The Oscars

“What's fascinating is, people in Washington would rather spend time in Hollywood, and people in Hollywood would rather spend time in Washington.” — Arnold Schwarzenegger

Last night I watched the 85^th Academy Awards show — now known as the “Oscars” in honor of the statuette that is given to the winners. Once again the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) chose the Dolby Theater (formerly the Kodak Theater) as the venue for this gala night where Hollywood honors itself.

As usual the show was too long as were some of the acceptance speeches. The host, Seth MacFarlane, did a fair job, but to me some of his trials at humor fell short of the mark. I thought there were some highlights during the 3 hour and 35 minute show and definitely some low points. Here are my highlights:

76-year-old Shirley Bassey singing the theme song to Goldfinger during the salute to 50 years of James Bond 007 movies for which she received a standing ovation.

The tribute to 50 years of James Bond movies — no doubt the longest franchise in movie history with 23 films. It’s interesting to note that the first 007 movie — Dr. No had a filming budget of $1.2 million and the budget for the latest 007 film — Skyfall — was $230 million. This shows how the cost of movies has escalated in the past 50 years.

The musical performance by the cast of “Les Misérables.” Although the musical performances were a bit too long they did add a bit of entertainment to the commercial-laden show.

Adele Adkins singing the theme song she and Paul Epworth wrote for Skyfall for which they received the Oscar for best original song.

MacFarlane’s joke that Argo, a film about a secret operation to free some of the hostages during the Iran hostage crisis, was so secret the Academy did not know who the director was.

Now for the low points:

William Shatner dressed as his "Star Trek" character, appearing on a screen less than 10 minutes into the telecast to cut off what he called MacFarlane’s offensive jokes. Shatner said he was coming from the future to “stop you from destroying the Academy Awards.” He then went on to hold up a news article that read “Seth MacFarlane Worst Oscar Host Ever.”

Ben Affleck and Kathryn Bigelow not being nominated for best director while their films were box office hits

Jane Fonda appearing on stage as one of the presenters. The 75-year old has been was showcased no doubt in an attempt to rehabilitate herself for her traitorous efforts during the Vietnam War. I would venture to say that every Vietnam vet watching the show was tempted to turn off the TV when she walked into the spotlight.

And no doubt the lowest point was when the aging and boring Jack Nicholson turned to introduce Michelle Obama as the presenter for the best picture award. Ms. Obama appeared on the big jumbotron screen above the stage flanked by a cadre of military members to introduce the films and then announce the winner. The only thing she lacked was the addition of firefighters, first responders, and actors playing doctors dressed in white lab coats. However, you have to give her some degree of credit as it was after midnight on the east coast.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, the FLOTUS appearance was the work of Obama supporter and friend Harvey Weinstein and his daughter Lilly, who arranged for Academy representatives and show producers to secretly fly (via Disney's jet) to D.C. just two weeks ago to make the magic happen.

"This makes no sense, it adds nothing to the show," one industry expert told FOX411's Pop Tarts column with a bemused laugh, while another surmised it as something of a "suck job."

"Forget separation of church and state — we need a separation of Hollywood and state," conservative journalist Michelle Malkin retweeted, while others weighed in that it was "tacky and tasteless" and cheapened the Presidency.

After all they threw all the campaign parties, I guess it was Hollywood's way of acknowledging their continued love and support of the Obama's.

Quentin Tarantino’s Oscar acceptance speech for best original screen play for his horrible film racist film “Django Unchained.”

Now for my take on the winners and losers for best actress, actor, director, and film.

The Oscar for best actor went to Daniel Day-Lewis for his performance in “Lincoln.” I have not seen the film so I really have no opinion on this category, but I did like Ben Affleck’s performance in “Argo.”

Jennifer Lawrence took home the Oscar as best actress for her performance in "Silver Linings Playbook." In my opinion the best actress award should have gone to Jessica Chastain for her performance in “Zero Dark Thirty.” Her role of as the female CIA analyst who spent 10 years of her life doggedly chasing down Osama bin Laden was compelling and realistic.

The award for best director went to Ang Lee for his film "Life of Pi." I have not seen the Life of Pi and I am sure it is a beautiful and inspiring film but I think his award was cheapened without Affleck and Bigelow being in the running. This is the politics of Hollywood. Thank heavens Spielberg did not receive the award for his boring and historical inaccurate film “Lincoln.”

The Oscar for best picture went to "Argo." This is only the fourth time in the history of the Academy Awards that the nominee for best picture did not include the director. I was rooting for either Argo or Zero Dark Thirty. I thought both films were great and told compelling tales of the dedication and heroism of the much maligned people of the CIA.

Argo is the story about a CIA covert operator’s (Tony Mendez) effort to get six of the U.S. State Department employees out of Iran during the Iranian Revolution in 1979. While taking some license with historical facts the film still tells a great story of Mendez’s dedication and heroism — heroism for which he was awarded the Intelligence Star by the CIA.

Argo is historically flawed in a few of the scenes depicted in the film and for a few things not mentioned in the film:

• The climax of film is a chase down an airport runway, as gun-toting members of the Revolutionary Guard try to stop the plane bearing the American refugees from taking off. "Absolutely none of that happened," says Mark Lijek – one of the freed hostages. "Fortunately for us, there were very few Revolutionary Guards about. It's why we turned up for a flight at 5.30 in the morning; even they weren't zealous enough to be there that early. The truth is the immigration officers barely looked at us and we were processed out in the regular way. We got on the flight to Zurich and then we were taken to the U.S. ambassador's residence in Berne. It was that straightforward."]
• The part of the plot about the Revolutionary Guards discovering the diplomats' identities is fictional. They had left Iran with their fake identities with no hassle. So the scenes of trouble with the bearded guard at the last check point, the scene of the commander raiding the Canadian ambassador's residence, and the entire chasing scene at the airport and even on the runway are fictional.
• There is a sequence in the film where the six go on a location scout in Tehran to create the impression they are movie people. According to Mark Lijek, the scene is total fiction.
• "It's not true we could never go outside. John Sheardown's house had an interior courtyard with a garden and we could walk there freely," Mark Lijek says.
• The screenplay has the escapees—Mark and Cora Lijek, Bob Anders, Lee Schatz and Joe and Kathy Stafford—settling down to enforced cohabitation at the residence of the Canadian ambassador Ken Taylor. In reality, after several nights—including one spent in the UK residential compound—the group was split between the Taylor house and the home of another Canadian official, John Sheardown.
• The major role of producer Lester Siegel, played by Alan Arkin, is fictional.

The film depicts a dramatic last-minute cancellation of the mission by the Carter administration and a bureaucratic crisis in which Mendez declares he will proceed with the mission. Carter delayed authorization by only 30 minutes, and that was before Mendez had left Europe for Iran.

On the other hand:

After the film was previewed at the Toronto International Film Festival in September 2012, some critics said that it unfairly glorified the role of the CIA and minimized the role of the Canadian government (particularly that of Ambassador Taylor) in the extraction operation. Maclean's asserted that "the movie rewrites history at Canada's expense, making Hollywood and the CIA the saga's heroic saviors while Taylor is demoted to a kindly concierge." The postscript text said that the CIA let Taylor take the credit for political purposes, which some critics thought implied that he did not deserve the accolades he received. In response to this criticism, Affleck changed the postscript text to read: "The involvement of the CIA complemented efforts of the Canadian embassy to free the six held in Tehran. To this day the story stands as an enduring model of international co-operation between governments." The Toronto Star complained, "Even that hardly does Canada justice."

In a CNN interview, President Carter addressed the controversy by stating: "90% of the contributions to the ideas and the consummation of the plan was Canadian. And the movie gives almost full credit to the American CIA. And with that exception, the movie is very good. But Ben Affleck's character in the film was only in Tehran a day and a half. And the main hero, in my opinion, was Ken Taylor, who was the Canadian ambassador who orchestrated the entire process."Taylor himself noted that, "In reality, Canada was responsible for the six and the CIA was a junior partner. But I realize this is a movie and you have to keep the audience on the edge of their seats." In the film, Taylor is also shown threatening to close the Canadian embassy in the movie; in reality, this did not happen and the Canadians never considered abandoning the six Americans who had taken refuge under Canadian protection.

Affleck asserted: "Because we say it's based on a true story, rather than this is a true story, we're allowed to take some dramatic license. There's a spirit of truth" and that "the kinds of things that are really important to be true are—for example, the relationship between the U.S. and Canada. The U.S. stood up collectively as a nation and said, 'We like you, we appreciate you, we respect you, and we're in your debt.' There were folks who didn't want to stick their necks out and the Canadians did. They said, 'We'll risk our diplomatic standing, our lives, by harboring six Americans because it's the right thing to do.' Because of that, their lives were saved.

Historically flawed or nor I still think it was a very good film about an actual event. As I have said before — “don’t get you history from a movie. Instead use the movie as a motivation to delve into the facts and learn history on your own.”

I did, however, think Zero Dark Thirty was a little bit better than Argo and I also thought that Bigelow should have been nominated for best director and her writer Mark Boal should have won for original screen play. Boal’s screen play was far better than Quentin Tarantino’s for Django Unchained.

Zero Dark Thirty and Bigelow were doomed from the get go by the Hollywood elite. People like Ed Asner, the unabashed Marxist, and Martin Sheen called for a boycott of the film. They wanted the boycott on the basis that Bigelow and Boal glorified torture in the film. Of course Asner in his performance in “Roots” was a slave master. Did he endorse slavery? Oh, how shot the memory of the liberal progressive. As C. Roger Denson writes in the Huffington Post:

“We expect actors as talented and esteemed as Martin Sheen, Ed Asner, and David Clennon to know all about the principles of irony, catharsis and sublimation at play in theatrical dramatizations. Simply stated, these are methods of portraying human events and behaviors that are detrimental to real people and societies, but which -- besides providing fuel for artistic and entertaining dramatizations -- are crucial to our understanding that simulation of inhuman behavior can be for a higher end. An end such as informing audiences of the hidden and heinous activities we want to eliminate from our lives and our governments -- not least of which are those activities of which many in the audience may be unaware.”

Even Rotten Tomatoes, a publication devoted to criticizing films gave ZDT a 94 out of 100 rating.

The film, which has sparked outrage among both Democrats and Republicans in Washington over its depiction of torture, and allegations that the Obama administration leaked classified intelligence to help the making of the film, won no major Oscars on Sunday and only one award overall.

Just three months ago, the thriller, which culminates in Osama bin Laden’s killing by US Navy Seals, was a strong contender to pick up the biggest prize of Best Picture, as well as the Best Actress and Original Screenplay awards.

By the end of Sunday night, however, it had picked up just one award – a shared Oscar for Sound Editing, which was a tie with Skyfall.

Early signs of trouble came in mid-December when leading US Senators Dianne Feinstein and Carl Levin, both Democrats, and John McCain, the Republicans’ 2008 presidential candidate, sent a letter to movie studio Sony Pictures, castigating the film.

They called the film “grossly inaccurate and misleading” for suggesting torture helped the US track the al Qaeda leader to a Pakistani compound, where he was killed in 2011.

Three weeks later, the film’s director, Kathryn Bigelow, was omitted from the Oscar’s Best Director shortlist, chosen by about 5,800 movie industry professionals who make up the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

Bigelow was one of only four big directors to be snubbed while the film did receive five Oscar nominations

In January, Los Angeles Times film critic Kenneth Turan pointed the finger at Washington, writing: “Chalk up this year’s nominations as a victory for the bullying power of the United States Senate and an undeserved loss for Kathryn Bigelow.”

This is chilling as now these senators are calling for hearings to determine how much information Bigelow and Boal received from the CIA in the making of the film To this extent Boal has hired an attorney to represent him. These actions by the United States Senate harken back to the days of the Dies Committee (HUAC) and the Hollywood Ten — something the liberals in Hollywood still harp on. This is McCarthyism in reverse and it has a chilling effect on free speech.

It should be noted that the entire cast of ZDT is supporting a effort to get Dr. Shakil Afridi freed from a Pakistani prison. Afridi has been imprisoned for giving help to the United States for going door to door in Abbottabad under the guise of giving vaccination in order to collect DNA to determine if it truly was bin Laden sequestered in the compound where he was thought to be. Fox News reports:

“Zero Dark Thirty" actress Jessica Chastain has thrown her support behind the effort to free the jailed Pakistani doctor who was integral in helping the U.S. track down and kill Usama Bin Laden.

"[It ] breaks my heart he's still in prison," Chastain told Fox News on Sunday on the red carpet of the 85th annual Academy Awards, referring to Dr. Shakil Afridi.

Chastain played a C.I.A. agent who directed the operation to find Bin Laden, but told Fox news "there are hundreds of unsung heroes" in the successful operation and she didn't think there was "one person who should be credited."

…

Bob and Kira Lorsch and their RHL Group took out a full-page ad with the headline: “Oscar, Help Free Afridi. America’s Abandoned Hero.”

The ad, part of the group's “Free Dr. Afridi” campaign, read in part: “Dr. Shakil Afridi is the man who verified Usama bin Laden’s location in Pakistan for the United States. Without Dr. Afridi’s sacrifice, we may not have pinpointed the location of the world’s most dangerous terrorist. His Reward… he was abandoned, captured and is still being tortured by Pakistan ever since Bin Laden was killed in May 2011. After all, who will stand up to help America next time if this is how we treat our friends?”

The advertisement also acknowledged a number of individuals and organizations it says have championed the issue, including Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), the cast and crew of "Zero Dark Thirty," and Fox News Correspondent Dominic DiNatale and Producer Sib Kaifee, whose exclusive reporting has helped shed light on the Afridi case.”

You can read my critique of Zero Dark Thirty by clicking here.

For those of you who managed to miss the Oscars or don’t much here is complete list of the winners:

1. Best Picture: "Argo."

2. Actor: Daniel Day-Lewis, "Lincoln."

3. Actress: Jennifer Lawrence, "Silver Linings Playbook."

4. Supporting Actor: Christoph Waltz, "Django Unchained."

5. Supporting Actress: Anne Hathaway, "Les Miserables."

6. Directing: Ang Lee, "Life of Pi."

7. Foreign Language Film: "Amour."

8. Adapted Screenplay: Chris Terrio, "Argo."

9. Original Screenplay: Quentin Tarantino, "Django Unchained."

10. Animated Feature Film: "Brave."

11. Production Design: "Lincoln."

12. Cinematography: "Life of Pi."

13. Sound Mixing: "Les Miserables."

14. Sound Editing (tie): "Skyfall," ''Zero Dark Thirty."

15. Original Score: "Life of Pi," Mychael Danna.

16. Original Song: "Skyfall" from "Skyfall," Adele Adkins and Paul Epworth.

17. Costume: "Anna Karenina."

18. Documentary Feature: "Searching for Sugar Man."

19. Documentary (short subject): "Inocente."

20. Film Editing: "Argo."

21. Makeup and Hairstyling: "Les Miserables."

22. Animated Short Film: "Paperman."

23. Live Action Short Film: "Curfew."

24. Visual Effects: "Life of Pi."

All in all the night of the Oscars was average. Once again the Hollywood elites pushed their liberal agenda on the film makers demonstrating the films they approved of and those they don’t. The only true way to judge a film is to see it yourself and notice the public’s reaction by the box office receipts.

According to Townhall.com through their first 65 days of release, Zero Dark Thirty has made over seven times as much in U.S. box office receipts as did The Hurt Locker, with nearly $90 million in receipts just in the United States. That figure then represents the real difference between being pro and anti-American at the U.S. box office.

A Virtuous Government

“[T]he only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.” — Benjamin Rush, On the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic — 1806.

Super Bowl advertisers paid as much as $4 million for 30 seconds of time in hopes of making a lasting impression. And they tried every gimmick in the book to do it. But one of the ads everyone is still talking about is the Dodge Ram Trucks ad, featuring images of American farmers set to a speech written and delivered by a giant of radio, Paul Harvey. It was called “God Made A Farmer.” Viewers so young that they might not even remember Paul Harvey were moved to tears by the commercial. Because amid all the CGI effects, vulgar jokes and sexual innuendo, what proved the most memorable was the power of Paul Harvey’s words and his unique, heartfelt delivery. By the way, if you’d like to hear the full speech, you can find it by clicking here. Paul Harvey made it in 1978 — 35 years ago.

This was a rare time where you would see God 11 times in 2 minute and 36 second TV Commercial. While watch the Super Bowl with a group of rowdy friends who mocked most of the commercials when the Dodge Ram Truck commercial began and the voice of Paul Harvey boomed out of the TV set the rowdy bunch of football fans fell silent. This was the few times in 15 years of our traditional Super Bowl party this has ever occurred. The other times usually were during the Budweiser commercials portraying their famous Clydesdale horses.

Another event over the weekend was the murder of former Navy SEAL Chris Kyle by a deranged veteran who was suffering from PTSD at a gun range. Eddie Ray Routh, a former Marine and Iraq veteran said: “He "traded his soul for a new truck." Why Kyle was working with Routh at a gun range may be questionable, but evidently the psychiatrist who was treating Routh cleared him for such activities. What made this event more horrific was a Tweet attributed to former Congressman Ron Paul. Dr. Paul tweeted: “Chris Kyle's death seems to confirm that "he who lives by the sword dies by the sword." Treating PTSD at a firing range doesn't make sense.”

Yesterday, according to a report in the Blaze, on his nationally syndicated radio show Glen Beck took Dr. Paul to task for his ill-advised tweet. The Blaze report states:

“Rather than coming from the lips (or keyboard, in this case) of a seasoned elder statesman, Beck said that Paul’s tweet sounded like something that would come from radical groups like Code Pink or Westboro Baptist Church, calling the social media statement “beneath” the former representative. The host said that one of the main problems that abounds in today’s society is a failure for individuals to treat one another decently and he even wondered if Paul regrets his “serious, serious error in judgment.

Acknowledging that some would potentially point the finger at him as someone who has fallen prey to uttering unfavorable statements in the past, Beck admitted that “we’ve all said things that we shouldn’t have said,” but that people should learn and grow from these experiences. And while he stands fervently against Paul’s statements, the host affirmed that he is a big believer in the First Amendment.

“I find Ron Paul’s speech ugly and offensive, but I defend his right to say it and I would not violate it or ask anyone else to violate it by having him silent,” Beck proclaimed “More speech — not less speech — but it requires all of us in responsible ways to respond because that is the right that so many like Chris Kyle fought for.”

The host also noted that for those wondering why he has never — and could never — support Paul, this example provides both explanation and corroboration.

“This should finally answer your question,” Beck said.”

On one hand we have a car company willing to use the words of a conservative radio host to promote it’s truck and the American Farmer and on the other hand we have a former Libertarian congressman using social media to make a comment beneath his dignity and doing harm to his reputation.

Yes we have free speech, but we also have responsibilities in exercising that right. Why post a disparaging comment about a recently murdered decorated SEAL while his family and friends are grieving his death. To me this is not only in poor taste it is a cruel exercise of the First Amendment. Dr. Paul may think this and discuss it with his followers, but why put such a comment on public social media for millions of people to read. Why cause more pain to his family. As a medical doctor Ron Paul should have known better. On the political side of the issue Dr. Paul’s comment will no doubt haunt his son, Rand Paul, in a future run for the presidency.

This is the problem with today’s social media. Politicians, celebrities, and just everyday folks are able to post ill-advised, nasty, vicious, and false statements on Facebook and Twitter without giving thought to what they are saying. These comments do harm to others and themselves. Where has virtue and honor gone?

A nation without virtue and honor is a nation without a future. Today the United States finds itself in a quagmire of ever-increasing self-doubt and foreboding. Chief among the factors that have brought America to this point has been the abandonment of a sense of what is right, just and true as it relates to the duty imposed by conscience. Virtue and honor is being abandoned and replaced by duplicity, avarice, self-aggrandizement, cowardice, and an unbridled lust for power and notoriety.

These characteristics are symptomatic of the bulk of the American governing class that has increasingly adopted, as their sacrosanct tenet, the concept that the end justifies the means. In their position atop the societal pyramid they have been devastatingly influential in undermining the morality and integrity of the citizenry. As Herbert Hoover once observed: "When there is a lack of honor in government, the morals of the whole people are poisoned."

As the greatest fear of the founding fathers comes to pass — an overwhelmingly powerful central government — the base nature of the human race comes increasingly to the fore. This evolutionary process, while underway for some time, has thoroughly permeated society as the nation is now reaching the tipping point.

Whether in the various state capitols or the once hallowed halls of Congress or the now tarnished grandeur of the White House, the acquisition and retention of political power by any means necessary, and the attendant access to ever larger sums of money, either borrowed, created out of whole cloth or coerced from the taxpayers, has become firmly entrenched in the nation's political psyche. Party identity notwithstanding, in order to achieve this end, nothing is beyond the pale — be it fraud, corruption, outright lies, or immorality.

No one person on the American landscape today more epitomizes this descent into dishonor than Barack Obama. His earliest days in politics were marked with unethical and oftentimes dishonest tactics in eliminating his opposition. He has revealed an untroubled willingness to prevaricate and make up so-called facts to suit his personal agenda. He has proven himself to be untrustworthy and a man whose word is meaningless. His narcissism knows no bounds as he oversees the premeditated decline of the United States concurrent with seeking to transform the nation into his vision of a socialist state. All the while exploiting his skin color as he calculatingly divides Americans into groups which he coldly and with forethought pits against each other.

The recent re-election campaign of Barack Obama encapsulated all these traits into the strategy employed as he set out to not only personally destroy his opposition by innuendo and falsehoods but to hoodwink the American voter. Unfortunately, the voters have become receptive to these tactics as they have been conditioned over the past forty years by an education establishment — dominated by greed, self-absorption and fealty to statist ideology — to believe that government, as controlled by the American left, is the source of wealth and salvation. Adding to this indoctrination, the entertainment industry, whose primary concern is an unfettered lifestyle, has slowly but surely convinced a near majority of the people that there are no moral absolutes. Honor and virtue are not words in their vocabulary.

The mainstream media, also concerned with an unfettered lifestyle but more importantly with access to the politically powerful, have chosen sides and become an extension of the state propaganda machinery as well as pawns in the hands of Barack Obama and the Democrats. Many in the media, also greatly influenced by the education and entertainment establishment, have left any semblance of honor at the doorway of cronyism as they safeguard their standard of living.

Far too many in the corporate and financial sphere have cast their principles aside as they too are increasingly operating their enterprises with the end justifies the means mindset. Further, as much of the free market is effectively under the thumb of government bureaucrats and politicians, many are convinced that in order to survive and prosper they must "play the game" with Washington D.C. and financially support those who have amassed the power to destroy them. Others have willing prostituted themselves and openly become crony capitalists eerily reminiscent of the relationship between industry and the government in fascist Italy and Germany.

This debasement of honor has extended its tentacles into many religious institutions who are now preaching the gospel of big government, abortion, euthanasia, and the toleration of any lifestyle. They are doing so in order to maintain some semblance of a congregation and the income derived from the same as well as groveling before the almighty monolith on the shores of the Potomac River.

The ultimate bulwark of honor and independence is supposed to be the Judiciary. Yet it has become what Thomas Jefferson feared: "an irresponsible body". Far too many judges have increasingly allowed their personal biases and ideological beliefs to dominate their decision making process as they usurp legislative power. They have allowed themselves to be swallowed into the vortex of self-aggrandizement and faux omnipotence rather than adhere to the Constitution and act as men and women imbued with humility, virture, and honor.

After the defeat in the 2012 presidential election, the primary and only topic of conversation among the conservatives and the Republican Party establishment is how to regain the White House and the Senate in future elections. These discussions invariably center on tactics and campaign strategy to counter the tactics and campaign strategy of the Democrats. To many principles are not part of the conversation. They want to win!

But all the grand plans to win elections cannot reverse the course the United States is presently on; only by being brutally honest with the American people and offering viable political/economic alternatives as well as emphasizing the overarching importance of honor can the nation be potentially rescued. That, first and foremost, requires honorable men and women to step forward and suffer the slings and arrows certain to come their way. Unless and until that happens all else is meaningless and America will continue to careen down it's self-destructive path.

As George Washington stated in his 1796 Farewell Address:

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness.”

I leave you with the words of William Henry Harrison, words he spoke during his inaugural address in 1841:

“Limited as are the powers which have been granted, still enough have been granted to constitute a despotism if concentrated in the Executive branch. The tendency of power to increase itself, particularly when exercised by a single individual would terminate in virtual monarchy. The tendencies of governments in their decline is to monarchy. The spirit of faction in times of great excitement imposes itself upon the people as the genuine spirit of freedom, and, like the false Christs whose coming was foretold by the Savior impose upon the true and most faithful disciples of liberty. It is in periods like this that it behooves the people to be most watchful of those to whom they have entrusted power."

Golden Globe Awards

“There are a lot of conservative people, a lot of moderate people, Republicans, Democrats, in Hollywood. It is just that the conservative people by the nature of the word itself play closer to the vest. They do not go around hot dogging it.” — Clint Eastwood

Last night after a day of exciting NFL divisional playoff football I watched the Golden Globe Awards on ABC with my wife and daughter. I do not normally watch these self-aggrandizing shows where performers grudgingly give awards to each other for performances they thought they should have been noted for. It’s the business of Hollywood to promote itself to the press, their agents, and each other. The movie going public selects its favorites with their pocketbook. Sometimes I fantasize on awards show for engineers and scientists. Perhaps in this way we could motivate more kids to study math, science and engineering rather than import them from India.

As usual with these award shows they had two bimbo hosts, Tina Fey and Amy Poehler, cracking jokes about the awards and the nominees. As the camera panned the assembled guests some were frowning while most were giving guarded applause. One of the more obnoxious gags of the night was when they said; "When it comes to torture, I trust the lady who spent three years married to James Cameron" — Poehler referring to Kathryn Bigelow, the director of the movie "Zero Dark Thirty," which has stirred controversy over its portrayal of the torture of terror detainees.

Speaking of Zero Dark Thirty at least the Golden Globes, unlike the Motion Picture Academy, recognized Bigelow’s film for best picture, best director, and best actress. I guess they are not as left-leaning and political correct as the AMPAS.

The best actress award went to Jessica Chastain for her role as the tough, dedicated CIA analyst in Zero Dark Thirty. Her acceptance speech was short and to the point claiming she had to work hard laboring in the fields of Hollywood trying to advance her career. Of course she thanked Bigelow and the cast and crew of Zero Dark Thirty and then she closed with a special thanks to Sony executive Amy Pascal for “protecting the film.”

One of the more boring and confusing speeches was given by Jodie Foster for receiving the Cecil B. DeMille Award for lifetime achievement. She rambled on for five minutes trying to tell America she was a lesbian and that she was retiring from acting, but would not be silent.

"I guess I have a sudden urge to say something that I've never really been able to air in public," she began after the requisite thank-yous. "So, a declaration that I'm a little nervous about but maybe not quite as nervous as my publicist right now huh Jennifer? But I'm just going to put it out there, right? Loud and proud, right? So I'm going to need your support on this."

So what was the big announcement after this buildup? "I am single, Yes I am, I am single."

The speech went on. Foster made what sounded like a plea for privacy for celebrities, thanked a bunch more people before making what certainly sounded like a retirement announcement.

"This feels like the end of one era and the beginning of something else. Scary and exciting and now what? Well, I may never be up on this stage again, on any stage for that matter," she said.

"Change, you gotta love it. I will continue to tell stories, to move people by being moved, the greatest job in the world. It's just that from now on, I may be holding a different talking stick."

After her five minute soliloquy I looked at my wife and daughter and asked them if they understood what she was talking about. Neither of them could answer my question.

This was a good year for conservative leaning films and TV shows. The best TV drama award went to Showtime’s Homeland as did the awards for best actor and actress in a TV series — Damian Lewis and Claire Danes. Lewis plays a Marine who was captured and turned traitor by al-Qaeda terrorists and Danes is the bi-polar, but brilliant, CIA analyst who was out to catch him.

The political thriller "Argo," and its director Ben Affleck, ended up taking home the night's honors for best motion picture drama and director.

The awards were a nice consolation prize for Affleck, who failed to score a best director Oscar nomination. "Argo" was, however, nominated for Best Picture.

The film's lamentable prologue, which blames America for Khomeini's rise, is filtered through the slight fog in director Ben Affleck's brain as is the epilogue, which is voiced by Jimmy Carter. In between is a stirring account of a clever CIA plan to liberate several Americans from Iran's revolutionary hell. Canadians have not looked this good since Sergeant Preston took his pension. Speaking of fog, one CNN reviewer faulted Affleck for casting himself and not a Hispanic in the lead role of a Hispanic CIA officer. This reviewer praised the more ethnically sensitive Johnny Depp for turning down the role of Pancho Villa, unaware, I suspect, however, that Depp's next role is as Tonto in the Lone Ranger. Just picture Depp saying “kemosabe” every time he addresses the masked man.

Hugh Jackman won the best actor in a motion picture award for his role in Les Misérables and as I stated above Jessica Chastain as an actress for her role in Zero Dark Thirty. Les Misérables as Christian Today notes, "It's not often that we go to the cinema and are confronted with the message of God's grace." But that message drives the plot of this unabashedly Christ-centered movie. Hollywood used to make movies along these lines all the time, but not even in its golden age did they make one this smart, visually sumptuous, and musically rich. Bring your Kleenex, especially during that rousing “Hear the People Sing” chorus that puts chills up your spine. Once you hear that you will walk around for weeks with the melody running through your head.

All in all the Golden Globe Awards was somewhat entertaining except for the constant commercial breaks that extended the time needed for the awards and the acceptance speeches way beyond the time needed. I was pleased that Argo, Homeland, Lewis, Danes, and Chastain received awards. They could have done without the gags by the two bimbos, Jodi Foster’s incoherent soliloquy, and the long, rambling acceptance speeches where the winners thanked everyone including their gardener. Jackman and crew did thank Boublil and Schönberg for writing the original Broadway musical score, but neglected to mention Victor Hugo. You can read the complete list of this year’s Golden Globe Awards by clicking here.

According to Jack Cashill of American Thinker here are a few films of 2012 with a conservative or Christian bent. Cashill states:

“I admit to using the word "conservative" loosely — we are talking about Hollywood, after all. It here refers to those films that are at least respectful of the American experience and generally supportive of faith, family, and/or country. A film can score as much as 50 on the quality scale and 50 on the conservative scale, the latter graded on a Hollywood curve. The two values are equally weighted. Although it may not seem obvious, 2012 was a better year than most.”

Here are a few of the Films on Cashill’s list with their scores:

Dark Knight Rises 75

In the third of Christopher Nolan's trilogy, Batman comes out of retirement to battle "Bane," the kind of action hero only an Occupy Wall Streeter could love. In full OWS mode, Bane schemes to overthrow the ruling class and blow up Gotham City until thwarted by one-per center Bruce Wayne, a.k.a. Batman. Indeed, not even Scrooge McDuck had a butler. Q 35, C 40.

Hitchcock 77

This underappreciated film chronicles Alfred Hitchcock's ordeal as he attempts to make Psycho, a movie that would have made no conservative's list when released 50-plus years ago. What commends this film is its surprisingly sensitive portrayal of the Hitchcock’s' marriage. I say "surprisingly" because marriage is a subject with which few in Hollywood have any lasting experience. Q 40, C 37.

Anna Karenina 78

The new movie version of Tolstoy's Anna Karenina might be a bit stagy for some tastes, but any movie that -- a) stars Keira Knightley and b) allows Leo Tolstoy's contempt for liberalism to play itself out on screen -- is surely worth watching. In the novel of the same name, Anna's feckless brother adopts a liberal attitude in the same spirit he smokes cigars, says Tolstoy archly,"for the slight fog it diffused in his brain." Not much has changed. Q 38, C 40.

Flight 82

Says one knowing reviewer, "this film makes perfect sense as the latest installment of an acting career birthed in Pentecostal spirit." A previous installment was Denzel Washington's intriguing Book of Eli. In Flight, his character, an airline pilot charged with flying drunk, chooses not to escape punishment through a legalism — my audience was rooting for him to do just that — but chooses instead to face his own failings and seek redemption. In that the film shows the temptations our pilot hero faces, one of whom in her full frontal glory, it is not necessarily for the kiddies. Q 40, C 42.

Act of Valor 84

This film about global anti-terrorism stars a group of real life Navy SEALs. OK, given the skill sets involved, the acting is not about to win anyone an Oscar, but the combat sequences may be the best ever put on film. The movie reflects the SEAL's values, which includes, in this movie, their respect for wives and children. Warning: your Code Pink date may never talk to you again. Q 36, C 48.

Zero Dark Thirty 86

Our Democratic friends rarely tire of boasting that that their guy took out Osama bin Laden, but this film presents them with something of a conundrum. Through "enhanced interrogation," several scenes of which the audience is treated to, the CIA developed the intel that led them to Osama. With some accuracy, a Salon reviewer called the film "a celebration of George W. Bush's most destructive policies." Yet the "torture" scenes are love-ins compared to, say, Tarantino's in Reservoir Dogs. No one gets injured, and if the terrorist doesn't know it, the audience does.

Despite the early rumors, this movie does not at all glorify President Obama. He appears only once, and then on a TV screen assuring a 60 Minutes interviewer that America never indulges in torture. The CIA agents watch and say nothing, but the look on their faces says, "Yea, sure, whatever." They are used to being betrayed. As one operative observes, "You don't want to be the last one holding the dog collar when the oversight committee comes." Q 44, C 42.

Lincoln 88

Republicans haven't looked this good on celluloid since, well, forever. The movie focuses almost exclusively on their struggle to overcome Democratic resistance and pass the 13th Amendment — with all the skullduggery such fights entail. To its credit, the movie does explore the liberties Lincoln took with the Constitution during wartime, but my purist friends make a mistake in thinking the Constitution favored the South's position. To deny a class of people liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and, on occasion, life itself and to still expect the protection of the Constitution is to rather miss the point of our founding documents. Q 46, C 42.

End of Watch 90

Although in and out of the theaters much too quickly, the boldly incorrect End of Watch may well be the best cop movie since The French Connection. The two patrolmen protagonists are brave, capable, and in love with their wives. You don't see that very often in the movies, any of that. More unusual still, they deal with the kind of bad guys real cops see in the mean streets of LA, not the sleazy businessmen and Serbian thugs Hollywood favors. Q 46, C 44.

If you have missed any of these films and have cable TV you might want to catch them on Pay-Per-View and save a few bucks by not running out to the theater. I know I will do this, although I have seen a few of them already and I agree with Mr. Cashill’s comments on the ones I have viewed, especially Zero Dark Thirty and Act of Valor.

Zero Dark Thirty — Some Truth, Some Fiction

“Nothing is so contagious as opinion, especially on questions which beget in the mind a distrust of itself.” — James Madison

Last night my wife, daughter and I ventured out to see the movie Zero Dark Thirty. For those of you who live in a forest somewhere Zero Dark Thirty is the controversial movie about the hunt and rake down of Osama bin Laden, the mastermind behind the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11, 2011.

I had heard and read a myriad of opinions on this film — everything from it being a homage to Barack Obama to a glorification of torture. It was neither. It was a well-crafted film by the Oscar winning director Kathryn Bigelow and her writer Mark Boal. The film chronicles the decade-long hunt for al-Qaeda terrorist leader Osama bin Laden (Referred to as Usama bin Laden in the film, which is correct) after the September 2001 attacks, and his death at the hands of the Navy SEAL Team 6 in May, 2011.

Critics on the left and right have lambasted this film due to their political agendas. First and foremost it is a theatrical movie not a documentary. If you want a documentary watch the numerous accounts of the hunt and take down of bin Laden on the History, Military, or National Geographic channels. I have seen most of those documentaries and even though crafted with care and with no obvious agenda they don’t always tell the entire story. In fact the entire story will not be known for years just as the full story of the assassinations of Presidents Lincoln and Kennedy are still evolving. So with that in mind here is my humble take on the film.

After seeing the movie, it becomes obvious that Americans might now understand what was needed to make sure the homeland remained safe. The crowds in the theatre are subdued during the movie and afterward. There is no hissing, no yelling, and no cheering. But at the end of the film there was a round of applause for the film. Perhaps this was due to the fact that I saw the film in a more conservative neighborhood in Riverside County. I doubt if there was any such applause in Westwood. As the audience exits, there is an eerie quiet, maybe because the movie brought home the fact to Americans that these were very dangerous times.

Jose Rodriguez, Jr., who headed the CIA's Counterterrorism Center and then became director of the National Clandestine Service, believes that the reaction of the audience was due to people realizing that what CIA officials have been saying for years is a reality: "it was necessary and needed to be done to keep Americans safe."

The film opens with scenes of “enhanced interrogation” of a captured al Qaeda terrorist at an undisclosed CIA black site in 2002. Maya (played by Jessica Chastain) is a CIA operative whose first experience is in the interrogation of prisoners following the Al Qaeda attacks against the U.S. on the 11th September 2001. She is a reluctant participant in extreme duress applied to the detainees, but believes that the truth may only be obtained through such tactics. For several years, she is single-minded in her pursuit of leads to uncover the whereabouts of Al Qaeda's leader, Osama Bin Laden. Finally, in 2011, it appears that her work will pay off, and a U.S. Navy SEAL team is sent to kill or capture Bin Laden. But only Maya is confident Bin Laden is where she says he is. You can read a full synopsis of the plot by clicking here.

As I stated above the film opens with scenes of enhanced interrogation of a captured al-Qaeda terrorist. The scenes of waterboarding and physical beatings are quite graphic. If you have a weak stomach come in about 15 minutes late to the 157—minute long film. This is no doubt the most controversial part of the film and where I take some umbrage with Bigelow and Boal.

As the author of Hard Measures: How the CIA Actions After 9/11 Saved American Lives, Rodriguez details in the book the actual tactics of the Enhanced Interrogation Program. He does not agree with the movie depiction of the interrogation scenes since. Rodriguez stated in an easy published in the Washington Post about the film:

“The CIA did not torture anybody under the enhanced interrogation program. I know, because I actually supervised it myself from 2002 until 2007. The torture scenes in the movie did not happen. My biggest beef with this film is that millions of people around the world after seeing this movie will conclude that the CIA tortures, which is very unfair and not true."

Rodriguez went on to say:

“Indeed, as I watched the story unfold on the screen, I found myself alternating between repulsion and delight.

First, my reasons for repulsion. “Zero Dark Thirty,” which will open for Washington audiences Friday, inaccurately links torture with intelligence success and mischaracterizes how America’s enemies have been treated in the fight against terrorism. Many others object to the film, however, because they think that the depiction of torture by the CIA is accurate but that the movie is wrong to imply that our interrogation techniques worked.

“They are wrong on both counts. I was intimately involved in setting up and administering the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation” program, and I left the agency in 2007 secure in the knowledge not only that our program worked — but that it was not torture.

One of the advantages of inhabiting the world of Hollywood is that you can have things both ways. In the publicity campaign for the movie, the director and the screenwriter have stressed that “Zero Dark Thirty” was carefully researched and is fact-based. When discussing the so-called torture scenes, director Kathryn Bigelow has said: “I wish it was not part of our history, but it was.” Yet when pressed about inaccuracies, screenwriter Mark Boal has been quick to remind everyone: “This is not a documentary.”

What I haven’t heard anyone acknowledge is that the interrogation scenes torture the truth. Despite popular fiction — and the fiction that often masquerades as unbiased reporting — the enhanced interrogation program was carefully monitored and conducted. It bore little resemblance to what is shown on the screen.

The film shows CIA officers brutalizing detainees — beating them mercilessly, suspending them from the ceiling with chains, leading them around in dog collars and, on the spur of the moment, throwing them on the floor, grabbing a large bucket and administering a vicious ad hoc waterboarding. The movie implies that such treatment went on for years.

The truth is that no one was bloodied or beaten in the enhanced interrogation program which I supervised from 2002 to 2007. Most detainees received no enhanced interrogation techniques, and the relative few who did faced harsh measures for only a few days or weeks at the start of their detention. To give a detainee a single open-fingered slap across the face, CIA officers had to receive written authorization from Washington. No one was hung from ceilings. The filmmakers stole the dog-collar scenes from the abuses committed by Army personnel at Abu Ghraib in Iraq. No such thing was ever done at CIA “black sites.”

The CIA did waterboard three of the worst terrorists on the planet — Abu Zubaida, Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri — in an effort to get them to cooperate. Instead of a large bucket, small plastic water bottles were used on the three men, who were on medical gurneys. The procedure was totally unlike the one seen in the movie but was consistent with the same tactic used, without physical or psychological damage, on tens of thousands of U.S. military personnel as part of their training.”

Bill Harlow, the former CIA director of public affairs, believes that the movie confuses incidents such as Abu Ghraib with the CIA program. For example, there is a scene where a CIA officer puts a dog collar on a terrorist detainee and walks him like a dog. Harlow was offended by this untruth because it happened at Abu Ghraib, completely contrary to the situation shown in the movie. "So many people seem to accept this as a given. It is annoying to me that they don't ask. Did this really happen that way? The beating scenes did not happen and were put in the movie for dramatic content. We never beat the crap out of people. Had anyone done those things shown in the movie, they would have been prosecuted."

Harlow goes on to state:

“It would have been more accurate and still intense if the movie put in the actual enhanced interrogation techniques. Unlike in the movie's description, Zubaida was put in a box only once — but one large enough to allow him to sit up. As for waterboarding, it was done to only three terrorist detainees, and to none after 2003. Anyone waterboarded had his vital signs monitored, which was not portrayed in the movie. The technique in the film of asking a question, pouring large buckets of water, and then asking another question is not how it was done. In reality, small plastic water bottles were used, with only drops of water being poured over the subject. Once someone agreed to cooperate, the enhanced interrogation techniques stopped as was demonstrated in the film.”

Yet the movie implies, by using the clip of President Obama saying Americans do not torture, that enhanced interrogation is torture. Former CIA Director Michael Hayden, for his part, feels that Jose Rodriguez's op-ed is the definitive piece on this issue. Rodriguez made it clear that those senators who are yelling and are threatening an investigation about the film's sources are trying to rewrite history because "they are denying that enhanced interrogation worked and call it torture." Hayden also was struck with the fact that these "senators wanted to investigate the Agency — not for the classification of what they told the filmmakers, but because they disagreed with the conclusions suggested by the film. The senators appear to be fixated on this issue."

The film correctly portrays that the hunt for bin Laden was a ten-year marathon, not a sprint. For a while people believed it was all Obama. It was the CIA's focus and hard work that eventually allowed us to find bin Laden. Many women deserve a chunk of the credit for their focus, tenacity, intensity, and being detailed-oriented, including Jennifer Matthews, chief of the Khost Afghanistan base at Camp Chapman. I have written a detailed account of how Ms. Matthews (called Jessica and played by Jennifer Ehle in the film) was killed by a Jordanian suicide bomber. For more information on this attack that killed 7 CIA agents, including Ms. Matthews and wounded 7 others click here. I think it will give you better understanding of the culture within the CIA at the time.)

According to Robert Baer, an ex CIA operative, writing in GQ Magazine Michael Scheuer, “her first boss in Alec Station, the CIA unit that tracked bin Laden, told me she had attended the operative's basic training course at the Farm, the agency's training facility, and that he considered her a good, smart officer. Another officer who knew her told me that despite her training at the Farm, she was always slotted to be a reports officer, someone who edits reports coming in from the field. She was never intended to meet and debrief informants.”

Baer continued:

“Matthews knew that there was a time when only seasoned field operatives were put in charge of places like Khost. Not only would an operative need to have distinguished himself at the Farm; he or she would've run informants in the field for five years or more before earning such a post. He probably would have done at least one previous tour in a war zone, too. And he would have known the local language, in this case Pashto. Matthews skipped all of this”.

According to all of the reports I have read on this incident Ms. Matthews was portrayed correctly in the film as was the entire incident at Khost. It is quite a shocker in the film.

Now to the main character in the film known as Maya and played by Jessica Chastain. Maya is not her real name and the CIA will not release her real name as there is a price on her head from al-Queda. The Navy SEAL who wrote the controversial book detailing the assassination of Osama bin Laden credits a 'feisty' female CIA analyst for leading them to their target, after spending five years hunting him.

Author Matt Bissonnette – whose identity was revealed even though he wrote the tell-all book No Easy Day under the pen name of Mark Owen – only refers to the woman using the pseudonym ‘Jen’ in his book. According to Bissonnette, as reported in The Guardian, Jen", was convinced Bin Laden was hiding at the compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, where he was found.

She travelled with the Seals to Afghanistan ahead of the raid and briefed them on what they were likely to find. "I can't give her enough credit. In my opinion she kind of teed up this whole thing," Owen told CBS's 60 Minutes in an interview to be broadcast Sunday.

Owen described Jen as "wicked smart, kind of feisty". She was 100% sure that bin Laden was hiding in the Abbottabad compound, according to Owen. President Barack Obama, CIA Director Leon Panetta and others had said they were only 70% sure Bin Laden would be found at the compound. Owen told 60 Minutes that all of her predictions proved to be exactly right. This is portrayed in the film where Maya is part of a group seated around a conference table and Director Panetta polls the operatives and analysts on their confidence that bin Laden is at the Abbottabad compound. The men’s responses range from 50 to 70 percent and when Maya is asked she responds with 100% positive, but downgrades to 95% saying nothing in the intelligence world is 100%.

In his book, Bissonnette writes that he sat next to the woman during one of the long-haul flights as they headed to Pakistan for the mission, and his brief description paints a picture of a young and extremely dedicated analyst.

'Recruited by the agency out of college, she'd been working on the Bin Laden task force for the last five years. Analysts rotated in and out of the task force, but she stayed and kept after it.

'After the al-Kuwaiti phone call, she'd worked to put all the pieces together. she had been our go-to analyst on all intelligence questions regarding the target,' he writes.

Jen is the real-life heroine of the CIA hunt for Osama bin Laden, a headstrong young operative whose work tracking the al-Qaida leader serves as the dramatic core of Zero Dark Thirty. It should also be pointed out that according to the Mail Online Jen is the person the character Carrie Mathison (played by Clare Danes) in the Golden Globe and Emmy award winning Showtime series Homeland is modeled after. Danes said that while researching her role as Mathison she met one of the men who led the raid on bin Laden.

Danes hinted at a connection during an interview about the research she did to prepare for her role as Carrie Mathison.

“There’s a woman Carrie is loosely modeled on and she’s a CIA officer and so I met with her and she took me to Langley and introduced me to some of her colleagues,” Danes told The Wall Street Journal.

The Homeland protagonist is described as being stubborn, headstrong, and outspoken. The same appears true for the female agent Jen.

“Jen wasn't afraid to share her opinion with even the highest officers,” Bissonnette wrote in the book. “This was her baby. Jen and her team spent five years tracking him to get us where we were now.”

Her CIA career has followed a more problematic script, however, since bin Laden was killed.

The operative, who remains undercover, was passed over for a promotion that many in the CIA thought would be impossible to withhold from someone who played such a key role in one of the most successful operations in agency history.

The real life Jen stirred up a bit of a firestorm when she blasted some of her fellow CIA compatriots with an e-mail. According to the Washington Post:

“The operative, who remains undercover, was passed over for a promotion that many in the CIA thought would be impossible to withhold from someone who played such a key role in one of the most successful operations in agency history.

She has sparred with CIA colleagues over credit for the bin Laden mission. After being given a prestigious award for her work, she sent an e-mail to dozens of other recipients saying they didn’t deserve to share her accolades, current and former officials said.

The woman has also come under scrutiny for her contacts with filmmakers and others about the bin Laden mission, part of a broader internal inquiry into the agency’s cooperation on the new movie and other projects, former officials said.

Her defenders say the operative has been treated unfairly, and even her critics acknowledge that her contributions to the bin Laden hunt were crucial. But the developments have cast a cloud over a career that is about to be bathed in the sort of cinematic glow ordinarily reserved for fictional Hollywood spies.”

Colleagues said the on-screen depiction captures the woman’s dedication and combative temperament.

“She’s not Miss Congeniality, but that’s not going to find Osama bin Laden,” said a former CIA associate, who added that the attention from filmmakers sent waves of envy through the agency’s ranks.

“The agency is a funny place, very insular,” the former official said. “It’s like middle-schoolers with clearances.”

This spring, she was among a handful of employees given the agency’s Distinguished Intelligence Medal, its highest honor except for those recognizing people who have come under direct fire. But when dozens of others were given lesser awards, the female officer lashed out.

“She hit ‘reply all’ ” to an e-mail announcement of the awards, a second former CIA official said. The thrust of her message, the former official said, was: “You guys tried to obstruct me. You fought me. Only I deserve the award.”

Over the past year, she was denied a promotion that would have raised her civil service rank from GS-13 to GS-14, bringing an additional $16,000 in annual pay.

Officials said the woman was given a cash bonus for her work on the bin Laden mission and has since moved on to a new counterterrorism assignment. They declined to say why the promotion was blocked.

The move stunned the woman’s former associates, despite her reputation for clashing with colleagues.

This is just another example of how the CIA has mutated from its origins of the OSS and the Cold War into a massive bureaucratic government organization as has the Department of Defense. As a person who held a security clearance and worked with the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency I can attest that there are many bureaucrats in the intelligence business who are more concerned with budgets and achieving their next GS ratings so they can retire with a larger pension. Decisions are had to come by from these bureaucrats. They don’t like to make waves or rock the boat. To them doing nothing is playing it safe and looking for someone else to point a finger at is standard operating procedure. That’s why 9/11 happened.

Overall, both Harlow and Rodriguez encourage Americans to see the film. They are hoping that what people will realize is that instead of supporting rights for terrorists, as some senators seem to be encouraging, those at the CIA chose to do what was right and legal to make sure terrorist plots were foiled. Although they wish the filmmakers consulted with them about the interrogation scenes, the movie realistically showed that here are those at the Agency who are patriotic, very disciplined, and smart, and that they are risk-takers when it comes to making sure Americans are kept safe.

Despite its flaws, inaccuracies and shortcuts, I do believe this film is well worth seeing. Theatergoers should understand, however, that “Zero Dark Thirty” is more than a movie and less than the literal truth. It is more about Maya and her 10-year hunt for bin Laden and all of the hurdles, both external and external, she had to jump. This is especially apparent in the final scene, with Maya in tears, drained, not sure where to go or what to do next.

And finally we come to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences — the folks who pass out the Oscars to their BFFs. David Clennon, an Emmy Award-winning actor and member of the AMPAS, announced in an op-ed for the leftist website Truthout that he would not be voting for “Zero Dark Thirty” in any Oscar categories because of its torture scenes.

“At the risk of being expelled for disclosing my intentions, I will not be voting for ‘Zero Dark Thirty’ – in any Academy Awards category,” Clennon wrote. “Torture is an appalling crime under any circumstances. ‘Zero’ never acknowledges that torture is immoral and criminal. It does portray torture as getting results.”

Clennon, who is best known for his work on TV series' "Thirtysomething," "Almost Perfect" and "The Agency" won an Emmy for a guest spot for "Dream On" in 1993. A longtime political activist, his remarks caused something of a furor since Academy members are specifically encourage by AMPAS not to reveal who they are voting for (assuming they are even voting). It's unclear whether Clennon will be reprimanded for his revelation.

But Sony executive Amy Pascal pushed back against Clennon’s assertions, stating bluntly: “Zero Dark Thirty does not advocate torture. To not include that part of history would have been irresponsible and inaccurate.”

Pascal said the studio is “outraged that any responsible member of the Academy would use their voting status in AMPAS as a platform to advance their own political agenda.”

“This film should be judged free of partisanship. To punish an Artist’s right of expression is abhorrent. This community, more than any other, should know how reprehensible that is,” she said.

According to The Wrap Zero Dark Thirty” roared out of the gate in its nationwide expansion Friday, taking in $9 million. That puts Sony’s controversial drama on pace to easily win the weekend box office race with $25 million.

It was running safely ahead of the weekend’s two debuting movies, Warner Bros.’ star-studded “Gangster Squad” and the horror spoof “A Haunted House,” the two R-rated films in a battle for No. 2. The period mob drama opened to $6.6 million from 3,103 theaters and is looking at a roughly $19 million weekend, just under analysts' projections. Marlon Wayans' comedy brought in about $6.7 million from 2,160 theaters, which puts it on pace for $17 million, in line with expectations.

In conclusion the film is worth ten bucks and a couple hours of your time if you like action thrillers based on actual events and to see the outstanding performance of Jessica Chastain. Theatrical movies are not made for the study of history, but they can motivate the viewer to research the events portrayed in the film and learn for themselves.

The Genesis Code

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.” — Genesis, Chapter 1, Verses 1-3.

Last night my wife and I watched the Genesis Code on our cable pay-for-view. I had heard about this Christian themed film (both positive and negative) and I wanted to see for myself what the film was about.

The Story:

Kerry Wells (Kelsey Sanders), a college journalist and committed Christian with an effervescent personality, has been assigned to do a story on Blake Truman (Logan Bartholomew) the college’s newest and very popular hockey superstar. As a relationship between them begins to develop Kerry finds that Blake, who hides behind a tough and independent façade, is actually struggling through a difficult personal crisis and that he bears the cross of a secret he has kept hidden for years. Blake rebuffs Kerry's suggestion that prayer might help ease his burden; he is convinced that modern science completely disproves the Bible, especially the opening verses of Genesis. Kerry — who is herself suddenly confronted with a challenge to her faith on another front — sets out to prove that science and Genesis are not in conflict and her quest leads to a startling revelation. Could it be that what science teaches us about creation and the story as told in Genesis are both true! The Genesis Code takes on three current social and cultural issues: Evolution vs. creation, End-of-life decisions and perceived discrimination against Christians on the college campus.

Before writing this blog I read two on-line reviews and found critical opinions of the film from a pseudo-scientist (a dentist) and an Evangelical Christian Minister. Both reviews blasted the film, but for different reasons.

The Dentist, a graduate from the University of Michigan, review is critical based on his interpretation of Cosmology and physics. In his review he states:

“The real purpose of the movie, however, is to serve as a vehicle to promote the idea that science and the Bible can be reconciled, with particular emphasis on the creation account of Genesis. Of course, operational science (measurable, testable, and observable science) is a “friend” of the Bible, and when properly understood, we can use science to support the historicity of Genesis (see Creation: Science Confirms the Bible Is True). Unfortunately, this movie immediately gets off on the wrong foot by unquestioningly embracing, as indisputable scientific fact, the speculative claims of scientists regarding the age of the universe—that the universe is about 15 billion years old. The movie then tries to startle viewers with the revelation that there is a special “code” hidden in the Book of Genesis that roughly agrees with a long age of the universe.

The film has much discussion about the physics of time dilation: how the perceived passage of time is dependent upon the perspective of the observer, and how the passage of time can be affected by mass, acceleration, and the stretching of the fabric of space. Some of this is operational science, and can be experimentally verified, and it actually may well help biblical creationists explain how we can see light from distant stars in a young universe. But by taking extensive liberties with the interpretation of certain Hebrew words in the Bible, along with the use of time dilation and God’s perspective from heaven, the movie seeks to impose a billions-of-years, progressive-creation timeline into the Genesis account. The movie claims that this is a better explanation of what is observed in the rock layers and the fossil record as opposed to molecules-to-man evolution.”

The second review I read was from a Christian minister who was also critical for its loose interpretation of the Bible. He writes:

“The Genesis Code is a full-featured film that pits the biblical six-day creation against the big bang theory of origins. In this contest, the viewer will notice that The Genesis Code never contemplates that the Bible should govern science; rather its presupposition is reversed. It is ‘science’ that is established as a seemingly inerrant source of ultimate truth.

However, science (and there are multiple definitions of what science, and even the ‘scientific method’, actually is anyway) can never be a standard of absolute truth. The sort of science with which most of us are familiar involves watching things happen (observation), and using repeatable experiments. Call it operational, or observational science if you like. But, when we try to understand events of the past, we are asking an historical question, which means that ultimately we have to use historical, not scientific, categories (see ‘It’s not science!’ and Naturalism, Origins and Operational Science). This doesn’t mean science can’t contribute to historical questions, but only that science can never provide us with the final answer. And the science involved in such things is a different sort of science—we can call it historical, forensic or even ‘origins science’.

That sort of science, which is what cosmology (the discipline that proposes ideas such as the ‘big bang’) is categorically placed in, involves a great deal of speculation, because it attempts to determine events of the past based upon fragments we have in the present. Events from the past cannot be directly observed or experimented on, tested, or repeated in the same way as observational science can.”

In fact, one expert has recently gone even further by claiming that cosmology is not even science, period! A recent article in the prestigious journal Science stated:

“‘Cosmology may look like a science, but it isn’t a science,’ says James Gunn of Princeton University, co-founder of the Sloan survey. ‘A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable experiments, and you can’t do that in cosmology.’”

This film attempts to win over unbelievers through argumentation in the name of ‘science’, or rather, commonly understood scientific principles. But it really uses origins science instead; this misleads viewers into thinking that a historical science like cosmology can determine such things.

The story is driven by a growing relationship between college hockey star, Blake Truman, who is an unbeliever, and a college news reporter, Kerry Wells, who is a professing Christian who interviews him.”

I can only guess at the agenda of the dentist who used his knowledge of science to dispute the Bible, but the minister is using his knowledge of the Bible to dispute the film.

What both reviewers are missing is the point that this is a fictional movie not a documentary you would see on the History, Science, National Geographic, or the Investigative Discovery channels. If it were not many people would pay money to see it.

Movies are meant to entertain by telling stories and this movie tells a compelling story. I am not a Biblical scholar or a Cosmologist or Astrophysicist so I cannot critique the theology or science portrayed in the film. However, I have read the Bible and watched numerous documentaries on the origins of the universe and believe there are multitudes of interpretations of both. It was Albert Einstein who said; “God does not place dice with the universe.” Science is continuing to evolve as man gains more knowledge and understanding of the world we live in. The Bible, while being believed to be absolute truth has been debated by theologians for centuries.

The average person of faith (such as me) believes in both. As a person with a technical education I have seen scientific evolve from theory to fact over the years. When in high school many years ago our physics books stated that the atom was the smallest particle known to man. Of course the book was written before the Atomic Bomb was exploded.

Likewise our understanding of the Bible has increased over the years. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient texts have allowed Biblical scholars to gain a better understanding of the Aramaic language — the language it was originally written in.

Beside the contrast between science and the Bible the film touched on an issue that I do understand — he conflict between those of faith and the secular non-believers who dominate academia today. There is a scene in the film where Kerry meets with her academic advisor to discuss her potential for going on to pursue a doctorate paleontology — a subject near and dear o Kerry. The female advisor tells Kerry that she needs two letters of recommendation and that her “dogmatic” Christian beliefs should be tempered if she wants to go on. The advisor goes into a diatribe telling Kerry that is she wants to become a part of the elite intelligentsia and a member of the masterminds who will mold the “new world order” she needs to abandon the absolute morality of her Christian beliefs. The advisor believes we live in a world of changing morality based on relativism. To me this was one of the more important scenes in the film — something the reviewers did not touch on.

Jeffery Osontisch writes a very good piece on the Paradox of Secular Scientism in American Thinker. He writes:

“It has become an accepted tenet of conventional wisdom to begin all discussions about science and nature with the understanding that religion has no place in such debates and that, in fact, faith is diametrically opposed to reason and scientific thought. To this end the concept of classical education, including any mention of God has been thoroughly removed from all Western public schools and replaced with a rather drab and mundane scientism.

This, however, need not be and was not always the case; in fact, Christian scholars had been on the cutting edge of scientific thought since the Middle Ages and the application of human reason to theological and later scientific questions has been a hallmark of Christianity since its very beginning - a fact which is evident to anyone who has read the work of Augustine and Aquinas, among others. How, then, did this notion of religion as the enemy of science first take root? And what are the dangers it poses to man and society?

The rise of radical secularism in philosophy and government first emerged as a formidable force in eighteenth century France and was characterized by an antipathy to objective moral standards and a belief in the perfectibility of man which spawned the humanist search for an egalitarian utopia and led to the horrors of the French Revolution. When this political philosophy was apparently validated by science, it proved to be a witches' brew which led directly to the bloodiest century in human history, the twentieth.

Its manifestation in science came about a century later with the publication, in 1859, of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species. In this landmark book the British naturalist was the first to present a cogent evidentiary argument in favor of the theory he labeled natural selection - the theory that all life on earth evolved naturally - and quite by accident - from a single common ancestor over millions of years. This work and the strong feelings it inspired in its supporters and opponents alike marked the fork in the road which permanently split science from religion.

In his much vilified, yet misunderstood Papal address at the University of Regensburg on September 12, 2006 Pope Benedict XVI lamented this gradual severing, by Western academics, of faith from reason - a process he believes has done great harm to both theology and science. He also compared the secular left's adherence to relativism to Islam's concept of the nature of God as not bound by reason, contrasting these concepts with the Christian tradition (inherited, in part, from the Greeks) of a rational God in whose image rational man was made. Christian doctrine teaches that God in creating the physical universe bound it to immutable laws and thus there is a divine order to it that may be theorized upon, observed, and explained by man. To Christians proof of God's adherence to His laws may be deduced from His incarnation in the person of Jesus Christ for the purpose of the redemption of man before God. Were He so inclined and not bound by His own nature, God may have simply forgiven man for his rebellion without ‘putting on' human form to suffer and die on the cross. That He chose the latter is clear proof to Christians of the existence of a Divine order to the universe.”

With the recent shootings in Aurora, Colorado we are hearing a great deal about evil and why psychopaths like James Holmes do what they do. It is this age of relativism we live in today that lies at the root of these actions.

It was Ayn Rand in her book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, who said:

“The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles.”

As Mr. Osontisch states:

“Clearly faith in God need not and should not be a disqualifier when discussing scientific questions. A proper foundation in the moral as well as the physical laws of God's glorious creation should be a requirement of a well-rounded educational curriculum. And the moral restraints placed upon science by faith need not be a hindrance to discovery and progress, but merely a rudder to help point progress in the proper direction. And if this means that certain core beliefs of the secular scientific community need to be re-evaluated this does not mean mankind is regressing to a past mired in superstition and unreason. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, if we have made a wrong turn somewhere along the line we will be no nearer our destination by stubbornly continuing on; it is truly progressive at such times to double back to where you veered off track and find the proper path.”

The conflict between those who only believe in science and the fundamental creationists will not be tempered by one film but is is a start. Hollywood is loath to produce films of this nature as they believe they will not be box office hits. My hat’s off to the producers, directors, actors, and writers for taking the risk to give us the Genesis Code. I suggest you view the film yourself and make your own decision on the value of the film.