Infringement vs. Rights

Infringe: transitive verb, “to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another” — Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

As a land surveyor I learned many years ago that the term “encroach” meant to take away the use of another’s property by denying him or her access to it. As an example if you build a fence or wall six inches over your property line you are encroaching on your neighbor’s property and denying him access to it. If you or your neighbor sell property and the new mortgage holder requires an extended title report including a proper survey the encroachment will show up in the title report and be excluded from your title insurance. Also, if as a property owner you are aware of the encroachment and do nothing about it you a acquiescing to your neighbor’s demand for your property and in any potential future legal action to require him to remove the encroaching structure you might lose a portion of your property to a claim of adverse procession. In essence, if you do not protect your rights to property you may lose that property — the same applies to your rights. As James Madison stated in his 1792 Essay on Property:

“Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his.”

This brings me to my comments on the Second Amendment to the Constitution, one of the “Bill of Rights.” The Second Amendment states:

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

When our Constitution was first adopted it did not contain the first ten amendments. Founders like Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson did not believe that these amendments were necessary as the words of the Constitution would suffice to protect our unalienable rights of life, liberty and happiness. Others such as George Mason believed and fought for these amendments to make clear to future generations the full meaning of the Constitution and the unambiguous meaning as to the limitations on the power of the federal government. Mason won the debate and the first act of the new Congress was to adopt these ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, and have them ratified by the states. In fact Mason authored some of these amendments, including the Second. It was Mason who said in a 1788 speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention:

“[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, — who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.”

When asked what his definition of militia was Mason responded; “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.”

To further expand on the definition of a state militia I refer to the Second Militia Act of 1792 passed by Congress and signed into law by President George Washington, a firm supporter of an armed citizenry. The act states:

“That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutered and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.”

It was the intent of Congress to have an armed citizenry, responsible to the states that could be called upon in the time rebellion or insurrection. This militia, consisting of free men should bear their own arms as specified by federal regulations. This militia under the control of the states could also be used to thwart an overbearing federal government that at this time had no standing army.

Over the years the Second Amendment has been surrounded by controversy. Those who have a fear of gun ownership claim the Amendment pertains only to legitimate and well-organized state militias, not to private citizens. Others (the majority of Americans) believe that the Amendment means that private citizens have the right to own firearms of their choice.

In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, are an “individual rights” thesis whereby individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and transportation, and a “states’ rights” thesis whereby it is said the purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units. Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state or private restraints. The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force.

In United States v. Miller, the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed–off-shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that “with obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.” The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of “civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.” It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that “comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,” who, “when called for service . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” Therefore, “in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well–regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”

Since this decision, Congress has placed greater limitations on the receipt, possession, and transportation of firearms, and proposals for national registration or prohibition of firearms altogether have been made. At what point regulation or prohibition of what classes of firearms would conflict with the Amendment, if at all, the Miller case does little more than cast a faint degree of illumination toward an answer.

Pointing out that interest in the “character of the Second Amendment right has recently burgeoned. Justice Thomas, concurring in the Court’s invalidation (on other grounds) of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, questioned whether the Second Amendment bars federal regulation of gun sales, and suggested that the Court might determine “at some future date whether Justice Story was correct when he stated that the right to bear arms “‘has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic.”

It was not until 2008 that the Supreme Court definitively came down on the side of an “individual rights” theory. Relying on new scholarship regarding the origins of the Amendment, the Court in District of Columbia v. Heller confirmed what had been a growing consensus of legal scholars — that the rights of the Second Amendment adhered to individuals. The Court reached this conclusion after a textual analysis of the Amendment, an examination of the historical use of prefatory phrases in statutes, and a detailed exploration of the 18th century meaning of phrases found in the Amendment along with the various writings of the Founders. Although accepting that the historical and contemporaneous use of the phrase “keep and bear Arms” often arose in connection with military activities, the Court noted that its use was not limited to those contexts. Further, the Court found that the phrase “well regulated Militia” referred not to formally organized state or federal militias, but to the pool of “able-bodied men” who were available for conscription. Finally, the Court reviewed contemporaneous state constitutions, post-enactment commentary, and subsequent case law to conclude that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms extended beyond the context of militia service to include self-defense.

Using this “individual rights theory,” the Court struck down a District of Columbia law that banned virtually all handguns, and required that any other type of firearm in a home be dissembled or bound by a trigger lock at all times. The Court rejected the argument that handguns could be banned as long as other guns (such as long-guns) were available, noting that, for a variety of reasons, handguns are the “most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home.” Similarly, the requirement that all firearms be rendered inoperable at all times was found to limit the “core lawful purpose of self-defense.” However, the Court specifically stated (albeit in dicta) that the Second Amendment did not limit prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, penalties for carrying firearms in schools and government buildings, or laws regulating the sales of guns. The Court also noted that there was a historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons” that would not be affected by its decision. The Court, however, declined to establish the standard by which future gun regulations would be evaluated. And, more importantly, because the District of Columbia is a federal enclave, the Court did not have occasion to address whether it would reconsider its prior decisions that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states.

The latter issue was addressed in McDonald v. Chicago, where a plurality of the Court, overturning prior precedent, found that the Second Amendment is incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment and is thus enforceable against the states. Relevant to this question, the Court examined whether the right to keep and bear arms is “fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty” or “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” The Court, relying on historical analysis set forth previously in Heller, noted the English common law roots of the right to keep arms for self-defense and the importance of the right to the American colonies, the drafters of the Constitution. and the states as a bulwark against over-reaching federal authority. Noting that by the 1850s the perceived threat that the National Government would disarm the citizens had largely faded, the Court suggested that the right to keep and bear arms became valued principally for purposes of self-defense, so that the passage of Fourteenth Amendment, in part, was intended to protect the right of ex-slaves to keep and bear arms. While it was argued by the dissent that this protection would most logically be provided by the Equal Protection Clause, not by the Due Process Clause, the plurality also found enough evidence of then-existent concerns regarding the treatment of blacks by the state militia to conclude that the right to bear arms was also intended to protect against generally-applicable state regulation.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants." — Cesare Beccaria.

Twice last week, Barack Obama graced us with his pontification on both his fealty to the Second Amendment and his desire for "common sense" gun control measures. With the Left, however, those two things are mutually exclusive. He's merely repeating the siren song of every other socialist tyrant during the last one hundred years.

On Monday, Obama goaded Republicans to go along with his schemes. "If in fact everybody across party lines was as deeply moved and saddened as I was by what happened in Newtown," further gun control measures are the only reasonable solution, he concluded. Furthermore, "As far as people lining up and purchasing more guns," he said, "I think that we've seen for some time now that those who oppose any common sense gun control or gun safety measures have a pretty effective way of ginning up fear on the part of gun owners that somehow the federal government's about to take all your guns away. And, you know, there's probably an economic element to that. It obviously is good for business." He should know — he's the Gun Salesman Emeritus, presiding over the sale of 67 million guns in four years.

So to recap, if you don't support gun control, you hate kids, and if you're buying or selling guns, you're a greedy loon. Now who's ready for a rational discussion?

Then on Wednesday, Obama laid down the gauntlet. Of course, there was nothing new in what he proposed — he had it all on the shelf just waiting for the first post-election crisis to exploit. Using four children as human shields, he bravely strode to the lectern to outline 23 executive actions, adding a call for congressional action. There is nothing like basing policy on the opinions of eight-year olds who've been brainwashed in government schools. I wonder had he gotten several thousand letters from eight-year olds decrying abortion if he would have had them at the White House reading their letters. I think not.

Here is Obama’s list derived from the meeting of the masterminds of his committee headed by Joe Biden. I have added a few comments to Obama’s list:

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (ObamaCare) that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks. Remember Fast and Furious? And recall the DHS warning about right-wing extremists? For that matter, check out this week's report on "America's Violent Far-Right." Now raise your hand if you trust Eric Holder to determine who "dangerous people" are.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

11. Nominate an ATF director. This should have been done two years ago when the news of Fast and Furious broke. Then Obama also promised to nominate a permanent ATF director. We suggest one who won't supply "assault weapons" to murderous Mexican drug cartels.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence. This one is very troubling. It should be noted that such research isn't new, however. Timothy Wheeler, MD, director of Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, writes in The National Review Online:

"Memories are short. It was only 15 years ago that Congress cut off federal funding for the Centers for Disease Control’s gun research. Top CDC officials such as Patrick O’Carroll, M.D., had said things like “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.”

Nor was Congress pleased that the CDC had funded in the spring of 1995 a newsletter from the San Francisco gun-control group the Trauma Foundation. This newsletter advised “advocates” to “organize a picket at gun manufacturing sites” and to “work for campaign finance reform to weaken the gun lobby’s clout.” There’s no reason to believe the CDC will not again use taxpayer millions to pay for more anti-gun-rights pamphleteering.”

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

Next, Obama called on Congress to pass universal background checks and to ban so-called "military-style assault weapons" and standard-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. This defensive weapons ban faces a steep climb, however. Not withstanding Joe Biden's claims of "overwhelming consensus" on gun control, the GOP controls the House, and I don't believe even the spaghetti-spine Republicans in that chamber will consent to a ban. Then there's the Senate, where Democrats such as Max Baucus (MT), Mark Begich (AK) and even Al Franken (MN) are balking at, if not outright opposing, a ban. Mark Pryor (AR), Tim Johnson (SD), Kay Hagan (NC) and Mary Landrieu (LA) likewise face re-election in red states in 2014 and are probable "no" votes. Even Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) doesn't seem to be a fan of Dianne Feinstein's gun ban. As reported in The Hill :

“Reid, a long-time opponent of a ban on assault weapons, suggested recently that he wouldn’t consider such a proposal in the Senate despite indications that the Obama administration might urge that prohibition after receiving the recommendations of Vice President Biden's gun-violence task force.”

Then the courts. Under the Supreme Court's Heller and McDonald rulings, the Second Amendment does, in fact, mean what it says -- it preserves the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Court added that this meant arms in common use, which would include semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15.

The big lie is that Obama’s 23 measures are common sense measures. “They have the support of the majority of the American people. And yet that doesn't mean any of this is going to be easy to enact or implement. If it were, we'd already have universal background checks. The ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines never would've been allowed to expire. More of our fellow Americans might still be alive celebrating birthdays and anniversaries and graduations. This will be difficult. There will be pundits and politicians and special interest lobbyists publicly warning of the tyrannical all-out assault on liberty. Not because that's true. But because they want to gin up fear or higher ratings or revenue for themselves. And behind the scenes they'll do everything they can to block any common sense reform and make sure nothing changes whatsoever." — Barack Obama, demonizing those who would oppose his tyranny.

Nothing the president is proposing would have stopped the massacre at Sandy Hook. President Obama is targeting the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens instead of seriously addressing the real underlying causes of such violence," Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said. "Rolling back responsible citizens' rights is not the proper response to tragedies committed by criminals and the mentally ill."

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said the proposals would merely invite "drawn-out court battles."

"Instead of a thoughtful, open and deliberate conversation, President Obama is attempting to institute new restrictions on a fundamental constitutional right," he said.

On the other side of this issue are pundits like Juan Williams of Fox News who in a recent op-ed stated that the President had the authority under Article II of the Constitution to enact executive orders infringing on the rights of citizens to own firearms of their choice. To support his position he cites President Lincoln’s issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation as his prime example. In his column Williams states:

“To be crystal clear: President Obama has the legal authority to enact gun safety measures through executive order. That is not a matter of opinion. It is a statement of fact. And there is historical precedent. Presidents have historically used this tool to implement a wide range of public policies that they believe to be in the best interest of the nation. The Emancipation Proclamation, for instance, was President Abraham Lincoln’s exercise of his executive order power to free slaves.”

I would remind Mr. Williams of his ignorance of American and Constitutional history that Lincoln’s executive order only referred to states in rebellion against the Union and did not have effect on the states remaining loyal to the Union. Under his authority as commander-in-chief during a time of war or rebellion Lincoln did have such authority under Article II.

The Emancipation Proclamation was an order issued to all segments of the Executive branch (including the Army and Navy) of the United States by President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863, during the American Civil War. It was based on the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief of the armed forces; it was not a law passed by Congress. It proclaimed all those enslaved in Confederate territory to be forever free, and ordered the Army (and all segments of the Executive branch) to treat as free all those enslaved in ten states that were still in rebellion, thus applying to 3.1 million of the 4 million slaves in the U.S. The Proclamation could not be enforced in areas still under rebellion, but as the army took control of Confederate regions, the slaves in those regions were emancipated rather than returned to their masters. From 20,000 to 50,000 former slaves in regions where rebellion had already been subdued were immediately emancipated and over 3 million more were emancipated as the Union army advanced. The Proclamation did not apply to the five slave states that were not in rebellion, nor to most regions already controlled by the Union army; emancipation there would come after separate state actions and/or the December 1865 ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, which made slavery illegal everywhere in the U.S. The Proclamation did not compensate the owners, did not itself outlaw slavery, and did not make the ex-slaves (called freedmen) citizens. It made the eradication of slavery an explicit war goal, in addition to the goal of reuniting the Union.

States and Territories affected by the Emancipation Proclamation

Lincoln’s Proclamation clearly states this:

"That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State, or the people thereof, shall on that day be, in good faith, represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such State shall have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State, and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States."

Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:

Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. Johns, St. Charles, St. James, Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New-Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South-Carolina, North-Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth-City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk & Portsmouth); and which excepted parts are, for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.

And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.

And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defense; and I recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.” (Emphasis added)

Lincoln issued the Proclamation under his authority as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy" under Article II, section 2 of the United States Constitution.[4] As such, he claimed to have the martial power to suspend civil law in those states which were in rebellion. He did not have Commander-in-Chief authority over the four slave-holding states that were not in rebellion: Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware, and so those states were not named in the Proclamation. The Emancipation Proclamation was never challenged in court.

Article II, Section 2 states:

“The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session”

To ensure the abolition of slavery in all of the U.S., Lincoln pushed for passage of the Thirteenth Amendment. Congress passed it by the necessary two-thirds vote in February 1865 and it was ratified by the states by December 1865.

I would remind Mr. Williams that his ignorance of the Constitution and the Emancipation Proclamation is glaring. Williams writes with a progressive left-wing agenda based on the teachings of John Dewey — an agenda that believes the Constitution can be interpreted or changed by democratic means or consensus. According to Dewey If 50.1% of the citizenry believe government should do something that is reason for the executive to act. This is contrary to the Constitution and thinking of our Founders. Progressives such as Williams believe in the “administrative state” and are opposed to liberty and property — they are true statists who believe the Executive Branch has the authority to infringe, encroach, and modify the Constitution and Bill of Rights any time the polls or mood of the public moves them. I would also remind Mr. Williams that it was one of his progressive heroes, Franklin Roosevelt, who interned some 100,000 Japanese-Americans in “relocation camps” during World War II with his executive order 9066.

While a few of Obama’s 23 planned executive orders may seem reasonable and sensible it is not within his authority to use these powers if they infringe on the rights of the citizens.

As an aside it should be noted that since the Obama Administration began its attack on the Second Amendment in month the membership in the NRA increased by 250,000. It also should be noted that by this past weekend gun stores across the country have been sold out of all of their stock of firearms including hand guns, shotguns and AR-15 type rifles. These citizens are voting with their pocketbook to insure their rights.

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.

Never Let A Crisis Go To Waste

"People crushed by laws, have no hope but to evade power. If the laws are their enemies, they will be enemies to the law; and those who have most to hope and nothing to lose will always be dangerous." — Edmund Burke

The greatest mind-trick in the left's entire arsenal is politicizing emotion. Once they accomplish that, there is no limit on a government's mandate to take action, since there are no rational limits on emotion.

Consider the welfare state. Is it right or wrong to help a poor person? What about providing for children's education? Or making sure that everyone has health coverage? These things appear self-evidently right, and therefore the cost doesn't matter to the left. Scarcity and how resources are employed don't enter into the equation. Voluntary or involuntary, it doesn't matter how these things are done. So it doesn't matter if government forces people to do something or not.

Now consider the case of gun control laws, which have no factual evidence to back up their effectiveness, given real-world constraints. Guns cannot be un-invented — only taken away and put into some people's hands, but not others. But since guns make leftists feel uncomfortable, it's best to have the government make them disappear.

Since so many on the left are dominated by feelings, and not animated as much by concern for facts and reason, most don't care about the consequences of their actions. They just hope that things will get better if government can spend enough money or pass more regulations. This is not to say that left-wingers are stupid; they are rather expert rationalizers and sophists. They put the cart before the horse — emotion before reason.

Today's typical totalitarian leftist is thus not a jackboot-wearing thug, but an overly sensitive, cardigan-wearing milquetoast, whose obsessions about feelings make him immune to rational argument. The danger of granting the government endless power to do good, like everything else, is rationalized away or dismissed by the leftist, since even the thought of making peace with an imperfect world makes him uncomfortable. This is why the left will never learn from history: the past is only prologue to the coming utopia, which will be perfectly just and fair.

Leftists are convinced they are on the side of right. They don't care about the cost; they care about humanity. Due to their preoccupation about humanity, they don't particularly care about individuals (ask any leftist what he thinks about the tens of millions killed by avowed socialists). This does not mean that leftists are hard-hearted; rather, they tend to be hyper-sensitive stars in their own imagined melodrama. And furthermore, their emotion-centrism does not rule out calculation and cunning, since their entire thought process is focused on effecting power, which they believe will be used for good. The ends justify the means.

Left-wingers tend to be crusaders who love everyone so much that they are willing to stick others with the bill for any cause they deem fit. Save the planet, even if that means some people suffer. (See malaria and DDT; ethanol subsidies and world hunger; fracking and man-made global warming hysteria, etc.) Wage an endless and self-defeating war on poverty, meanwhile impoverishing the nation. Rationalize away human nature, as if punishing productive behavior and subsidizing idleness will not damage an economy over generations. We are equally poor, but the left feels better for having tried.

Earlier today, Vice President Joe Biden addressed the ongoing discussion and debate surrounding gun control. Rather than relying strictly upon the legislative process, he said that Obama “is going to act” — and potentially without Congress’ blessing.

Before meeting with gun safety and victims’ groups, the vice president told reporters that “executive orders” may be an avenue that the administration will use to take swift action on firearms.

“There are executive orders, there’s executive action that can be taken,” he said. “We haven’t decided what that is yet. But we’re compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required.”

As the Weekly Standard notes, Biden stressed the importance, in his view, of taking action to curb gun violence. He also said that he is convinced that the government “can affect the well-being of millions of Americans and take thousands of people out of harm’s way” — pending officials “act responsibly.”

First and foremost the President of the United States has no authority of the Bill of Rights. He cannot limit free speech or command a state religion. He cannot void the Second Amendment. He cannot order soldiers to be housed in your home without permission. He cannot order seizure of your papers, and effects without a court order. He cannot suspend the right of Habeas Corpus — Lincoln tried this in the Civil War and it was ruled unconstitutional. Only Congress an take these actions, and then they would be subject to judicial review

Over the years executive orders have been used by past presidents for political and phony national security issues. Just look at the 100,000 American citizens who were interred in relocation (concentration) camps during World War Two by an executive order by Franklin Roosevelt. These people were interred for no reason except that they were of Japanese ancestry.

Now we have a president who believes he is above the law of the land and is threating to use his executive powers — powers not granted in Article II of the Constitution. Of course the liberal progressives and Democrats believe he does, but only for causes they support like gun control, conservative speech, and abortion. This all emotionally based.

I’m not trying to be mean and no I don’t have a cold heart but I’m getting a wee bit tired of Mark Kelly and former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. Look, I know she has gone through a great deal since the Tucson shooting, to say I know what it’s like to be involved in such a tragic event would be a lie. But I also understand the line between the unfortunate details of what she and others went through, and the line approaching self-promotion and pushing an agenda. Mark Kelly and Mrs. Giffords are using her experience as a tool for self-promotion and to promote anti-gun legislation.

I know it’s politically correct to hail the former Congresswoman and her astronaut husband as heroes but are they really? And if they are, most heroes I know from the various books I’ve read growing up tend to shy away from constant adulation and the limelight. Perhaps I’m wrong about this whole thing, if so what explains the USS Gabrielle Giffords? It’s an upcoming Independence-class littoral combat ship that will be named after the former Arizona Congresswoman. As pointed out by folks on Twitter, the irony of Mark Kelly and Mrs. Giffords crusade against the second amendment and her having a warship named after her, not to mention her having armed guards is quite glaring I must admit.

Kind of like how the editor in chief of the Journal News looked into hiring armed guards after posting an interactive map detailing the information and addresses of legal gun owners in Westchester and Rockland counties in New York.

I have no doubt that Mrs. Giffords is a nice person and likely means no harm in what she and her husband are trying to accomplish. I believe they believe no one should be allowed to own a gun; just as I believe liberals in general oppose the idea of gun ownership altogether. They say semi-automatic weapons and assault weapons but they really mean guns in general. The way they go about it is a creeping effect where measures are put in place there by giving them a green light to categorize any gun under the banner of “Assault Weapon”. Today the AR-15 is an assault weapon, tomorrow it may be your everyday Bass Pro Shop hunting rifle. The category is what gives them a pathway to their ultimate goal which is complete confiscation of all firearms.

But in keeping with my take on Gabby Giffords, where are the warships for the other Tucson shooting victims? How about we name a warship after Dawn Hochsprung? She was the principal who went after Adam Lanza as he cut down those little children. She doesn’t have a story to tell, at least not in her own words because unfortunately she’s no longer with us. I’m not saying Mrs. Giffords isn’t a hero but to me Dawn Hochsprung is the most authentic example of that word outside of law enforcement, and our soldiers fighting overseas. She threw caution to the wind and her life along with it because her love for those students proved stronger that day. If anything she deserves a warship before Gabby Giffords. But she was not a politician who had a memorial service at the University of Arizona — and after all she is a Democrat and we know all Democrats are heroes.

Liberals are always preaching to us about acceptance and tolerance, diversity yet they’re the ones who control the propaganda used to tell young girls and young people in general that if they don’t dress, talk, think, or act a certain way that acceptable to the hierarchy of cultural liberalism then they aren’t worthy, not pretty enough, not worth the time of day because they don’t “fit in”. From Hollywood to the fashion world it’s all liberal and it defines what acceptable is. So when you have young people committing suicide because they don’t feel good about themselves, or young men cold to violence and destruction, teens rebelling against their parents because the liberal music industry and MTV tells them its “like totally cool” to flip the bird to authority, perhaps you should stop lecturing us about the second amendment and start focusing on what you’ve done to the culture. Or maybe we should play your game and start looking at the first amendment which gives liberals a license to poison society with filth they call entertainment. But oh no, that would be unconstitutional

As George Mason said in a speech at the 1788 Virginia Ratifying Convention:

“When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, — who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.”

As for the militia, Mason, the co-author of the Second Amendment had this to say; “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.”

Mason, like Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, and Madison believed that arms in the hands of the citizens were not for hunting, but to prevent tyranny from the government and the protection of the citizen. Liberals just don’t seem to get this one simple fact. Every tyrant in history has begun their reign by taking arms away from the citizens — and that’s a fact.

It is also a fact that according the FBI’s annual crime statistics, the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs far outnumbers the number of murders committed with a rifle. This is an interesting fact, particularly amid the Democrats' feverish push to ban many different rifles, ostensibly to keep us safe of course.

For example, in 2011, there were 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs.

However, it appears the zeal of Sens. like Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) is misdirected. For in looking at the FBI numbers from 2005 to 2011, the number of murders by hammers and clubs consistently exceeds the number of murders committed with a rifle. I guess we need to ban , or at least license, hammers and clubs.

It the left wants to talk about violence and murder of children they should consider that 333,964 babies were aborted in 2011. That’s the figure proudly released by Planned Parenthood Federation of America in their report delineating how many abortions they performed in fiscal 2011. Doing some simple math reveals that the number of abortions performed equates to one abortion every 94 seconds 24/7.

And Planned Parenthood can be pleased with their progress: the number of abortions they performed in 2011 was up from 2010, when they snuffed out 329,445 lives. And the U.S. government can carry the banner high with the abortion provider; Planned Parenthood received $542.4 million in government health services grants and reimbursements,” including payments from Medicaid managed care plans. If Obama wants to issue an executive order how about defunding Planned Parenthood.

Kenneth Bennight writes in American Thinker:

“Would-be gun controllers argue that guns are different from other dangerous commodities. Guns are uniquely are designed to kill, they say, and therefore lack the utility of other dangerous things. Take automobiles, for instance: automobiles kill more people than guns, but automobiles' primary use is peaceful, and automobiles are not designed to kill. Why, gun controllers ask, should we tolerate guns, which are dangerous and have no material utility other than killing?

Gun-rights defenders sometimes argue that guns have innocent uses such as hunting and target-shooting. Those uses, they argue, justify widespread gun ownership. But what other widespread toy is as potentially lethal as guns? It's poor argumentation to refuse to acknowledge the obvious: the function of guns is to kill. That is incontrovertible. Non-killing uses of guns are incidental.

Does that make the gun controllers right? No. If we are to preserve our Second Amendment rights and our freedom generally, we must accept the possibility of legitimate killing in two circumstances: defense against violence and resistance to oppression.

Self-defense is a natural right of all persons, one not limited to non-lethal force. f gun controllers concede that, they proceed to parse finely the degree of allowable lethal force. (No one needs more than a three-round magazine.) But any such calculation necessarily assumes unknowable things.

Why is it that those who know the least about guns have the strongest opinions on how much lethality is legitimately necessary? And gun controllers would not impose those limits on the Secret Service or the bodyguards of other prominent people. What has become of America if the law holds that the lives of such people are more worthy than the lives of the rest of us?

…

“No doubt the founders accepted the natural right of self-defense, but that was not why they proposed the Second Amendment. They had just prevailed in a war won largely with civilian-owned firearms. The shot heard round the world was fired to resist a British attempt to disarm Americans. The British army, accustomed to an unarmed British countryside, was surprised by an armed and largely hostile American populace. The founders wanted to protect Americans' ability to resist oppression. If we wish to retain our freedoms, we must retain that ability.”

Human beings don't need coercion to do what's right for themselves, but coercion is needed for human beings to force others to sacrifice on their behalves. The way to make the world better is simple: people should stop using coercion to make others serve them, and people should serve themselves. Economy and society should be free and respectful of individuals. This is what the market system is about: serving oneself by serving others, and specifically, by offering goods and services in exchange for money.

Oh, but that's so heartless!

"But what is the conservative's response to all the world's suffering?" the leftist screams. "What are we to do about [name the anecdotal case of misfortune]? Do conservatives really want to do nothing?"

The best answer is captured by Frederic Bastiat.

“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”

The principled answer to the leftist who believes he is on the side of right, and therefore that the means to his ends are inconsequential, is that no one is born into this world owned by anyone else, including the abstract concept of "society." An argument against such reasoning is implicitly an argument for the enslavement of some human beings to others. Since this is anathema to the state of nature and is self-evidently a grotesquery, all rational justification for omnipotent government is ruled out. A human being's life is his own means and end-in-itself.

Since civilization flourished due to reason and not pure emotion, as agricultural and productive organization allowed human beings to employ resources in the environment to better their situation, the politicization of emotion, or the use of force to back feelings, leads to anarchy and social destruction. Leftists should consider this well before believing that any particular misfortune obligates the socialization of suffering, forestalling but never removing accumulated ruin — whether through the means of debt or through the mass wreckage of human lives.

Running counter to this history of social disaster, the Constitution is the pinnacle of reasoned political science and the legal barricade against the mob mentality that drives majoritarian democracy. Demagogues arise under such a system of government, because they promise the majority the spoils of government looting, meanwhile stoking the flames of populist passions. The rule of law and the scientific method were developed precisely to protect human beings from the hazards of acting on raw emotion and ignorance. Democratic politicians and left-wing activists, on the other hand, thrive on these human vulnerabilities.

Alexis de Tocqueville stated in his 1848 Critique of Socialism:

“Democracy and socialism are not interdependent concepts. They are not only different, but opposing philosophies. Is it consistent with democracy to institute the most meddlesome, all-encompassing and restrictive government, provided that it be publicly chosen and that it act in the name of the people? Would the result not be tyranny, under the guise of legitimate government and, by appropriating this legitimacy assuring to itself the power and omnipotence which it would otherwise assuredly lack? Democracy extends the sphere of personal independence; socialism confines it. Democracy values each man at his highest; socialism makes of each man an agent, an instrument, a number. Democracy and socialism have but one thing in common—equality. But note well the difference. Democracy aims at equality in liberty. Socialism desires equality in constraint and in servitude.”

Control over the House is a powerful platform. Republicans must be prepared to utilize that power to its fullest extent this year. If Obama and his progressive statists want to talk about using executive orders to trample on the Bill of Rights and violate the Constitution it is time for Speaker Boehner to begin using the “Impeachment” word. It’s time for true Constitutional Conservatives to stand against the progressive left and their emotional means to governance.

Never let a good crisis go to waste. The left never does.

Will it be a Happy New Year?

“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.” — George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

Well we finally said goodbye to 2012 and the world did not come to an end as predicted by the promoters of the Mayan Calendar and we did, according to Vice President Joe Biden go off the fiscal cliff with the Senate passing the so-called compromise tax plan. Passage by the House will be an issue for 2013, so in reality nothing has changed so far.

2012 was not a great year for the world or the United States. There were no great medical or scientific breakthroughs. No one walked on the moon, in fact the United States relinquished its leadership in space to the Russians and we did not find a cure to the common cold. We did not introduce an automobile that would get 100 miles to the gallon and we could not figure out how to make airline travel more comfortable and less expensive.

In retrospect let’s take a few minutes to look back at some of the more reported and monumental events of the past year.

2012 began on January 13 when the Italian cruise ship Costa Concordia ran aground off the Tuscan island of Giglio, Italy, killing 32 people. The captain of the ship, unlike the captain of the Titanic, bailed out on his passengers claiming he was distracted causing the ship to run a ground and capsize.

On Feb. 11, 2012: Whitney Houston, who reigned as pop music's queen until her majestic voice and regal image were ravaged by drug use, died at 48. Houston, while having a great career and millions of fans, just could not avoid the use of drugs to make her feel good about herself.

Just Houston’s death was news was growing cold on Feb. 16, 2012 George Zimmerman fatally shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, an unarmed teenager who he described to 911 dispatchers as "suspicious." The case gained national attention and activists demanded Zimmerman be charged. He has pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder. His case is still pending and much criticism has been leveled against the Florida State Prosecutor for charging Zimmerman at all as Florida has a “Stand Your Ground Law.”

On March 15, 2012 Chongqing Party secretary Bo Xilai was removed from China's leadership in one of the biggest government shakeups since 1989. Bo is implicated in a corruption scandal that threatens to derail China's once-a-decade leadership transition.

In April 2012 as many as 11 Secret Service agents and 10 military service members allegedly brought prostitutes back to their hotel in Cartagena, Colombia, while setting up advance security before President Obama’s arrival for a three-day trade summit with Latin American leaders. This was one of the biggest black eyes for the Secret Service since the Kennedy assassination

On May 9, 2012 President Obama endorsed same-sex marriages, becoming the first sitting U.S. president to take that position. He reversed his previous position on the issue as he was campaigning for the LGBT vote.

On May 18, 2012 Facebook founder, Chairman and CEO Mark Zuckerberg, after years of anticipation, led to Facebook's initial public offering of stock in 2012, the hottest Internet IPO since Google's in 2004. On the eve of its first trading day, Facebook's market value was $105 billion, yet the IPO bombed. Zuckerberg and his investors made millions while those who bought in have yet to see any ROI.

In May 2012 the unemployment rate hit 8.2 percent in the United. In some states, like California and Nevada the rate remained as high as 12%.

In May/June 2012 Egypt held what the country touted as its first 'free-and-fair' presidential election. Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohammed Morsi was declared the winner and the world wondered what had happened to the “Arab Spring.”

On June 6, 2012: Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch won their recall election. Organized labor, blind-sided by a new law weakening union rights in Michigan, point to Walker, who raised more than $30 million to beat his Democratic opponent, as a prime target in the 2014 elections. But the people of Wisconsin agreed with Walker by 53-46.

On June 25, 2012 the U.S. Supreme Court struck down much of Arizona's controversial immigration law, but upheld for now a key provision that requires police officers to check the immigration status of those they suspect may be in the country illegally. The provision on mandatory checks during routine stops will now kick back to a lower court for review and still could still be subject to challenge. The rest of the ruling, though, definitively strikes down three other provisions in the Arizona law. What a shame Arizona cannot protect its citizens from the drugs, crime, and harm to their economy illegal immigration brings.

On June 28, 2012 The Supreme Court upheld President Obama's health care overhaul. The court ruled as constitutional, by calling it a tax, the so-called individual mandate requiring most Americans to obtain health insurance starting in 2014. The ruling was a victory for the president, ensuring for now that his signature domestic policy achievement remains intact. This was one of the most controversial decisions from SCOUS since Dread Scott with years of unintended consequences lying ahead.

On July 20, 2012 the whack job James Holmes is accused of going on a July 20 shooting rampage at a midnight showing of the latest Batman movie in Aurora, killing 12 people and injuring 58 others.

On August 2, 2012 U.S. gymnast Gabrielle Douglas performs on the balance beam during the women's individual all-around gymnastics competition at the 2012 Summer Olympics in London. She is the first African-American gymnast in Olympic history to become the individual all-around champion, and the first American gymnast to win gold in both the individual all-around and team competitions at the same Olympics.

On September 11, 2012: A terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, information specialist Sean Smith and former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods. At first the Obama administration sent their U.N. ambassador, Susan Rice, around the Sunday talk shows to blame the attack on an anti-Muslim video, but as time went by Rice’s explanation was debunked and she lost all credibility with the press and American people causing her to withdraw herself from nomination as Secretary of State.

On September.24, 2012 a replacement official signaled a touchdown by Seattle Seahawks wide receiver Golden Tate, obscured, on the last play of an NFL football game against the Green Bay Packers in Seattle. The Seahawks won 14-12. The NFL locked out the officials in June after their contract expired. Unable to reach a new collective bargaining agreement, the league opened the season with replacements, most with experience only in lower levels of college football. This controversial call caused the NFL owners and the officials union to come to an agreement.

On October 9, 2012 former Penn State University assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky, is sentenced in Bellefonte, Pa. Sandusky was sentenced to at least 30 years in prison, effectively a life sentence, in the child sexual abuse scandal that brought shame to Penn State and led to Hall of Fame college football coach Joe Paterno's downfall disgrace. This scandal rocked the world of college athletics and brought sanctions against Penn State.

On October 14, 2012 Felix Baumgartner barreled toward the New Mexico desert from 24 miles above the Earth, shattering the sound barrier to become the world’s first supersonic skydiver. Baumgartner, a 43-year-old Austrian, hit Mach 1.24, or 833.9 mph, according to preliminary data, and became the first person to go faster than the speed of sound without traveling in a jet or a spacecraft. The capsule he jumped from had reached an altitude of 128,100 feet above Earth, carried by a 55-story ultra-thin helium balloon. Try that one with you kids party balloons.

On October 29 2012 Super Storm Sandy slammed into the East Coast in late October, killing at least 120 people, hurling a record-breaking 13-foot surge of seawater at New York City and knocking out power to more than 7.5 million across the East Coast. Some people still have not recovered from this storm an and once again FEMA and government was slow to respond even though President Obama made a campaign stop in the disaster area promising quick action.

On November 6, 2012 President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden defeated Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and his running mate Paul Ryan in the 2012 election with 51% of the popular vote and 332 Electoral Votes. It was one of the most divisive elections since the Civil War and the nation has yet to see the full ramifications of Obama’s slim victory.

On November 21, 2012 Israel and Palestinian militants engaged in talks in Egypt aimed at forging a new era of relations between the bitter enemies following a November cease-fire that ended the heaviest fighting in nearly four years.

The cease-fire came following eight days of airstrikes targeting militant groups in the Palestinian territory and rocket attacks that reached deep into Israel.

Israel launched some 1,500 airstrikes in a bid to end rocket attacks out of Gaza, while the Hamas and the Islamic Jihad militant groups fired a similar number of rockets at Israeli cities. More than 160 Palestinians, including dozens of civilians were killed. Palestinian attacks killed Six Israelis, including four civilians and two soldiers. This was just the latest in the 64 year conflict between the Israelis and their Arab neighbors.

On November 9, 2012 CIA Director David Petraeus resigned after admitting to an extramarital affair — an affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, that was revealed over the course of an FBI investigation spurned by a series of e-mails between Broadwell and her rival Jill Kelley.

December 3, 2012 Britain's Prince William and his wife Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, announce that they were expecting their first child. Kate was hospitalized with severe morning sickness. An Australian radio show prank called the hospital pretending to be the Queen looking for information. The woman who connected the call committed suicide three days after being duped. Some prank.

On December 11, 2012 North Korea said it successfully launched a rocket, a feat which the U.S. and other nations have labeled as "provocative." The launch defied an international warning and took a major step forward in its quest to develop a nuclear missile. While the stated purpose was to put a weather satellite into orbit, the three-stage rocket's deployment also demonstrates the nation's ability to send a nuclear warhead as far as California, and raises the stakes in the international standoff over North Korea's expanding atomic arsenal.

On December 14, 2012 Adam Lanza, 20, shot his mother in the head four times in their Newtown, Conn., home and then drove to the Sandy Hook elementary school in her car with four guns, including a shotgun that was left in the back of the vehicle, and shot up two classrooms. Lanza killed 20 students and six adults before killing himself. It is one of the deadliest school shootings in U.S. history. It was the second greatest loss of life at a school since the 1927 bombing of an elementary school in Michigan.

In 2012 activists said more than 40,000 people have been killed in the 21-month Syrian civil war. Despite outcry from more than 100 nations, President Bashar Assad's regime continues to crack down on the Syrian people. The Assad regime has long rejected Western involvement in the civil war and has called for talks with opposition. Most rebel groups refuse to meet with Assad, demanding his removal. More than 100 nations, including the U.S., recognized the new Syrian opposition council as the legitimate representative of the country, a boost for the opposition forces that have been bombing regime targets in and around Damascus, once an impregnable stronghold of the Assad regime.

That is just a few of the events capturing the 24/7 news cycle during 2012. Each event in its own right was memorable or notorious, but were tossed into the dust bin of history as we moved through our daily cycle of news and entertainment.

As bad and tumultuous as events were here in 2012, things were worse in Europe. Fat sow unions in Europe and politicians who herald the umpteenth iteration of a Marxist panacea make nearly all the economic news from Europe bad, and the looming default on sovereign debt by Greece, Spain, Cyprus, and other Eurozone nations means that not just governments, but banks with sovereign debt instruments as significant parts of investment portfolios will lose solvency and confidence.

But the cliff we face and the cliff that Europe faces are less economic than moral. Two decades ago, we won the Cold War. The Iron Curtain fell. America, and to a lesser degree our NATO allies, all were able to safely and substantially cut defense spending. The "Peace Dividend" ought to have allowed Europe and America to keep taxes low, run regular surpluses, and not disrupt the social welfare basket at all.

What we have lost is not our money, but our souls. Consider Obama. He has power, but how is he using that power? Like Big Brother in Orwell's 1984, Obama never stops campaigning, never stops stirring up fear, never stops blaming those who came before him. Obama and his minions seem incapable of honesty, honor, or humility. Are Republicans in Washington much better? Since Reagan, who gave us the "Peace Dividend" and proved Supply-Side Economics, have conservatives ever found anyone in Washington who is not tainted with power-lust?

If Washington is bad, Brussels is worse. The dream of "United States of Europe" has become, instead, a nightmare. Flemings and Walloons, the two nationalities in Belgium in the very nation whose capital is the headquarters of the European Union, took 535 days after its last general election to form a government — longer than any parliamentary government in history (shades of Weimar Germany!). Self-destructive and angry Greeks dredged up Nazism when Angela Merkel visited their country to see what help Germany could provide. Separatism is on the rise in Europe, as Scottish and Catalan and Flemish and other peoples seem to think that a new and smaller nation will solve their problems, but there is no reason to think this will improve European life.

Old Europe itself is dying, as conservative authors have been telling us for years.  The cynical, agnostic, socialist European is reproducing at far too slow a rate to keep his native population from surviving and the young, militant jihadists who are taking over the streets of many European cities are no more tolerant or productive than the young, militant jihadists who are forming the new, scary democracies of the Arab world.

We have no talisman against these jihadists who will, inevitably, gain nuclear weapons through Pakistan (with hideous implications for India) or Iran (with hideous implications for Israel) or, through legitimate democratic means with implications for real nuclear powers like France and Britain (with hideous implications for us).

The problem which our civilized world is facing cannot be about money: Americans and Europeans were affluent and, with only modest restraints, would still be comfortable and secure. The problem we face cannot come from some wicked military enemy: Desert Storm proved that our armed forces are incomparably more powerful than any rival, and our troops each day in Afghanistan are winning battles easily, although they are dying from attacks from their “allies.”

The world today is deluged with things. Even the so-called poor in the United States and Europe have big flat screen TVs, cars, smart phones, expensive sport shoes, and computers. We are the richest poor people in the world.

The scary cliffs we see today — and our world is full of cliffs — is that too many people blessed to be born into the wealth and protection of the Western World have stopped believing that they are blessed at all; they have stopped believing in a loving God or in ordered liberty or even in such simple moral rules as "don't eat your children's seed corn." Our only hope, if we have any hope in the world today, is to forget about goodies and to embrace first goodness.

So as we embark on a new year what events will transpire in the next 365 days to be considered a memorable? Will our economy tank? Will the Arab world erupt in flames? Will the progressives advance their agenda of more government intrusion into lives? Who knows?

All I can do is wish you a happy and prosperous New Year and hope 2013 is better than 2012.