Don’t get me wrong: I love when TV shows and movies transcend mere entertainment to become more of a true art form – and “Star Trek” often did – and I appreciate the journey Roddenberry took us on, but too often the conclusion left audiences further from biblical truth, rather than deeper into it.

Take for instance, the pithy proverb of the uber-rationalist Mr. Spock: “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”

This moral directive is utilitarianism boiled down to an easily swallowed nugget … of pure poison.

For utilitarianism – as rational as it sounds – is an utter failure as a moral system, for it holds no moral judgment upon any individual action and leaves it wide open for fallible humans to determine what constitutes a “need” or not. Adolf Hitler, for example, facing a cataclysmic depression in Germany that made the one in the U.S. look like a small dip in the stock market came to the conclusion the needs (hunger, starvation) of the many Germans in his nation outweighed the needs (life, personal property) of the comparatively few Jews. History told us where that leads.

Put more succinctly (and in a less inflammatory comparison), utilitarianism is flawed in that it lends itself too easily to a Machiavellian “ends justifies the means” ethic, which in turn is morally bankrupt.

Curiously enough, however, “Star Trek into Darkness” toys with the “needs of the many” argument, but then actually redeems what is a broken moral philosophy with an example of a similar, but far more biblical axiom. In other words, “Into Darkness” actually gets it right.

As a film, “Into Darkness” is a summer blockbuster of the best sort, with a clever, laugh-out-loud script, plenty of action, fun and curious characters, a fantastic villain and entertainment value to the max. Especially for Trekkers, “Into Darkness” intentionally harkens back to classic episodes and “Star Trek” movies in outrageously funny fashion. I daresay it’s even better than first in this recent reboot of the franchise. Yet even for those not a fan of the original TV series, “Into Darkness” packs plenty of entertainment value for the dollar.

If you can forgive just a few breaks of logic that weasel into the final cut, “Star Trek into Darkness” may have even surpassed “Iron Man 3″ as the most must-see blockbuster of the summer (until “Man of Steel” comes out, anyway).

Harkening back to the moral of the story, “Into Darkness” also reveals a better way than utilitarianism: the ethic of self-sacrifice.

“No greater love has a man,” says the Bible’s John 15:13, “than he lay down his life for a friend,” and in Philippians 2:3, “In humility, value others above yourself.”

The Bible’s ethic – which the “needs of the many” construct only vaguely resembles (or distorts) – is not that I can decide whose sacrifice is necessary for whom, but that I can choose to sacrifice myself for others. It’s not that virtue is measured by scales of sheer numbers, but that it is fulfilled when we value others above ourselves, regardless of the others’ merit.

Obviously, Hitler missed that distinction. So did Machiavelli.

“Into Darkness” did not.

And even beyond the examples of self-sacrifice, the main moral of the story in the new “Star Trek” film is something else altogether: the journey of Captain Kirk from cocksure and irresponsible rebel to a man of humility who knows how to take responsibility for his actions. It portrays his early success, a humiliating moment of crisis and a rise again as a new man, a servant leader. The film ends with a message about turning aside from the path of revenge.

In the end, it turns out this voyage of the Starship Enterprise has indeed discovered “new life” – both as an entertaining movie franchise and as a vehicle for biblical truth.

A trailer for the film can be seen below (Editor’s note: Trailer contains an instance of obscenity):

Content advisory:

• “Star Trek into Darkness,” rated PG-13, contains roughly 35 profanities and obscenities, the vast majority of the more minor variety.
• The film has only a few moments of light, but completely gratuitous and unnecessary sexuality. In one scene, Kirk is seen leaving two partially clothes alien females in bed. In another, Kirk turns around to see a woman changing clothes, giving the audience full view of her in bra and panties. In a quick shot in a bar scene, two aliens exchange a long-tongued kiss.
• The film’s violence, however, merits a word of caution. “Star Trek into Darkness” is filled with several scenes of hand-to-hand combat, some of it brutal, cringe-worthy and startling. There’s also plenty of laser fire and explosions and the like. A little blood and one severed arm are seen, but it’s not the gore that really stands out, rather, the flesh-jarring pounding of fists in several scenes.
• The film contains almost no religious or occult content, save for the passing mention of God in such phrases as “playing God” and “for the love of God” and a line about miracles in which the ever-rationalist Spock responds, “There are no such things.”

Best-selling author and teacher Rob Bell told a British radio host it’s time the church catch up with the “modern world” in accepting same-sex marriage and that questioning the orthodoxy of those who do amounts to “the sort of bulls— that really, really, really pushes people away” from Christianity.

Bell has become a superstar of the emergent church movement, and his Mars Hill Bible Church in Grandville, Mich., was once one of the fastest growing in the country, until his controversial book “Love Wins” created fallout in the congregation and pushed him to move out of the pastorate toward a wider ministry.

But Carl Gallups, pastor of Hickory Hammock Baptist Church in Milton, Fla., and author of the Amazon.com science and religion best-seller “The Magic Man in the Sky: Effectively Defending the Christian Faith,” warns that on this issue, Bell has become “nothing more than a wolf dressed in sheep’s clothing.”

“Rob Bell says that the real mission and glory of the church is to ebb and flow with whatever culture it is in,” Gallups said in a radio interview last week. “Well, that is the antithesis, that is the exact opposite of what the Scripture commands the church to do. The Scripture commands that we are the salt and the light, that the church is to change and affect the culture around it and to never never, never, never give in and compromise with the culture.

“[Bell's] whole view of Scripture, his whole view of the role and mission of the church is perverted,” Gallups said, “and out of his mouth comes what’s in his heart.”

Get Carl Gallups’ “The Magic Man in the Sky: Effectively Defending the Christian Faith” – autographed! – from the WND SuperStore.

Bell had appeared on the U.K. faith debate program “Unbelievable?” hosted by Justin Brierley on Premier Christian Radio to discuss same-sex marriage.

“I think it’s time for the church to acknowledge that we have brothers and sisters who are gay and want to share their life with someone,” he told Brierley. “This is a part of life in the modern world and that’s how it is. And that cultural consciousness has shifted, and this is how the world is and that what’s happening for a lot of people, is that they want nothing to do with God and Jesus because they can’t see beyond that particular issue.”

On the question of whether or not homosexuality, however, is a “sin,” Bell said, “I’m not aware that Jesus mentions it. I think you have about five verses that can be read a number of different ways. And there is a large Christian tradition that sees this as there are Scriptures that speak to this, but I don’t think you make it an overwhelmingly (sic) case against it.”

Here again, Gallups, in an interview on “PPSimmons Radio,” said Bell is wrong.

“Jesus did mention it, one time indirectly and a couple of times very, very directly, and I’m surprised that Rob Bell doesn’t know this,” Gallups said. “Jesus speaks a couple of times of marriage, and one place particularly, he goes all the way back and quotes Genesis and quotes the beginning and quotes God’s idea and ideal of marriage from the beginning. … and it’s very clear it’s between a man and a woman. … The only definition he gives is a man and woman, the traditional, historical, biblical definition.”

“When he defines marriage with such exclusive boundaries, there is an indirect reference to homosexual marriage,” Gallups said. “Rob Bell is just absolutely mistaken.”

Gallups, in fact, wrote a column for WND titled, “Did Jesus Condemn Homosexuality?” which details further Jesus’ words on the issue.

For example, Gallups writes, “Three of the four gospels contain quotes from Jesus about the sinful condition of Sodom and Gomorrah and the destruction that the celebration of the presenting sin of homosexuality wrought upon them. One of those quotes equates the sins of Sodom (homosexuality) to the same type of pervasive perversion of Noah’s day (Luke 17:26-30). So, as it turns out … YES, Jesus did speak rather forthrightly, and often, about the sin of homosexuality and the judgment that it brings upon societies that celebrate it.”

Put to further questioning in the U.K. interview, Bell further questioned New Testament writings, penned by the ancient Paul, on homosexual relationships: “Paul didn’t have that cultural framework or conception [of committed same-sex partnerships] operating around him. I think he had men and boys, I think he had temples, I did not think he was talking about what we’re talking about in 2013, which was two, committed people of a same-sex relationship.”

Yet Gallups again argued that Scripture is clear and plain, such as Romans 1:26-27, which states, “God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

Gallups speculated there are only three reasons a Bible teacher like Bell would so “twist” the Scriptures: “Either he flat does not know the Scripture at all, [or] somebody very, very close to him is deeply involved in this sin and it’s such an emotional issue with Rob that he is desperately trying to make it right in his mind [or] he himself is somehow involved in this sin.

“These are not accusations,” Gallups clarified, “I’m speculating, but I’m just telling you, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if in months or years to come we discover that this is a highly, highly emotional issue to Rob Bell because of something like this. … Either he just flat doesn’t know how to interpret Scripture or somebody very dear to him, maybe a brother or a sister or a relative or a best friend is caught up in this and he’s trying to justify it or somehow he slipped into this area of sin himself and desperately wants to be justified before God.

“There’s no other logical explanation for it,” Gallups said. “If this man knows the Scripture at all, then he knows this is not correct.”

Gallups’ interview can be heard below:

The original interview with Bell can be seen below:

But as scandal upon scandal have washed over his administration in recent weeks – first a floundering response to attacks in Benghazi that led to the death of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, then reports the IRS targeted his political opponents, then news the Justice Department seized phone records of Associated Press reporters – even some of Obama’s most ardent supporters in the media are turning critical.

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, for example – he of the infamous “thrill up my leg” comment during Obama’s 2008 campaign – offered unusually harsh words earlier this week, complaining the president “obviously likes giving speeches more than he does running the executive branch.”

Politico – certainly not a conservative-leaning news source – described Matthews’ remarks as “a rare, unforgiving grilling of the president as severe as anything that might appear on Fox News.”

On another occasion this week, Matthews blasted testimony from former IRS chief Steve Miller, who suggested the agency’s behavior was inappropriate but denied any political targeting.

“That Mr. Miller guy,” Matthews said, “It’s like he didn’t see what he knew people certainly right, left and center could see, that when you target particular groups, you’re targeting particular groups. I mean, if this were on the other foot, and this was a George W. administration, they were targeting groups that were calling themselves progressives, I would say it’s prima facie evidence of targeting. I don’t think it’s complicated.”

As WND reported, even CNN talk-show host Piers Morgan paused in his relentless crusade for stricter gun-control laws to comment, “I’ve had some of the pro-gun lobbyists on here, saying to me, ‘Well, the reason we need to be armed is because of tyranny from our own government,’ and I’ve always laughed at them. I said, ‘Don’t be ridiculous! Your government won’t turn itself on you.

“But, actually, this is vaguely tyrannical behavior by the American government,” Morgan concluded. “I think what the IRS did is bordering on tyrannical behavior. I think what the Department of Justice has done to the AP is bordering on tyrannical behavior.”

An Investor’s Business Daily editorial commented, “Many in the dominant press are indeed turning. Politico ran a chilling story headlined ‘The IRS Wants You to Share Everything’; NBC’s Andrea Mitchell accuses Obama of ‘the most outrageous excesses I’ve seen’ in her years in journalism, going back before Watergate; the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank accuses Obama of ‘a full frontal assault on the First Amendment.’”

“Let me tell you how bad it’s gotten,” NBC “Tonight Show” host Jay Leno quipped. “Fox News has changed its slogan from ‘Fair and Balanced’ to ‘See, I Told You So!’”

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow further noticed it’s not just the media, but also congressional allies jumping off the Obama bandwagon. When Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., announced plans to retire in 2014, he became the sixth Democrat to step down two years from now instead of running for re-election.

“Tell us if something is wrong there,” Maddow said rhetorically. “What is the secret about this place that has you fleeing like rats from a sinking ship?”

The trend, which may have begun when some Democrats started ducking for political cover from fallout over Obamacare, has only continued in the wake of Obama’s recent scandals.

Even Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid bristled over the AP phone-records story, telling Salon he “can’t really defend the Department of Justice at all” and, “I just think this has been handled so wrong.”

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., agreed, telling MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program, “I don’t think anyone truly believes that the president has given a sufficient answer for America, much less our press [about the AP scandal]. The president has to come forward and share why he did not alert the press that they were going to do this. He has to tell Americans, including me, what was this national security question? You just can’t raise the flag and expect us just to salute it every time without any reason, and the same thing applies to the IRS. We’ve got to give him an opportunity to root out any wrongdoing, whether it’s just negligence or it’s criminal.”

Other examples of criticism coming from typically left-leaning allies include the following:

• Even in the middle of a WND column defending the administration on Benghazi and the IRS scandal, left-wing author and journalist Bill Press declared, “The Justice Department’s raid of AP phone records is nothing less than a totally unjustified, wholesale trashing of the First Amendment.”
• The Daily Beast – a website merged with Newsweek – ran a column from James Goodale, the attorney who defended the New York Times against President Richard Nixon in the famous Pentagon Papers trial, who asserted, “President Barack H. Obama’s outrageous seizure of the Associated Press’s phone records, allegedly to discover sources of leaks, should surprise no one. Obama has relentlessly pursued leakers ever since he became president. He is fast becoming the worst national security press president ever, and it may not get any better.”
• In an interview with the New York Observer, Goodale added, “Obama has all these things that he’s done to the press on national security matters that Nixon never did.”
• Lanny J. Davis, a former crisis manager for President Clinton who admits he voted for and backs Obama, told National Public Radio, “[Obama's] crisis-management communications team is absent without leave. Ever since we lost the message on health care, I’ve wondered if there’s anybody there trying to get out in front on the facts.”
• NPR further reported Davis saying the IRS story goes to the heart of government abuse of power: “The president of the United States should hold a press conference and commit to a full, 100-percent investigation in concert with the Republican leadership of the House and say, ‘I want to have on my desk the list of anybody who recommended doing this. In the government, in the White House, or anywhere else.’”
• Time political columnist Joe Klein wrote of the IRS news, even before the AP scandal broke, “Yet again, we have an example of Democrats simply not managing the government properly and with discipline. … This is just poisonous at a time of skepticism about the efficacy of government. … [Obama's] unwillingness to concentrate – and I mean concentrate obsessively – on making sure that government is managed efficiently will be part of his legacy.”
• Dana Milbank of the Washington Post penned similar criticism of Obama. “President Passerby needs urgently to become a participant in his presidency,” Milbank wrote, arguing Obama was reacting to the scandals with a portrayed ignorance reminiscent of “just some bloke on a bar stool, getting his information from the evening news.”
• Jim Kuhnhenn of the Associated Press leveled his criticism at White House Press Secretary Jay Carney at a May 14 press briefing: “The White House right now is confronting a confluence of issues – Benghazi talking points, IRS reviews of political groups, Justice Department review of journalists’ phone records. And in every instance, either the president or you have placed the burden of responsibility someplace else. On the Benghazi talking points, it’s been political motivations on the Hill. On the IRS, it’s been the bureaucrats at the IRS. And on the Justice Department issue, yesterday in your statement you said those matters are handled independently by the Justice Department. But it is the president’s administration, so I wonder, doesn’t responsibility for setting tone and setting direction ultimately rest with the president on these matters?”
• Other reporters at the same press briefing passed up softball questions for tougher lines of inquiry, including whether news of the IRS scandal was “withheld until after the election,” whether or not the AP subpoena’s constituted an “overreach,” whether the administration “might be hiding something,” if the IRS is being “truthful” and how the president feels about “being compared to President Nixon.” The press corps also grilled Carney relentlessly on the president’s reputation for prosecuting those who leak information to the press.
• Michigan’s Rep. Sander Levin, ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, said in Friday’s hearings before the committee the IRS and its employees “have completely failed the American people” by “singling out organizations for review based on their name or political views, rather than their activity. … All of us are angry about this on behalf of the nation.”
• “As you know, it’s casual Friday, which means at the White House they’re casually going through everyone’s phone calls and records,” joked Leno on Friday. “Love him or hate him, you got to admit President Obama is a new kind of Democrat. I mean, think about it. He’s embroiled in three scandals, not one of them involves sex. That has never happened before. … It’s been a tough week for President Obama. In fact, this morning he called Mitt Romney and said, ‘Look, if you still want the job.’”

Despite the media’s change in tone from easy forgiveness to legitimate criticism of Obama, the Media Research Council’s Brent Bozell warns the media are not really “up in arms” with the Obama administration, but are simply having a “lover’s quarrel,” particularly over the AP flap.

“The Bill Clinton syndrome is going to be upon us,” Bozell predicted on CNBC’s May 16 “The Kudlow Report” program, “where it’s time to move on, we’ve covered it [the media will say] and they’re going to turn the fire right on Republicans as being obstructionists. … The zeal of going after Watergate with Woodward and Bernstein, that hasn’t been there.”

In 2009, then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law a day for schools to commemorate the San Francisco activist, who was California’s first openly homosexual man to be elected to public office. Earlier that year, President Obama posthumously awarded Milk the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

But SaveCalifornia.com, a non-profit pro-family organization founded by Randy Thomasson, warns Milk is no “role model” for schoolchildren.

Citing a biography of Milk by homosexual San Francisco Chronicle writer Randy Shilts, which served as the basis of an Oscar-winning film about the activist, SaveCalifornia.com points out Milk “repeatedly engaged in adult-child sex [and] advocated for multiple homosexual relationships at the same time.”

In fact, the book describes Milk’s romantic relationship with 16-year-old Jack Galen McKinley (when Milk was 33) and explains the activist “always had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems.”

SaveCalifornia.com, consequently, is urging fathers and mothers to demand that teachers, principals and school board members refuse to honor Milk or else they’ll keep their children home that day or exit the government schools entirely.

“Parents who hear about ‘Harvey Milk Gay Day’ are disgusted that this teen predator and sexual anarchist is now the new role model for their children, and schools aren’t even notifying them that this happening,” Thomasson said in a statement. “Parents must keep their children home from public school on May 22 to guard their kids from the bad influence of ‘Milk Day.’”

SaveCalifornia.com is also running radio ads (which can be heard below) in Los Angeles and Sacramento, featuring a real mom urging parents to keep their children home on or around May 22.

“When I learned about [Milk's] agenda against children’s innocence,” the mother in the ad states, “I became angry at what ‘Milk Day’ would teach kids behind their parents’ backs. … They’ll be taught an agenda that attacks our family values.

“Moms, Dads, please protect your children from Harvey Milk indoctrination,” she concludes. “Keep them home Wednesday, May 22.”

Yet SaveCalifornia.com warns “Harvey Milk Day” is only one example of how “progressive” politicians are advancing a sexual agenda in California schools.

Among other Democrat-led initiatives was the recent strategy that requires schools to let boys play on girls’ athletic teams and utilize the ladies’ locker room if they gender identify as girls – or vice-versa for girls identifying as boys.

The bill’s author, openly homosexual San Francisco Democrat Tom Ammiano, has been an activist for lesbian, “gay,” bisexual and transgender, or LGBT, issues for decades and reportedly became in 1975 the first San Francisco public school teacher to make his homosexuality public. Ammiano later co-founded an LGBT organization with Milk.

Ammiano told the Los Angeles Times some parents may be uncomfortable with their children sharing bathrooms with students of a different sex, but he said, “It’s also important to protect our children from prejudice.”

By a vote of 46-25, carried without any affirmative votes from Republican lawmakers, the California Assembly passed the bill, AB 1266, which amends Section 221.5 of the state’s Education Code as follows: “A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.”

The bill would affect not only interscholastic sports, but also sex-segregated physical education classes.

As WND reported earlier, the Pacific Justice Institute launched a website, GenderInsanity.com, to bring attention to AB 1266, as well as to SB 323, which would eliminate key tax exemptions for the Boy Scouts of America if the organization were to not accept “gender identity” and homosexuality.

SIGN WND’S PETITION TO KEEP THE BOY SCOUTS MORAL.

WND has also reported on other radical moves California lawmakers already have adopted, including SB 48, which requires positive portrayals of LGBT persons in class.

Others cited by SaveCalifornia.com as being on a radical sex agenda include:

• SB 543, signed by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2010, “allows school staff to remove children ages 12 and up from government schools and taken off-campus for counseling sessions, without parental permission or involvement.”

• ACR 82, approved by the California Legislature in 2010, “creates de facto ‘morality-free zones’ at participating schools (pre-kindergarten through public universities). Schools that become official ‘Discrimination-Free Zones’ will ‘enact procedures’ (including mandatory counseling) against students from pre-kindergarten on up who are accused of ‘hate,’ ‘intolerance,’ or ‘discrimination.’” The definition of “hate” includes peacefully speaking or writing against the unnatural lifestyles choices of homosexuality and bisexuality.

• SB 572, signed by Schwarzenegger in 2009, establishes “Harvey Milk Day” in K-12 California public schools and community colleges. In classrooms, schools and school districts that participate, children are taught to admire the life and values of late homosexual activist and teen predator Harvey Milk of San Francisco in the month of May.

• SB 777, signed by Schwarzenegger in 2007, prohibits all public school instruction and every school activity from “promoting a discriminatory bias” against (effectively requiring positive depictions of) transsexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality to schoolchildren as young as five years old.

• AB 394, signed by Schwarzenegger in 2007, effectively promotes transsexual, bisexual and homosexual indoctrination of students, parents and teachers via “anti-harassment” and “anti-discrimination” materials, to be publicized in classrooms and assemblies, posted on walls, incorporated into curricula on school websites, and distributed in handouts to take home.

• SB 71, signed by Gov. Gray Davis in 2003 and implemented in 2008 through the new “sexual health” standards approved by appointees of Schwarzenegger and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell, teaches children as young as fifth grade that any consensual sexual behavior is “safe” as long as you “protect” yourself with a condom, and teaches children that homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality is “normal.”

• AB 1785, signed by Davis in 2000, required the California State Board of Education to alter the state curriculum frameworks to include and require “human relations education” for children in K-12 public schools, with the aim of “fostering an appreciation of the diversity of California’s population and discouraging the development of discriminatory attitudes and practices,” according to the state legislative counsel’s digest.

• AB 537, signed by Davis in 1999, permits teachers and students to openly proclaim and display their homosexuality, bisexuality or transsexuality, even permitting cross-dressing teachers, school employees and student on campus, in classrooms, and in restrooms.

In addition, majority Democrats in the California legislature have turned back plans like Assembly Bill 1861 that would have made it a felony if any teacher or employee of a public or private school “engages in a sexual relationship or inappropriate communications with a pupil.”

“If you think it’s uncomfortable sitting over there,” Kelly told former IRS Chief Steve Miller as he grilled him over revelations the IRS targeted “tea party” and “patriot” groups for heightened scrutiny on tax-exempt status applications, “you ought to be a private individual when the IRS is across from you asking you questions.

“I have to tell you,” Kelly said to Miller, who resigned on Wednesday at the request of the White House, “where you’re sitting, you should be outraged. But you’re not.

“The American people should be outraged, and they are,” he continued. “This reaffirms everything the American public believes. This is a huge blow to the faith and trust the American people have in their government. Is there any limit to the scope of where you folks can go?”

Kelly refused to accept the Obama administration’s defense, that the abuses were simply the actions of some rogue underlings in a Cincinnati office of the IRS.

“When the IRS comes in, you’re not allowed to be shoddy, you’re not allowed to be run horribly, you’re not allowed to make mistakes, you’re not allowed to do one d— thing that doesn’t come in compliance,” Kelly blasted. “If you do, you’re held responsible right then.”

When Kelly concluded with the words, “This is absolutely an overreach, and this is an outrage for all America,” the gallery erupted in applause.

In a follow-up message via Twitter, Kelly said he was “humbled” by the standing ovation.

Former CIA Director James Woolsey was a guest on “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” on New York City’s WABC Radio, when Klein asked Woolsey whether the FBI could have done more before the bombing with reports of the Tsarnaev brothers’ Islamic leanings and activities abroad.

“What seems really strange is, having had this indication from the Russians, the FBI interrogates [Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the older of the two suspects], and they asked, ‘Are you going to do anything violent or had you?’ and he says, ‘Nope,’ and they say, ‘OK,’ and a few weeks later they close the case, close the file – so subsequent things that come in don’t get any attention paid to them,” Woolsey said. “That seems pretty stupid, I think, to an awful lot of people.

“But the Bureau was apparently following Justice Department rules,” he continued. “I don’t know why the Justice Department, assuming that’s who it is, has ordered the Bureau to shut down investigations after 90 days. Things can come around again, as they did in this case.”

Woolsey concluded, “I think your concern about … political correctness and, ‘Is that keeping us from having sensible policies that would be permitted by our Constitution but would have a bit more of a war-time flavor than what we have now?’ – I think we could do that, and I think we’re missing a number of opportunities.”

Woolsey touched upon theme later in the interview, as well, when talking about the Obama administration’s narrative that the war on terror is over and domestic, Islamic attacks are merely “workplace violence” or lone-wolf lunatics.

“We’ve got to be able to talk about the religious offshoots and the roots in Islam of what is taking place,” Woolsey insisted. “It doesn’t mean that all Muslims are like that; it doesn’t mean that all Muslims are fanatics or anything like it. But if people are so afraid of being called an Islamophobe that they won’t even call it straight, we can’t defeat something we can’t talk about.”

The Boston Marathon bombing on April 15 killed three people near the finish line of the famous footrace and injured over 260.

Chechan brothers Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev stand accused of the bombing, though Tamerlan was reportedly killed in a shootout with police. Further reporting has revealed the brothers, particularly Tamerlan, had been growing more deeply involved with jihadist Islam, including online evidence of exploring violent, terrorist websites.

In 2011 Russian intelligence informed the FBI that Tamerlan was a radical Islamist, prompting an FBI investigation that was subsequently closed. In 2012, Tamerlan flew to Russia and spent six months overseas, during which he visited the North Caucasus, a hotbed of militant Islamic activity.

Woolsey also talked to Klein about the United States’ vulnerability to an electromagnetic pulse, or EMP, weapon, which could disrupt the nation’s far-too-fragile energy grid.

Audio of the full interview can be heard below:

One New York columnist (whose senseless screed was even linked on the Drudge Report, I might add) slammed the film for spouting “campy things,” like a quote about the “careless Tom and Daisy.”

The irony? That “campy thing” about “careless Tom and Daisy” is a direct quote from Fitzgerald’s book. In fact, it’s perhaps the novel’s most important line, the one sentence that sums up the entire moral of the story.

Oops.

I contend the movie’s relentless adherence to Fitzgerald’s original story, even down to quoting the dialogue word-for-word, is the first and most important ingredient in what makes the film “Gatsby” such a marvel. The second: brilliant performances from Leonardo DiCaprio, Carey Mulligan and Joel Edgerton, who make the novel’s sometimes confusing understatement absolutely come alive on screen.

I read the novel (again) just this past week to prepare for the film experience, and I can’t tell you how many times seeing DiCaprio (as Gatsby) and Edgerton (as his foe, Tom Buchanan) act out the literary masterpiece on screen caused me to say to myself, “Of course! That’s why that character said that,” or, just as often: “Boom! Nailed it!”

Most of the critics’ derision of the film stems from the director’s decision to exaggerate every scene, every picture, every costume, until 1920s Long Island looks more like Oz than New York (in fact, the film’s transition in its opening scene from black and white to 3D color actually seems a fitting homage to Oz). Fireworks, sparkle, glitz and glamour overpower the film with eye-dazzling imagery that turns Gatsby’s famed mansion into a fairy-tale castle. The awe-inspiring depiction of the valley of ashes and the eyes of Dr. T. J. Eckleburg pop from the screen like a dystopian science fiction scene, startling and haunting, not because it is bleak, but because it rivals in intensity the contrasting coolness of the Buchanan estate and the wild parties of the Gatsby mansion. This is a film that could never be appreciated on the small screen, but screams to be seen in the theater.

And instead of the more light-hearted jazz and dance tunes of the ’20s, Gatsby’s parties are filled with bass-pumping, modern beats that borrow from jazz melodies but turn the parties into a thumping, stomping, romping, ostentatious, Hollywood-style dens of debauchery, where the makeup is too thick, the lights too bright and the party just too crazy to be real.

Which is exactly why it … works.

Recreating a stately 1920s mansion with flappers dressed in black, cream and brown and the un-enhanced, comparably mellow, “The Charleston,” could never, ever have captured for modern audiences the wonder, the exaggerated opulence, the extravagance that Fitzgerald’s Midwestern narrator, Nick Carraway, described.

In other words, this story is too big for realism. To faithfully communicate Fitzgerald’s vision, the movie had to be way over the top. Fitzgerald’s book is more like an impressionist painting than a documentary, more about symbolism and emotion than reality. And as I said before, this movie … “Boom! Nailed it!”

Rather than detracting from the tale, I argue, the modern music and garish colors actually told it better than any attempt to be historically accurate could.

Yet from a worldview perspective, the question must be asked, does the movie glamorize the debauchery, or does it follow Fitzgerald, whose Midwestern hero, Nick, specifically tells audiences he withholds judging others for an unconventionally long time … until the vapid, self-consumed and juvenile lives of these East Coast debutantes become too despicable and tragic to do otherwise?

I do wish the film would not have downplayed the book’s Midwest/East Coast dichotomy. I do wish the film would have handled one of Gatsby’s best moments of gallantry differently, for there are some small departures from the book. And I do think the movie made Gatsby into more of a hero than the book does, as the novel is almost depressing in its depiction of a fallen world where there are no “good guys.”

Yet in the end, the movie remains, like the book, a tragedy. It communicates the same stunned disbelief at the empty lives of these adolescent partiers, hedonists and silver-spooned aristocrats. There’s only a vague, uncertain redemption of Gatsby’s character in a story that ends in the inevitable ruin such godless living creates.

As in the book, Nick’s final judgment – withheld until the conclusion – is the same: In this fantastic and bizarre carnival world of spoiled wealth and amorality, Nick says to Gatsby, “They’re a rotten bunch. You’re worth the whole lot of them put together!”

And as in the book, the moral of the story remains the same, whether some New York movie critic thinks it “campy” or not: “They were careless people, Tom and Daisy – they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.”

Content advisory:

• “The Great Gatsby,” rated PG-13, contains about a dozen obscenities and profanities, mostly minor, but its song lyrics contain an additional handful of sometimes strong obscenities.
• Considering the story is about rampant debauchery, infidelity and love affairs, the film has far less visually depicted sexuality than one might expect and no overt nudity or sex “scene.” Still, there is cause for discretion. There is implied sex from a pair of heavy kissing scenes, and a drunken party where one couple is overheard loudly having sex, while the group later romps about in half-dressed, seductive abandon. At other parties, some of the dancing could be considered suggestive, while some bathing suits and cleavage and flirtatious behavior are seen. Finally, there is a scene that takes place in a speakeasy with a team of dancers baring midriff, cleavage and lots of leg. Sexuality is a significant theme of the story, but that considering, it’s handled more tastefully than erotically.
• “The Great Gatsby” includes some violence, such as flashbacks to World War I, some physical struggling and a brief scene of a man being beaten by mobsters. The film’s most startling episode is a woman being hit by a car, which includes some blood and injury, but is filmed more artistically than for gore or shock. There’s also a man being shot, and his blood seeping into a pool of water, but this too is filmed to de-emphasize the violence of the event.
• The movie makes several references to God, but these are nebulous and theologically inconsistent at best, such as referring to a man being “richer than God,” “I will tell you God’s truth,” “he was a son of God, chasing his destiny,” “free to romp like the mind of God” and “God sees everything.” There is, however, some significant symbolism in the eyes watching over the valley of ashes being like God’s omniscience, more than implying that the catastrophic events befalling the story’s characters are as God’s judgment for their immorality.

The bill’s author, openly homosexual San Francisco Democrat Tom Ammiano, has been an activist for lesbian, “gay,” bisexual and transgender, or LGBT, issues for decades and reportedly became in 1975 the first San Francisco public school teacher to make his homosexuality public. Ammiano later co-founded an LGBT organization with Harvey Milk, the homosexual activist about whom Hollywood made a recent feature film and California schools celebrate an annual day of remembrance.

Ammiano told the Los Angeles Times some parents may be uncomfortable with their children sharing bathrooms with students of a different sex, but he said, “It’s also important to protect our children from prejudice.”

“There’s no trampling of other people’s rights,” he said. “There’s a recognition that other people have the same rights that you do.”

Ammiano cited the case of Eli Erlick, a high school student in Mendocino County who was born male but identifies as female. Ammiano said Erlick was prohibited from participating in girls’ gym classes while in middle school and noted that Erlick’s parents testified in favor of the bill.

By a vote of 46-25, carried without any affirmative votes from Republican lawmakers, the California Assembly passed the bill, AB 1266, which amends Section 221.5 of the state’s Education Code as follows: “A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.”

The bill would affect not only interscholastic sports, but also sex-segregated physical education classes.

An analysis of the bill quoted Ammiano: “When transgender students are denied the opportunity to participate in physical education classes in a manner consistent with their gender identity, they miss out on … important benefits and suffer from stigmatization and isolation.”

A spokeswoman for the California Catholic Conference, however, told the Times the mandate steps in where a case-by-case basis would be a better solution.

“Our Legislature tends to get involved in things that are better handled in local school districts,” said spokeswoman Carol Hogan.

She also said the law could be abused by students seeking easy access to the opposite sex.

As WND reported earlier, the Pacific Justice Institute launched a website, GenderInsanity.com, to bring attention to AB 1266, as well as to SB 323, which would eliminate key tax exemptions for the Boy Scouts of America if the organization were to not accept “gender identity” and homosexuality.

SIGN WND’S PETITION TO KEEP THE BOY SCOUTS MORAL.

WND has also reported on other radical moves California lawmakers already have adopted, including SB 48, which requires positive portrayals of LGBT persons in class.

Others cited by the pro-family SaveCalifornia.com as being on a radical sex agenda include:

• SB 543, signed by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2010, “allows school staff to remove children ages 12 and up from government schools and taken off-campus for counseling sessions, without parental permission or involvement.”

• ACR 82, approved by the California Legislature in 2010, “creates de facto ‘morality-free zones’ at participating schools (pre-kindergarten through public universities). Schools that become official ‘Discrimination-Free Zones’ will ‘enact procedures’ (including mandatory counseling) against students from pre-kindergarten on up who are accused of ‘hate,’ ‘intolerance,’ or ‘discrimination.’” The definition of “hate” includes peacefully speaking or writing against the unnatural lifestyles choices of homosexuality and bisexuality.

• SB 572, signed by Schwarzenegger in 2009, establishes “Harvey Milk Day” in K-12 California public schools and community colleges. In classrooms, schools and school districts that participate, children are taught to admire the life and values of late homosexual activist and teen predator Harvey Milk of San Francisco in the month of May.

• SB 777, signed by Schwarzenegger in 2007, prohibits all public school instruction and every school activity from “promoting a discriminatory bias” against (effectively requiring positive depictions of) transsexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality to schoolchildren as young as five years old.

• AB 394, signed by Schwarzenegger in 2007, effectively promotes transsexual, bisexual and homosexual indoctrination of students, parents and teachers via “anti-harassment” and “anti-discrimination” materials, to be publicized in classrooms and assemblies, posted on walls, incorporated into curricula on school websites, and distributed in handouts to take home.

• SB 71, signed by Gov. Gray Davis in 2003 and implemented in 2008 through the new “sexual health” standards approved by appointees of Schwarzenegger and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell, teaches children as young as fifth grade that any consensual sexual behavior is “safe” as long as you “protect” yourself with a condom, and teaches children that homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality is “normal.”

• AB 1785, signed by Davis in 2000, required the California State Board of Education to alter the state curriculum frameworks to include and require “human relations education” for children in K-12 public schools, with the aim of “fostering an appreciation of the diversity of California’s population and discouraging the development of discriminatory attitudes and practices,” according to the state legislative counsel’s digest.

• AB 537, signed by Davis in 1999, permits teachers and students to openly proclaim and display their homosexuality, bisexuality or transsexuality, even permitting cross-dressing teachers, school employees and student on campus, in classrooms, and in restrooms.

Yet thus far, authorities have refused to answer or comment on whether the two events are related.

Bryce Reed, 31, a member of West’s Emergency Medical Services team, was taken into custody at about 2:15 a.m. on Friday and was turned over to federal officials at about 7 a.m. He was scheduled to appear without bond in federal court in Waco, Texas, later Friday morning.

KPRC-TV in Houston quoted unnamed federal sources as saying Reed had asked an acquaintance to store a box for him sometime after the April 17 explosion. The sources said that person decided to look in the box, discovered what appeared to be a pipe bomb and contacted law enforcement officials.

Reed was among West’s most visible residents after the blast, which killed 15 people, injured 200 others and damaged hundreds of homes. He notably assumed command on the radio when he realized his superiors on the EMS team had died in the explosion. He was also quoted in several national media outlets and was among the speakers at the April 25 public memorial for the 12 people killed responding to the fire, the same memorial where President Barack Obama delivered the official eulogy.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports Reed’s LinkedIn profile lists spending time at the U.S. Biological and Chemical Weapon Depot in Ft McClellan, Ala. Reed also lists one year from 2010-2011 as a technician/regional safety officer for Allied International Emergency LLC., where he said response teams dealt with “Weapons of Mass Destruction Response, Nuclear Event Management, Chemical or Biological Weapons Containment, Large Scale Environmental Loss Mitigation, to DOT/EPA small scale spill cleanup.”

Investigators have largely treated the fatal West Fertilizer Co. blast an industrial accident, but the Associated Press reports the Texas Department of Public Safety has now instructed the Texas Rangers and the McLennan County Sheriff’s Department to conduct a criminal probe.

“This disaster has severely impacted the community of West, and we want to ensure that no stone goes unturned and that all the facts related to this incident are uncovered,” DPS Director Steven McCraw said.

McLennan County Sheriff Parnell McNamara said residents “must have confidence that this incident has been looked at from every angle and professionally handled – they deserve nothing less.”

While authorities are still not discussing whether or not Reed’s arrest is connected to the investigation, those who know the paramedic have offered comments.

Bryce Reed

For example, Reed had spoken publicly about his friendship with Cyrus Reed (no relation), one of the first responders who was killed in West, even referring to him as “brother.” Yet Sarah Reed, Cyrus Reed’s biological sister, told the Dallas Morning News her family had been “fooled by Bryce Reed” and that the two were not close. In fact, Sarah Reed told the newspaper she had to ask police to guard her deceased brother’s apartment because she feared Reed had been stealing from it since the blast.

On the other hand, an EMS class student in West, where Reed was also an instructor, told the Morning News she would “trust him with my life.”

“I don’t see him being that type of person at all,” said student Amanda Atkins, who said she has known Reed since November. “He is the most caring, giving guy. I mean, wow. He’s totally not that type of person.”

The April 17 plant explosion began with a fire in the fertilizer and seed building, which then escalated with a massive explosion about 20 minutes after the first report of a fire. The blast registered on seismographs as a magnitude-2.1 earthquake and could be felt 50 miles away.

CNN reports on Monday, the state fire marshal’s office said it ruled out four potential causes: weather, natural causes, anhydrous ammonium and ammonium nitrate in a rail car.

CNN also reports scores of investigators have followed up on leads relating to the explosion. At least 60 investigators have been on site each day and have conducted over 400 interviews in trying to determine how the fire started and what caused the explosion.

Jeff Knox is head of the Firearms Coalition and author of the weekly “Knox Gun-Rights Report” column on WND.

Knox’s resolution commended the staff and leadership of the NRA for standing against further gun-control laws and insisted the media had engaged in a campaign of “lies and distortions” to paint even the NRA as favoring more restrictive legislation.

The heart of the resolution, however, was a proclamation of resistance to gun control.

“Be it resolved, that we members,” the resolution states, “continue to remain steadfast in opposition to any and all expansion of firearms laws that would or could put honest Americans at increased risk of prosecution or which would or could in any way infringe on the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.”

Knox also pushed for the resolution to be published in the NRA’s official journal, but the resolution was amended on the floor to forgo that step for primarily financial reasons.

Understand the gun-rights debate in America like never before with “The Gun Rights War,” from Jeff’s father and Second Amendment pioneer, Neal Knox.

Knox was present at the meeting to explain the reason for his resolution: “[NRA] members at large need to know that the members here gathered soundly and solidly oppose any and all restrictions on our Second Amendment rights.”

“I want to remind everyone,” said John Fafoutakis of Sheraton, Wyoming, a supporting speaker from the floor, “none of our rights, including our God-given right to self-defense, [is] subject to popular or democratic vote.”

The NRA long has dedicated itself to the Second Amendment but in recent months has found itself in the crosshairs of Washington strategies to propose new rules, regulations, restrictions and requirements on an almost daily basis.

The NRA’s influence probably was most visible in recent weeks, fighting a recent vote in the U.S. Senate on key gun restrictions sought by Obama.

In that move the Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate shot down every proposal for more restrictions, although it’s always possible for them to be revived.

The votes were on amendments to a bill by Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., advanced 68-31 to the Senate floor for debate.

The first, and key, amendment was to expand background checks widely. It failed 54-46 under a requirement of 60 votes for adoption.

The White House had lobbied intensely across the country, including using emotional pleas from the families of victims of the Newtown school shooting, but Obama administration officials had confirmed the president’s agenda was sinking. Reuters reported the frustration level was so high that press secretary Jay Carney took to the podium of the briefing room to urge senators to back Obama.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, told the assembled body that Congress should be focused on “stopping violent criminals” but not “targeting law-abiding citizens.”

“The approach that is effective is targeting violent criminals while safeguarding the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens,” he said.

Cruz blamed the Obama Justice Department for failing to prosecute gun criminals, noting that of 48,000 felons or fugitives who tried to obtain weapons, only 44 were prosecuted.

The support just wasn’t there. Among the legislation that senators addressed was:

• The Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act by Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and others. It expands background checks to gun shows and Internet sales. It also authorizes $400 million to upgrade the national background check database. It failed 54-46 under a requirement of 60 votes for adoption.
• A proposal by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, to swap the background check provisions of the existing bill. It would target those who lie on background check applications and raise access to information about those who have been found mentally impaired by a court. It failed 52-48.
• The Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act from Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and others. It would enable those who purchase guns for others to avoid a background check. It failed 58-42.
• Concealed-carry reciprocity from Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and others. It would treat state-sponsored concealed carry permits like driver’s licenses, making them valid across state lines. It failed 57-43
• The Assault Weapons Ban from Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and others. It targets hundreds of types of weapons for a complete ban. It failed, 40 to 60.
• A plan from Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., to require a court order finding a person a danger to himself or herself or others before that person is banned from buying a gun. Failed 56-44.
• The Large-Capacity Magazine Feeding Devices Amendment from Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.. It bans devices holding more than 10 rounds but creates a special class of citizen – the off-duty police officer – for exemption. Failed 46-54.

The Democrats were unable even to corral their own for the key vote on background checks, losing the support of Sens. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D.; Mark Begich, D-Alaska; Max Baucus, D-Mont.; and Mark Pryor, D-Ark.

After the stinging rebuke, Reid withdrew his bill entirely, for now.

Democrats need to retain all of their 55 members – doubtful because several are up for re-election next year – plus get five Republicans to join them to reach the 60-vote threshold.

And even if the overarching bill, which seeks stiffer penalties for gun trafficking and more spending on school safety, were to be passed by the Senate in some form, the Republicans hold the majority in the House.

Video of the NRA meeting, discussion and vote on the resolution, captured by Media Matters, can be seen below: