to embrace the mother and her unborn child and truly care for life. It’s what Lena Younger would have done.

While running for President, Barack Obama used the word “change” as his mantra. A lot of people thought he meant that in a good way.

They’re finding out they were wrong.

To put it in Hollywood terms, Obama campaigned like he was the Music Man, and he’s turned out to be Kaiser Soze. Recently, President Obama said one of the ways we (aka: the government) can cut back on health care costs is by denying medical care to old people. If you think that was heartless, check out the thoughts of Obama’s science czar. Apparently he’s for “forced abortions, mass sterilization, and a ‘Planetary Regime’ with the power of life and death over American citizens.”

Sounds like he fits right in.

This administration made a lot of promises it has broken. But it’s determined to force socialized medicine on us through the false promise of a government insurance plan that would effectively kill off all private medical insurance companies, leaving Americans with a single-payer system that will be insanely costly and inefficient. It will also effectively kill off medical innovations in America because there will be no more incentive to develop them.

When the government health care plans we already have are set to run out of money in a few years, there is no reason to assume this one would be any more efficient. Especially considering what a spendthrift Obama has been already.

When the government has people dependent on a medical system it starts to treat them like property and tells them how to live. It also makes decisions on whether they live or die by telling them whether or not they will get an operation.

The change Obama wants for America is fundamentally inhumane and dangerous. Real change begins next November when we clean house and start sending politicians home. Take away those who vote for his bills and he becomes a paper tiger with the words “One-Termer” on his forehead.