“Essential Killing,” available now via Video on Demand services as well as iTunes and Vudu, follows a Taliban fighter named Mohammed who is captured by U.S. military forces and transported to Europe where he escapes and goes on the run. While evading his captors, he must do what is necessary to survive, including taking life, which we graphically witness beforehand in the film when he kills some private contractors with an RPG.

It comes as no surprise that Hollywood would provide us with a story about the Afghanistan war that is from the point of view of a terrorist. I’m sure liberal after liberal would argue he is an “enemy combatant” and is justified in his killings. Political correctness aside, we witness him murder private contractors and then later murder more people. He’s a terrorist, no matter what the been-in-college-too-long-and-stay-up-too-late-watching-Jon-Stewart types would have anyone believe.

Why would we want to watch a movie where the protagonist is a terrorist? Well, we wouldn’t. But using the word “protagonist” here is a bit of a stretch. Sure, Mohammed is the main character, but there seems to be no attempt to make us identify with him, which is a relief. Instead, the film looks on its own events without much investment or insight. The camera is neutral. We are simply witnessing what is happening. But, hence comes the film’s fatal flaw. Without investment, what point is there in watching this ordeal? Mohammed is forced into some pretty horrid conditions and ordeals, but we could care less whether he lives or dies, so we watch the film with little more than semi-queasy fascination.

The film’s saving grace is Vincent Gallo. He’s brilliant in the lead role. He’s completely believable and brings a realism to every ordeal his character faces (probably because a lot of it was semi real–for instance, he really was forced to trek barefoot through the snow). But, why would a diehard Republican like Gallo sign up to play a terrorist? Well, according to the director, Gallo mainly responded to the challenge of it, especially to filming in the cold weather. And Gallo has admitted to almost never reading the scripts to films he stars in or actually watching them.

The direction by Jerzy Skolimowski is also pretty great. Every technical aspect of the film is well done. The cinematography is very well crafted. And some of these challenges the character faces are, in fact, quite thought-provoking and intriguing. But why do we follow a man like Mohammed? We have absolutely zero investment in the character or the situation. We see him kill American people and are supposed to care that he’s forced to eat bugs from feces? And not to mention the fact that the film’s overall point is flawed: it’s called “Essential Killing” because we are supposed to see a normal man forced to face his inner animal and kill in order to survive, but we already know that Mohammed is a killer. We witness it within the first ten minutes of the film, so there’s no real progression – or rather, regression – in the film.

“Essential Killing” is, if nothing else, fascinating in a weird sort of way. Sure, it’s intriguing to see a man survive the conditions presented here, but we are watching in such a neutral fashion that it really doesn’t matter one way or the other what happens. The film tries, at moments, to be slightly ambitious. We are given too-brief flashbacks of Mohammed’s life before this story, but the flashbacks add up to random images that provide no larger context to the character, so they are about as worthless as Nancy Pelosi’s help on an IQ test. The film also has no idea how to end, so it just ends.

The only reason to see “Essential Killing” is for its technical achievements and Gallo’s dazzling performance. But that shouldn’t be enough to drag anybody to see this film. It’s a little too insidious and, at the same time, a little too neutral for its own good. Don’t waste your time. There’s no reason we need to watch a terrorist kill innocent American men. It happens everyday in real life, so why see it on the big screen when there seems to be no point and no larger context behind it?

“…there are people like him and Warren Buffet and others who realize that if we don’t do something to make this fair, uhm, the people will be at the gates. History has proven that. You can only build the wall so high.  Sooner or later people will not put up with it. Mayor Bloomberg, last Wednesday said, ‘If we don’t create jobs in this economy, there will be riots in the streets of America.’  He said that out loud. He doesn’t just throw stuff out like that. He and the other smart ones know this to be true. They know that they better fix it and they’re behind Obama and what he’s trying to do right now to fix it.

“They know that if they follow the Republican plan, which is to wait Obama out another 16 months until there’s a new president — 16 more months of this economy? I don’t know where you’re from, I don’t know if you’ve visited places like Michigan, but we’re living in a Depression in many places in this country, and sooner or later people will not put up with it.”

Or will she remain a female Rush Limbaugh?

I don’t think Sarah Palin has any alternative but to run in the 2012 Republican primary.

Her clearly stated analysis of “Crony Capitalism” in Iowa yesterday places her in her own, wonderfully unique territory for a Republican candidate. As the “rogue” image she has always enjoyed, targeting the Fat Cats in the Establishment on both sides of the aisle is exactly what Americans of both political persuasions have been praying for.

Challenging “Too Big To Fail” is exactly what most Americans hope for in a President.

No one, out of all the Republican candidates, has thrown down such a clear and arresting gauntlet as Sarah Palin has!

Mamma Grizzly will put the Fat Cats through a refresher course in traditionally American Economics!!

If she’s President!

As we all well know, traditional rules of the Free Market and American Democracy have been so corrupted that we can no longer recognize the United States from a foul-smelling, lawless, 1940’s and 50’s Las Vegas.

We all know Sarah Palin is not a Keynesian but she’s not a Milton Friedman Libertarian either!

That distinction automatically separates her from not only the Crony Capitalists but from Rick Perry who I do believe is a Libertarian, a la Glenn Beck, although much more cunningly veiled than Beck.

Why?

He’s running on a Republican ticket.

Before Governor Perry was willing to sign the CSHB 15, ultra-sound-before-abortion bill, he was more than willing to leave abortion and gay marriage up to the individual states.

Sarah Palin, on the other hand, is the very symbol of the Republican Party’s pro-life tradition. Her job, it would certainly seem, is to bring the Republican Party back and return it to its original, meat and potatoes American values.

Because her beliefs are not Ivy League brain surgery nor brain-twisting deceptions, I see no possible defense by the two supposed frontrunners, Romney and Perry, against her undeniably justified criticisms of Obama and her frontal assault upon the Crony Capitalists that dropped America into this disastrous combination of bank defaults, fraudulent real estate speculation and Bush/Obama debt.

As she said herself, the President must be prepared to treat not the symptoms of America’s near depression but to remedy its cause: Crony Capitalism and backroom deals between Big Business and the White House: i.e. General Electric and Barack Obama.

The New World Order and the entire Bush family.

The New World Order, however, is a much larger enemy of American freedom than even corruption within the United States. American corruption has merely opened the door wider for the New World Order of both the Bushes and the Clintons to “nudge” their way through with the ultimate “shove” of pure Marxist, Barack Obama.

The New World Order is the very Goliath that our female David will have to face and face down repeatedly. It is not going away.

With the full support of the International Communist Party, the New World Order will ultimately be Sarah Palin’s biggest challenge as President of the United States.

She will be forced to compromise, if only to allow her the time and freedom to address America’s profoundly corrupted economics.

Keeping the New World Order’s demands on a back burner will prove to be Sarah Palin’s greatest challenge.

Her diplomatic skills are what her opposition will most question.

Can Sarah Palin keep us out of World War III?

Or will she provoke a confrontation with the Progressive New World Order by refusing to cooperate?

I think a confrontation is inevitable.

However, I believe the New World Order will back down in the same way the Soviet Union finally backed down from a confrontation with Ronald Reagan.

Why?

Most of the human race knew and still knows that Ronald Reagan was right. Sarah Palin will be in the White House to remind us of just how right Reagan and Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher were. With Sarah Palin added to round out the quartet of Churchill, Thatcher, Reagan and Palin?

The English-Speaking World Will Then Stand On The Legs of Four Major Memories!

The human family will have the role models needed to survive!!

America has two choices if Sarah Palin runs: business as usual or a return to the founding principles of the United States of America.

God willing, Americans will realize they have no other choice but to elect Sarah Palin.

With highly visible photos of Winston Churchill, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan in her Oval Office, no one, and I mean no one will doubt that President Palin means business and is in the driver’s seat to get the job done!

…Mila Kunis:

GQ: Your new movie is called Friends with Benefits. Ever been in one of those relationships?

Mila Kunis: Oy. I haven’t, but I can give you my stance on it: It’s like communism — good in theory, in execution it fails. Friends of mine have done it, and it never ends well. Why do people put themselves through that torture?

Wait, did a young, on the rise actress just call Communism a great failure?  Did she just say that it may sound good in practice but never works?  By golly, I think she did!

And that’s pretty awesome.  From this quote can we determine that Ms. Kunis is a Randian Libertarian?  We know based on her selection of film work and various photo shoots that she most likely isn’t a member of the Family Leaders crowd.  Should we make a YouTube video and offer her a blog spot on Big Hollywood?

Too soon to tell.  Chances are good that if we push the issue, her PR team will force her to retreat and stay apolitical.  And I say, good for her.  I simply find it refreshing that somebody in her position doesn’t shoot her mouth off and say ridiculous things in an attempt to ingratiate herself to Hollywood’s Borg hive mind.  You know, like a certain other young, very attractive actress.  Or like this overrated “thespian”.

Of course, most people in their right mind would say that Communism is a bad idea and has been a total failure every place it’s been attempted.  A majority of Americans would also wrinkle their noses at the idea of Socialism.  That’s why the left and the media have gone through such Herculean efforts to distance their ideas from their actual origins.  “Progressives” supposedly aren’t Socialists because they say so.  To call them out as such reveals “ignorance”.  It is an example of “name calling” or is currently somehow “racist”.  Whatever.  Wealth redistribution, nationalizing private companies, and elaborate currency manipulation schemes are socialist and communist ideas.  If my ideology’s resume included hits like the U.S.S.R., North Korea, Greece, and Cuba I’d probably look into some rebranding too.

Ultimately, Kunis said something obvious, but it is brave nonetheless.  Perhaps, since President Obama ascended to power like a trendy rock star, his popularity is starting to fade with the “in” crowd?  Maybe his dropping poll numbers will take his entire ideology down with him?  Hollywood, and the “in” crowd are quite fickle.  Trends come and go.  You know who was cool in 1991?  Gerardo.  “Rico Suave” baby!!  I don’t think Gerardo would sell many records or fill up Madison Square Garden today. And that’s the risk in being “popular” without substance.  It’s a fleeting thing.  Since Obama himself is so charismatic, people have a hard time blaming him personally for the misery his policies have inflected upon our great nation.  Instead, they have to blame something else.  The Progressive platform becomes the next likely target.

Hollywood will never become a socially conservative industry.  It never has been and never will be.  But I can see libertarian ideals becoming popular in the very near future.  There is something naturally appealing to “free spirits” and artists of the industry in the ideas of personal liberty and personal responsibility.  And I’ll save the snarky commenters the precious time by saying that it shouldn’t surprise anyone that many self-absorbed, narcissist actors find a kindred spirit in Ayn Rand.

Kunis may simply be too smart to fall for the nonsense that most young people, especially in Hollywood quickly embrace.  Her mother is a physics teacher and her father is a mechanical engineer.  She’s a self described computer nerd who spends hours playing “World of Warcraft”.  Most importantly, unlike the other young actresses who come from suburban Utopias or the random trailer park, Kunis was born in the former U.S.S.R..  That’s right.  Her childhood was spent in the hell hole of broken dreams, bread lines, and lack of personal freedoms that the government of California is determined to recreate.  So, at the cocktail parties, Kunis must have to bite her tongue as the Malibu raised, bespectacled junior agent drones on about the evils of Capitalism while drinking $20 cosmos on the UTA credit card.  She and her family have seen FIRST HAND the misery that the academics and progressive politicians only imagine in their fevered dreams.

Kunis has demonstrated a lot of smarts with her career.  She’s parlayed a successful television career into a series of high profile features.  She even has a starring role in Sam Raimi’s upcoming “mockbuster” of my film “The Witches of Oz”; “Oz the Great and Powerful” with James Franco.  It’s no coincidence that people who demonstrate above average intelligence in the real world trend conservative.  And I’m not talking about academic background.  I’m talking about street smarts, savvy, and rich personal experiences.  Smart people don’t walk around all the time explaining how smart they are.  Ever notice how progressives are always going on about “intellectualism” and trying to impress you with big words for obviously idiotic things?

Yeah, exactly my point.

I do think libertarianism is on the rise in Hollywood.  I recently produced a film starring the mighty James Woods.  The average age on the crew was about 27.  On set I overheard a female crew person mumbling about how she saw Woods on Fox News and that he had become a “crazy conservative.”  A male crew member, cigarette in mouth, calmly looked at her and replied “he’s not crazy, he’s right”.  I didn’t have to say a word.

Hope and change indeed.

In the Wall Street Journal, film writer Anthony Kaufman did a fairly straight-forward interview with “The Undefeated” writer/director Steve Bannon. Fine. Good. Proper. Afterwards, though, Kaufman then took to his usual perch at indieWIRE to let his true feelings be known. Mostly, his indieWIRE piece reflects the usual nonsense-complaints coming from the Left over why a documentary specifically produced to tell the story of Governor Palin the MSM refused to tell doesn’t rehash everything the MSM has already rehashed ad nauseum for the last three years.

Blah-blah-blah. Whine-whine-whine. Boo-hoo-hoo. Heaven forbid the public learns the full truth and context about a potential presidential candidate minus everything they’ve already had tattooed on their brain. Then, however, Kaufman gets to this unbelievably offensive and revealing sentence:

For me, the most shocking moment in “The Undefeated,” however, comes with the appearance of a black person about two-thirds of the way through.

No matter how many times I read this (and there’s more), I’m left almost speechless.

Almost.

This “black person” Kaufman references does have a name … and it’s Sonnie Johnson. She’s a person, not a symbol, and she has a mind of her own.  A very good mind.

Before I let Ms. Johnson speak for herself, I’m going to go ahead and call Anthony Kaufman an elitist bigot. You see, the reason the arrival of a black face likely shocked him is probably due to the fact that he’s never bothered to attend a real Tea Party … or maybe Kaufman simply can’t bring himself to recognize Thomas Sowell, Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas, Lloyd Marcus, Sonja Schmidt, Herman Cain, JC Watts, Alan Keyes, Michael Steele, Frances Rice, Jennifer Carroll, Allen West, Martin Luther King, Jackie Robinson, Tim Scott (need I go on…?) as “real black people” due to their awful, sell-out, Uncle Tomming Republican-ness.

Maybe if Mr. Kaufman would take a cue from Ms. Johnson and start to think for himself, he wouldn’t find the onscreen arrival of a black face in support of Sarah Palin and the Tea Party so gosh-darned ”shocking.” Obviously, all Kaufman saw in Ms. Johnson was the color of her skin, which betrays something about him, no?

Kaufman’s issues with non-white conservatives truly rears its ugly head in his next sentence:

I’m not sure if it’s what Bannon had in mind when he wanted to seize the audience’s attention, but the arrival of black conservative female activist Sonnie Johnson made me realize just how white everyone appears to be, in both Palin’s Alaska and Bannon’s Tea Party.

He’s “not sure what Bannon had in mind when he wanted to seize the audience’s attention”?

Wow.

Next time, Kaufman should save himself all that typing and simply write: T-O-K-E-N.

And now — at the risk of further shocking Kaufman — I’ll let Sonnie Johnson speak for herself:

Anthony Kaufman published a little blog piece on IndieWire.  In it he takes shots at Stephen Bannon, Writer and Director of ”The Undefeated”.  Bannon is a grown man and he can speak for himself.  But I will tell you what I tell everyone else that asks how I got involved in the the film; Not only is Bannon a genius, he also has good taste.  In case you didn’t check your facts, Bannon also included two blacks in “Fire from the Heartland”.  And after that interview he gave me the best advice I’ve received. “They will try to change you.  People will tell you what you could be, what you should be, or what they can make you.  Don’t let them take away that which makes you great.”

And I haven’t. …

I was able to meet Gov. Palin in Pella, IA for the premiere of “The Undefeated”.  One of the first things she said to me was, “are you ready for all the hate that will come your way for being associated with me”.  I told her, “I’ve got Palin in my blood”.  I wish you would’ve known that little fact before you would downgrade me to the token black in your limited view of the Tea Party.  I am no one’s token.  Nor am I a punchline of what you think is a bad joke.  If seeing me in the film was such a shock to your cerebral, then why didn’t you grow a sack and interview me yourself?  Or is Breitbart right and your lack of a set is shown in your need to hide behind a blogpost. Are you a Enuch? …

If you want to know how Black I am, I dare you interview me yourself.  Just tell me when and where.   I’ll come to you.  It would be my pleasure.  Until then be grateful that, temporarily, you still have Obamacare.  If my appearance was a shock to you, then just wait until our voices are really heard. 

You’ll want to read the whole thing.

Sounds at though John Lennon might have grown up before his untimely death:

John Lennon was a closet Republican, who felt a little embarrassed by his former radicalism, at the time of his death – according to the tragic Beatles star’s last personal assistant.

Fred Seaman worked alongside the music legend from 1979 to Lennon’s death at the end of 1980 and he reveals the star was a Ronald Reagan fan who enjoyed arguing with left-wing radicals who reminded him of his former self.

In new documentary Beatles Stories, s thought he was while he was his assistant.

He says, “John, basically, made it very clear that if he were an American he would vote for Reagan because he was really sour on (Democrat) Jimmy Carter.

“He’d met Reagan back, I think, in the 70s at some sporting event… Reagan was the guy who had ordered the National Guard, I believe, to go after the young (peace) demonstrators in Berkeley, so I think that John maybe forgot about that… He did express support for Reagan, which shocked me.

What’s crazy is that the failed president known as Barack Obama makes Jimmy Carter look like Ronald Reagan and our current crop of “stars” apparently haven’t yet woke up to that fact. Of course, they might all be in the closet like Lennon. But that would be silly. Don’t they read Patrick Goldstein at the L.A. Times? Don’t they know they have nothing to fear in Hollywood if they openly oppose Obama?

Our first Theater-Size (27x41) poster - "hot off the presses." (Actually - hot off Kinko's large-format printer.)

Well, in the spirit of “Colonel” Tom Parker and THE POLICE – ’78 Tour of America (in a cargo van), we have gone ahead and put together our own “Southern Tour – 2011″ for FEAR OF A BLACK REPUBLICAN.  After driving twelve hours or so, we will be having our World Premiere in Atlanta GA tomorrow at 7 PM at the Landmark Theatre – Midtown Arts Cinema.  Two days later and four hours up I-85, we’ll be screening in Charlotte NC on June 25th (Blumenthal Performing Arts Center) and then in Greensboro NC on June 26th(Carousel Cinemas at Battleground) .   These will be the first public screenings ever for our little film.  We did hope to add another city or two, but as this is our first foray into “Movie Touring”… we figured short and sweet would be smarter and safer.  

In order to make this tour happen, we are “four-walling” (renting out) two movie theaters and are renting and sharing space in a “black box” theater running a stage play.  Luckily, the space can project films and do stage plays in the same venue.  Pretty convenient, but if you ever want to do something like this, here are a few things to think about ahead of time:  Insurance and advertising.  In booking our theaters, we learned that you now have to have some type of “Event Insurance” to screen your film as an Independent filmmaker.  Ouch.  Enough said.

Regarding advertising, we learned that you cannot rely on the theaters to advertise your film as their distribution agreements with the studios essentially prohibit them from publicly advertising your film.  However, their own box office websites can include your film.  Now, I can tell you that all three venues we will be screening at have been great to us and I could not recommend them more. 

However, you as the filmmaker/producer will have to work really hard on sending press releases, calling media, creating & placing ads and creating posters and postcards (if you can afford them)… if you want people to know about your screening.  Also, you need to go old-school and send out movie postcards.  A lot of folks might say don’t do this, but I think a short hand-written note with a hand-written address still means something.  We sent over 200 postcards (and did e-mail) to all the colleges and university Political Science and History Departments in Atlanta, Charlotte and Greensboro.  Hit your niche market, right?

We’ve also been fortunate to have some allies in all this.  I would be remiss if I didn’t thank all the folks who know social media WAY better than we do and who are trying to help us promote our screening.  There are people we don’t even know trying to help us because they want to see us succeed.  That is very humbling and I hope we do succeed for our sake, for them and for other right-leaning filmmakers.  Because it would be nice if the next right-leaning filmmaker who makes a film has a lot easier time finding a distributor.  Self-distribution is controlling your own destiny, but a lot of “wheel-inventing” goes on in trying to prove that there is a market for films like ours. 

The past few months have been exciting, fun, challenging, inspiring and expensive at times – but empowering too.  In putting together “Southern Tour ’11,” I’ve come to realize that many of us (myself included) tend to forget that while there is always risk involved, but there is also the great possibility for reward too.  And that we can’t wait for “someone” to come find us and our work.  

We’d love to have some of the many Big Hollywood readers in our audiences, so if you are in driving distance of Atlanta, Charlotte or Greensboro – please join us in our first public screenings.  You can find tickets and/or check out our tour at www.fearofablackrepublican.com/screenings .

At least, they are factually true. I mean, you spout off some out-and-out falsehood, like say, “I didn’t send that photo,” and no matter how passionately you repeat it, or how condescending you are to anyone who dares to question you, pretty soon some jerk with a website and his own correction alpaca is bound to come along and reveal some actual evidence of your utter lack of honesty and chest-hair.

Peter Guber with Fidel Castro

But when you lie with facts, you lie with the confidence that the rug can never be completely pulled out from under you by simple evidence. A factual lie is a lie of context. It is a nuanced lie. And context and nuance don’t make for good headlines.

This week, in an appearance on America’s Nightly Scoreboard on the Fox Business Channel, media mogul Peter Guber weighed in on Ben Shapiro’s scathing new exposé of liberal bias in Hollywood, PRIMETIME PROPAGANDA and told a whopper of a factual lie.

Watch the latest video at video.foxbusiness.com

GUBER: “…I don’t think anybody doesn’t get hired or doesn’t get, or doesn’t get their job or keep their job because they’re Republican or Tea Partier or conservative. I mean, I’m a Republican, and I’ve done pretty good in the business.”

This is pretty surprising news to the interviewer, David Asman, who replies with, “Gee, I didn’t… I never knew that about you.”

Gee, I didn’t either.

In fact, it seems virtually inconceivable that the host of Sunday Morning Shootout, a show that appeared to exist expressly so that the biggest names in Hollywood could have a weekly chance to vomit Bush hate for five years, could be a Republican, but it turns out it’s true.

Except that it’s not.

You see, as much as it may surprise the Meghan McCains of the world, being a Republican is more than just registering to vote in the GOP primaries. Being a Republican means believing what Republicans believe.

Now, I’m not talking about strict ideological conformity.  People are individuals and complete doctrinal purity is rare in any belief system.

But there are some basics.

Being Jewish, for example, means believing in Judaism – that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob made a covenant with the people of Israel and gave them the Law of Moses and the land of promise as an everlasting possession. Sure, there are places where Jews might disagree with each other about morality and law, but if you don’t believe in God and His promise, you’re not really a Jew, no matter what you call yourself. Right?

Well, like the JINOs – Jews in Name Only – Peter Guber may call himself a Republican, he may even be registered as one, but Peter Guber is not a Republican.

See, I suspect just about any Republicans, no matter where they find themselves in the Big Tent, from militant libertarian to compassionate conservative to momma grizzly, probably think this is disqualifying:

PETER GUBER – “[Bill Clinton] was a young candidate running for President in the first term. I was the Chairman of Sony at that time, the CEO. We were really interested in him because we liked what he had to say about education.

My wife and I invited him and some of his staff when he was the Governor of Arkansas to come to California and talk about and speak with different constituencies on the West Coast about his mission, his passion in education.

The result of that was that we created a relationship. I was a more conservative person. I wasn’t, I would say, a Liberal Democrat. But I was really moved by his passion and his power and his ability to put me in the boat with him, to put me in the story with him, to make me a character in his story.

So I began to support him and began to see that he would be effective as a leader. So what really happened was somewhere in the early campaign, I think it was — and again, the power of a story is you remember the story, but the facts and figures can sometimes dim. But I don’t remember whether it was the first or the second campaign. I think he had come in second or third in New Hampshire, and they thought he was going to win, and he didn’t have the economic wherewithal to move the campaign from New Hampshire, and I think it was to Wisconsin. Again, it could have been Montana or it could have been — it was 25 years ago, or whatever it was.

But it was to move his campaign. And I got a call from one of his Chiefs of Staff and said, “Peter, we need the money. We need this money, a certain amount of money from a certain number of people to move our campaign to the next stop. We absolutely need it.”

I said, “Wow. How much?” He said, I think it was $90,000. $1,000 [sic] a person for 45 people. I said, “Okay. Well, when do you need it by?” “By 5:00 today.” I said, “By 5:00 today, are you crazy?” He said, “Yeah, we absolutely need it.”

Clinton grabbed the phone and said, “Peter, let me tell you . . .” He didn’t say let me tell you a story, he said, “Let me tell you, it’s High Noon. You know the movie ‘High Noon’?” “Yeah.” He says, “The bad guys are coming, the train’s coming, I got to get everything organized, and this is my big chance, and you gotta stand with me at high noon.”

I said, “Okay. I got it.” And I used that story forward. Everybody I called was in the movie, television, entertainment, sports business, and they understood the metaphor of “High Noon.” They understood that Clinton was stepping into the shoes of Gary Cooper. It was high noon, and we had to stand to help him.

So at 3:00 that day, or 4:00 that day, I said, “You got it. It’s high noon, you got your money. Now win.”

That’s right, Peter Guber is a Republican, he’s just a Republican who, as President of Sony, leveraged his relationships – and the power of his vaulted position – to help defeat an incumbent Republican president and war hero and elect the first Democrat to the White House since Jimmy Carter.

Go Republicans!

More recently, Howard Peter Guber of Mandalay Entertainment made a $2,300 donation to Hilary Clinton in 2007. Did “High Noon” have a sequel?

Of course, there is nothing dishonest about what Mr. Guber said, except for everything. His political party is in fact Republican, but his political philosophy is a bit more nuanced.

One wonders if his perspective on discrimination is equally vague. The question Ben Shapiro is asking in Primetime Propaganda is not does Hollywood have a problem with Republicans who work to elect Democrats, it’s do they have a problem with the rest of us?

The half-hearted denials of some in the industry are belied by their own actions and their own words – and, surprisingly, by the refreshingly candid admissions of some liberals in television who not only admit its intolerance and stridency but even claim to regret it.  Case closed.

Full disclosure – Ben’s a friend and my frequent “Hour of Hate” partner on Larry O’Conner’s legendary Stage Right Show.  He’s also the rarest of things – a proud Harvard Law School graduate who is fiercely conservative and who loves television (By the way, Ben’s much-mocked predilection for wearing Harvard Law hats and other apparel makes a hilarious appearance in the book).  But Ben’s no snob – he not only freely admits how much he likes television but insists that much of it is well-acted, well-directed and well-produced, its insidious pinko undercurrents notwithstanding.  Moreover, Ben is a creature of Hollywood – he has family in the industry, friends in the industry, and he even flirted with entering into it himself, until he ran smack into the seemingly impenetrable wall that is the conservative blacklist.

As Ben documents in exquisite detail, the conservative blacklist operates both directly and indirectly.  In some cases, television industry bigwigs simply refuse to hire conservatives because they hate conservatives – the late Bruce Paltrow comes off here as a particularly obnoxious jerk, which goes a long way toward explaining his half-wit daughter Gwyneth.  But much of the reason is simply affinity.  As Ben documents, the industry has always been a very small community of like-minded individuals who dwell not only within the physical confines of the same LA/NYC world but, equally importantly, share the same world view.  If you are not one of them inside the bubble, they will never see you to hire you.  Naturally, this leads to the kind of nepotism that explains the rise of overrated no-talents like Gwyneth Paltrow – many of the people who hired her had known her since she was a weird-looking little kid and besides, it couldn’t hurt to do a favor for a guy with the pull of her father Bruce.

Ben shows how this direct and indirect phenomenon also applies to the content of the shows themselves.  Some industry players make no bones about it – they seek to directly influence the audience with outright propaganda.  What’s interesting is that this is rarely successful – audiences hate being hit over the head with unadulterated lefty agit-prop and quickly turn away when it gets too heavy-handed.  A good example is Ellen, an innocuous little comedy series that did okay until the star and her on-screen doppelganger came out and made the show all lesbian, all the time – and not hot lipstick lesbian but whiny, crunchy, let’s-do-macramé-and-other-crafts lesbian.  No one wants that.

But the indirect approach is the most effective, and Ben presents an airtight case that much of the liberal normalization promoted by television is the result not of a conscious desire to change the world but simply by a desire to reflect “reality.”  Of course, the “reality” of liberal Hollywood types is not the reality of some nuclear family with 2.5 kids and a minivan in a suburb of Kansas City.  Hollywood’s “reality” reflects its own freaky, dysfunctional lifestyle; this bizarre anomaly is the image broadcast to America as “normal.”  Sadly, too many Americans accept that image and internalize it – a quick examination of statistics on any social pathology is going to show a correlation with the liberal long-march through the television industry that Ben so thoroughly documents.

And document it he does.  How did he get these interviews?  Don’t these people have minions to Google the guys who want to talk to them?  Ben speaks to dozens of Hollywood players, from out conservatives like Big Hollywood contributor Adam Baldwin to hugely successful (and therefore largely liberal) TV executives, writers and producers like Brandon Stoddard, Fred Silverman, Leonard Goldberg, Abby Singer, Larry Gelbart , David Shore, Marcy Carsey, Tom Fontana and Marc Cherry (the Desperate Housewives creator who is a rare Hollywood Republican).

Ben’s not one to just shrug his shoulders and sit there – every time we meet for lunch at a kosher restaurant (Ben takes his faith as well as his politics seriously; he also tolerates my unsuccessful efforts to score a cheeseburger) he is working on about a dozen ideas.  Primetime Propaganda not only makes the case but offers solutions.  The answer is neither confrontation nor retreat, but engagement.  In fact, it’s almost a Gramscian “long march” infiltration strategy.

One more thing – Primetime Propaganda is not only an essential and irrefutable argument about the state of Hollywood and a battle plan for addressing the problem but a great read.  Sadly, I had to wait to peruse my advance copy because my Hot Wife kept taking it for herself.  Fans of The Stage Right Show are already familiar with how Ben’s mind works faster than his mouth – he has so many ideas he literally cannot talk fast enough to get them all out, though he tries mightily.  On paper, Ben’s insights have a chance to come out slowly and in detail, but the same lacerating wit still shines through.  There are zingers galore.  You get the best of Ben – smart and smartass.

But a thousand-word review cannot capture either the full depth of Ben’s argument or the wealth of interesting facts behind many of our favorite shows, like how The Dick Van Dyke Show broke through racial barriers.  He goes through dozens of shows in detail – it’s fascinating and alarming all at once.  Best of all, while this is an important book for conservatives who want to know why TV is what it is, reading it is not a painful duty – it’s a pleasure.

Primetime Propaganda presents an open and shut case – the charge is that television is a liberal enterprise that acts directly and indirectly to impose its worldview on its dwindling audience while simultaneously acting to exclude conservative voices and views.  And there can be only one verdict after reading this damning indictment:  Guilty as charged.

But there is a nuance to Hollywood that can be found among the many right-of-center types and reasonable liberals who really do want to do the best work they can and make a butt-load of money in the process. And it’s for their sake (and ours) that we have acknowledge and appreciate when Hollywood does right by us. We simply have to prove to those watching and wondering that it is profitable to satisfy our complaints — that’ we’re not going to move the goalposts.

Thus far, right-of-center America has done an absolutely marvelous job in this respect. While anti-American junk has flopped at a forever-pleasing 100% rate, well-made films that speak to our values and beliefs have been almost universally embraced. “300,” “Gran Torino,” “Taken,” “The Dark Knight,” Fireproof,” “Blind Side,” “Battle: Los Angeles,” and “The Book of Eli,” have not only done well at the box office, but in some cases much, much better than expected because word spread throughout Middle America that this one’s for us. With social media, especially the miracle that is Twitter, a fire can start that completely circumvents the corrupt MSM and has an immediate effect at the box office.

There’s probably no better example of this than the Christian film “Soul Surfer,” which came out of nowhere this weekend to become a sleeper hit. In fact, had it opened on more screens it might have beaten “Arthur.” Wouldn’t that have been something.

While we have a long way to go, there is momentum on our side and this bodes very well for “Atlas Shrugged,” which hits theatres this Friday. For starters, the timing couldn’t be better. Led by President Obama, the federal government is spending us into bankruptcy and declaring war on the American Dream. You can’t say Obama’s declaring war on business, though,  because when it comes to picking and choosing who will win and who will lose, Obama’s a corporatist of the first order. You think General Electric considers Obama anti-business? But those entrepreneurs who don’t own a cable network Palace Guarding for the Left like MSNBC and don’t toady up to Big Labor, are under fire and that’s the theme “Atlas Shrugged” speaks to.

Best of all, the production of the movie itself is faithful to its own themes: Risk and independence mixed with a touch of bravado. Yesterday’s L.A. Times tells the incredible story of how, after two decades of trying, someone bucked the Hollywood system and just did it — just made the damn movie. The opening sentence of the article sums it up best:

A capitalist taken with Ayn Rand’s 1957 novel spends almost 20 years and $20 million of his own money to get the first third of it filmed.   

You’ll want to read the whole thing. It’s an inspiring story of the kind of filmmakers we’ve been waiting for — the ones we’ve been calling out to for years: We love movies, Hollywood. And if you build them for us, we will come. 

Believe it or not, there’s a whole “conservative” subculture out there that doesn’t want our nation’s problems solved. They’re a selfish, cynical bunch more interested in themselves than what’s best for America. They know the moment the issues they fund-raise off of are actually solved is the moment they’re no longer able to raise funds off of them. They don’t fight, they talk. They don’t want to win, they want to fire off letters ginning up the kind of outrage that pushes people to write the checks that keep them in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed. You call them The Establishment. I call them many things, usually under my breath.

Our political enemies in Hollywood will be watching how well “Atlas Shrugged” does over the weekend. There’s nothing they want more than to have another excuse in another story meeting to shoot down an ideal appealing to us based on actual box office numbers.

But because we’re the Tea Party and not the Republican Establishment, I’m thinking they’re going to be pretty disappointed.

Here’s how you can find a theatre near you. Here’s how you can request it be shown in your town.