California’s San Bernadino County to Vote on Secession from State

There is no doubt that a political divide has occurred in our nation, one that is greater than most folks could have anticipated and more confounding than mere humans can comprehend.

It has been, to say the least, quite distressing to a people whose longstanding traditions have incorporated the esteemed societal values of unity, equality, and harmony.

To compound matters, folks are additionally experiencing a sense of alienation from political, legal, educational, cultural, and religious institutions, which had previously been relied upon by society as well as individuals for both external and internal stability and cohesion.

Here on the Left Coast, one county in California is considering whether or not to segment off into a smaller state.

The Golden State is presently the most populous state in the nation and has (since its admission to the Union in 1850) been the subject of hundreds of proposals to section it off into multiple states.

For decades, residents of rural California have looked at distant state and federal governments as being less than beneficial to them.

A movement to secede actually sprung up during the 1940s, as did a proposed name for the future site, the State of Jefferson. The new state was to be a combination of counties in Northern California and Southern Oregon. There was even a proposed state flag that had a green and yellow design with two X’s that symbolized the renunciation of state governments located in Sacramento, California and Salem, Oregon.

Six California counties officially backed the idea, and the proposal is still being promoted.

Many people have used the idea of secession in a symbolic way as a means to bring attention to regional disparities. But nowadays things appear to be different. Unprecedented actions by governments and corporations over the past two years have moved the subject of succession in the Golden State front and center.

Geographically, San Bernardino County is the largest county in the entire country. It is larger than 9 U.S. states, and it contains more land than the states of Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey, and Rhode Island combined.

Located east of the city of Los Angeles, San Bernardino County has a population of 2.1 million people.

This significant chunk of California is in the process of placing a measure on the upcoming November ballot that would allow the San Bernardino County supervisors to explore the concept of secession of the county from the state.

After the issue had been raised at several board meetings, the county’s Board of Supervisors voted unanimously (4-0) to put the secession measure on the 2022 ballot. The mayors of the cities of Upland and Fontana expressed support for the idea.

Regarding the proposed measure, voters would be given the choice to vote Yes or No on the following question:

“Do the citizens of San Bernardino County want the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors to study all options to obtain its fair share of state and federal resources, up to and including secession?”

This upcoming week the board will be holding a second and final reading and an additional vote to finalize the ballot initiative.

“I was surprised by the idea, and I don’t believe it’s feasible politically or financially to secede from California,” Supervisor Janice Rutherford said. “However, I absolutely join with my constituents who have a growing, palpable anger about everything from high gas prices to burdensome taxes.”

If the measure were to be approved by voters, it would have several more hoops to jump through.

Article IV, Section III of the Constitution states, “No new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.”

This means that for San Bernardino County to able to secede it must have the approval of the California Legislature and the U.S. Congress.

If the county’s secession from California were constitutionally approved, then San Bernadino County would be able to seek to become its own state or take steps to become a part of a neighboring state.

The scenario that San Bernardino County is contemplating was actually accomplished in the creation of West Virginia back in 1863.

West Virginia was the only state in the Union to separate from a Confederate state during the Civil War. The region that now constitutes West Virginia successfully broke away from the Commonwealth of Virginia to become a separated Mountain State.

We find ourselves at an unusual time in history, one in which many Americans believe that the federal government no longer represents their interests. Additionally, many perceive that state governments are equally unable to handle the geographic and cultural differences and/or meet the diverse needs of constituents.

As the societal chasm continues to grow, so do the possibilities that something like secession could actually take root.

However, infused into the American people is a steadfast determination to forever seek solutions.

This is where hope springs eternal.

Justice Samuel Alito’s Words of Warning on Religious Freedom

Justice Samuel Alito recently delivered the keynote speech at Notre Dame Law School’s Religious Liberty Summit in Rome.

The justice’s participation in the conference came as a surprise to many, since his speaker role had not been announced in advance.

He is one of the present Supreme Court’s most fervent advocates of religious freedom.

As a member of the highest court in the land and as a Catholic Christian himself, he has firsthand knowledge of the importance of faith in a higher power and the freedom to express it, both to the individual and to the greater society at large.

The justice used the occasion of his Rome summit appearance to express his concern over potential effects that may result from a “growing hostility to religion.”

In addition to the highly publicized Roe reversal, the Supreme Court upheld religious rights in a number of rulings in which Justice Alito was with the majority.

Kennedy v. Bremerton protected the right of a high school football coach to lead students in prayer at games.

– Carson v. Makin determined that the state of Maine cannot discriminate in the funding of tuition at religious schools.

Morrissey v. Beru held that anti-discrimination laws cannot force religious schools to ignore incompatible beliefs of teachers.

– Shurtleff v. Boston ruled that Boston’s City Hall was not entitled to maintain a policy disallowing religious flags.

During his speech, Justice Alito expressed concern that as the world becomes more secular in nature, people will no longer understand the vital role that religion plays in society.

Additionally, if there is a growth of secularism in society and a simultaneous reduction of religious involvement, the free exercise of religion will be in jeopardy.

Emphasizing that the decline of faith in the Western world has contributed to an antagonism toward religious traditions, which conflict with the trending moral relativism held by a sizable segment of society, Justice Alito stated the following:

“The problem that looms is not just indifference to religion, it’s not just ignorance about religion. There’s also growing hostility to religion, or at least the traditional religious beliefs that are contrary to the new moral code that is ascendant in some sectors.”

He remarked that religious liberty is “under attack” by those who seek complete power.

The drive to obtain power over others is in direct opposition to the values that religious beliefs instill, which presents an enormous obstacle for those who seek to achieve such power.

He also pointed out that Christians have been persecuted for centuries. He listed examples from history in which faith-filled individuals endured horrific torture, such as that which occurred at the Colosseum.

He reminded audience members, too, about Nero’s purported macabre use of Christians “as human torches.”

Moving forward in history, Justice Alito stated that despite the persecution of the past “more Christians are killed for their faith in our time than in the bloody days of the Roman Empire.”

He discussed the current challenge for religious liberty in the United States and Europe, where large percentages of the population have abandoned religion and are therefore no longer interested in safeguarding it.

“Unless the people can be convinced that robust religious liberty is worth protecting, it will not endure,” he warned.

He also included in his talk the tragic treatment of people of various other faiths, including the victims of the Holocaust, the slaughter of Yazidi in Iraq by Isis, and China’s “unspeakable treatment” of the Uyghurs.

Justice Alito has been an integral member of the Supreme Court since 2006. He has authored majority opinions in numerous landmark cases, including the one that is now most familiar to the public, the recent Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade.

As an assistant solicitor general in the 1980s, he argued 12 cases before the Supreme Court, winning 10 of them.

Recognized as an ardent seeker of justice, after an FBI agent was shot in the line of duty in 1988, Justice Alito assigned himself to the case and secured the shooter’s conviction by personally handling the trial.

During the same year, he sought the re-hearing of extradition proceedings against two foreign nationals who were accused of being terrorist assassins. He had uncovered that death threats the prosecutor had received were actually sent to her by herself.

In the recent keynote speech in Rome, he raised the hackles of the compromised press and left-wing social media, when he made some humorous remarks about foreign leaders who had suddenly become legal analysts of the Dobbs opinion.

The objects of his lighthearted barbs included outgoing UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Prince Harry, French President Emmanuel Macron, and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

“I had the honor this term of writing, I think, the only Supreme Court decision in the history of that institution that has been lambasted by a whole string of foreign leaders who felt perfectly fine commenting on American law,” Justice Alito said, adding, “One of these was former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, but he paid the price.”

As the audience broke into applause and laughter, he quipped, “Post hoc ergo propter hoc, right?” a reference to the logical fallacy that creates a questionable causal relationship between two events that follow each other in time.

The justice kidded about a speech that Prince Harry gave at the United Nations in which the royal tried to give a lecture on American jurisprudence and described the Supreme Court’s decision overruling Roe as a “rolling back of constitutional rights” in the U.S.

“What really wounded me was when the Duke of Sussex addressed the United Nations and seemed to compare the decision, whose name may not be spoken, with the Russian attack on Ukraine,” he said.

The reaction of many leftists to Justice Alito’s speech suggests that the reason hostility against him continues may be because he remains delightfully unfazed by their hate campaign. In fact, he consistently projects a personal optimism and professional demeanor.

One theme of his speech that truly stands out was meant to inform and/or remind people of how fragile religious freedom really is.

“We can’t assume that the religious liberty we enjoy today will always endure,” he said.

He encouraged us all to be bold in our advocacy of freedom of religion, and in closing gave us the following scriptural reference to cling to:

“The champions of religious liberty who go out as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves can expect to find hearts that are open to their message.”

Words to live by and to share.

John Rich’s Anti-Woke Song ‘Progress’ Soars to Number One

John Rich has tapped into the current Zeitgeist like few others dare to even try, and it seems to be paying off big-time for the country music artist.

His latest inspiration is turning out to be an anthem for the times, one that since its release has been downloaded by millions all around the globe.

The singer-songwriter’s most recent project is titled “Progress,” and he appears to draw upon his extensive band experience, which includes being a member of Lonestar and Big & Rich.

Written, performed, and recorded by Rich, “Progress” shot to the top of the charts in what feels like a nanosecond.

The tune was initially released independently via former President Donald Trump’s social media network Truth Social. Then on its first day it became the global No. 1 single on the Apple Music charts, outperforming some of the biggest pop artists.

The song’s extraordinary rise in popularity is an indication of the sizable population of freedom loving people in the U.S. and the world, whose entertainment choices are a reflection of their deeply held beliefs.

For “Progress,” Rich tapped two prolific fellow country hit songwriters. Co-writers are Nashville Songwriter Hall Of Fame Inductee and country artist Jeffrey Steele and veteran country songwriter Vicky McGehee.

On Truth Social, Rich described the project as his “message to the tyrants running our country into the ground.”

After the song hit the most-downloaded lists, he used his Twitter account to celebrate its success. He wrote, “Felt good to beat the machine today:) Thanks to all of you for the massive support!”

Reflecting the sentiments of so many, Rich’s chorus tells those who are pushing their warped form of “progress” exactly what they can do with it.

The refrain echoes:

“Stick your progress where the sun don’t shine

Keep your big mess away from me and mine

If you leave us alone we’d all be just fine.”

The lyrics of the song go on to take direct aim at specific policies that are impacting our nation and others abroad, including border crises, financial mismanagement, abandonment of individuals, facilities, and resources in Afghanistan, and draconian measures in response to a virus.

The first verse begins with words that express the feelings of people who are justifiably overwhelmed with the many unprecedented changes that have occurred in the past two years:

“There’s a hole in this country

Where its heart used to be.”

In one verse, Rich’s song compares the current administration’s zero-border policy with its ruinous withdrawal from Afghanistan that led to the deaths of 13 military service members:

“They invite the whole world to come live in our land

And leave our countrymen dying in Afghanistan.”

In another verse, the lyrics provide a commentary on the current tendency to denigrate and even try to eliminate Christianity in order to replace it with allegiance to the almighty state:

“They say let go of Jesus and let Government save

You can have back your freedoms if you do what we say.”

The subject of faith is near and dear to Rich, who posed the following question back in 2020: “Why is there such a push to get God out of the conversation?”

He remarked, “The people that want him [God] gone are the ones that want to be God themselves, and as long as God is still in the mix, and people like us recognize him as the ultimate authority, they can never be the ultimate authority for us.”

The lyrics of “Progress” also make reference to the dictatorial policies of censorship in its various forms, which government officials have employed:

“They shut down our pipelines and they shut down our voices

And they shut down our main streets.”

Rich issued a press statement to explain his goals in releasing the song at this particular point in time.

“I, like you, have been watching and living through the systematic destruction of our country. And in the name of progress, we see our border is standing wide open,” he said.

“And in the name of their progress we see our children targeted. And in the name of progress we see crime coast to coast like we’ve never seen it before. And in the name of progress we see people wanting to take our rights away to defend ourselves and our families as we see fit. And so on and so forth in the name of progress,” he added.

Rich also shared his thoughts on the real meaning of the term “progressive.”

“It just struck me as such an ironic thing that everything they claim to be progressive is actually regressive, it’s actually destructive. It’s the opposite which is kinda like they want to do as we’re all learning now,” he said.

The music video of the song projects powerful images of the nation’s so-called progress, including empty grocery store shelves, exorbitant gas prices, and streets on fire as the result of intentional burning and looting gone unchecked.

Yet with all this, the video footage and song lyrics definitely end on a positive note. There are depictions of a wide variety of individuals displaying patriotism, as the lyrics convey strength and perseverance:

“They bent us all over but it’s all over now

Because we figured it out

We ain’t backing down.”

Many thanks to Rich for his anthem artistry. The nation and the world really need it.

The Escalating Violence of ‘Stranger Things’

Netflix’s flagship series “Stranger Things” enjoys a huge audience and has been praised by critics for its writing, directing, acting, and more.

If you aren’t familiar with the streaming series, the story is set in the 1980s and features a group of parents, teens, and kids who are trying to figure out why supernatural events are plaguing a small mid-western town.

Despite the fact that “Stranger Things” is a show about children and is highly attractive to children, it has a rating of TV-14, which indicates that some of its content may not be suitable for kids under the age of fourteen.

In each successive season since its initial debut, the media phenom appears to have amplified the violence contained within.

Seasons 2 and 3 are decidedly more brutal and graphic than Season 1 of the series.

Unfortunately, Season 4 of “Stranger Things” has descended to a base level of darkness that has parents, grandparents, and guardians of the innocent casting the program out of homes, schools, etc., and questioning whether the show has the proper rating attached to it.

In addition to gruesome imagery and intensely aggressive behavior, Season 4 of the streaming series contains inappropriate sexual scenes and unnecessary profanity.

A reasonable explanation for the increasing coarseness of programming content is hard to come by.

Writers could have maintained the Steven Spielberg-influenced style and technique of the early episodes, which made Season 1 so appealing to viewers.

Instead the show altered its approach and is using enhanced computer graphics to peddle emotionally-laden themes, which feature graphic torture scenes, some involving child victims.

A number of Season 4’s scenes are so extreme that Netflix has had to include a disclaimer, which appears at the beginning of the first episode of the season.

The Parent Television and Media Council (PTC), a nonprofit advocate of responsible entertainment, used technology to quantify the increase in violence and profanity in the fourth season of the series, relative to prior seasons.

By using the content-filtering capabilities of VidAngel, which is a video streaming service that removes anti-family content in shows and movies, PTC found that Season 4 had a significant spike in material that was objectionable to parents.

The group’s study indicated that the frequency of violence in “Stranger Things” had increased threefold, when compared to previous seasons. The study also indicated that graphic violence in the show had increased seven times, when compared to prior seasons.

Additionally, the use of crass language had increased markedly. According to the PTC’s study, the frequency of profanity in the series had doubled since Season 1.

As an example of profanity creep, the series contained zero instances of the f-word, until, that is, its second season, when the word was used six times.

During Season 3, use of the word increased to five times. And in Season 4, it jumped to nine times.

Under the guidelines system used by Netflix, a single use of the word would normally trigger a TV-MA content rating.

A statement issued by the PTC indicated that the profane words in “Stranger Things” were “once unthinkable for dialogue on programs rated as appropriate for 13- and 14-year-old children; but on Netflix they have become ubiquitous.”

The group came to the conclusion that the rating for the program needs to be changed, stating, “For a program with such multi-generational appeal, we were shocked to see the rapid rise of explicit adult content that includes profanity and graphic violence without Netflix increasing the TV-14 age rating to TV-MA.”

The sheer amount of unsuitable material in forms of violence, profanity, and sexual imagery prompted PTC President Tim Winter to send a letter to Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos, requesting the aforementioned change in the rating.

“While Netflix has never been afraid to use a TV-MA rating, we suspect it wants to attract a broad audience for ‘Stranger Things’ and has rated it TV-14 for that reason,” Winter said. “However, ‘Stranger Things’ later seasons are clearly being rated inappropriately considering the amount of explicit content.”

The PTA indicates in its letter that the mislabeling makes it hard for parents to do their jobs.

“It is imperative that the TV rating system is accurate in order to be useful to parents,” Winter said.

In addition to the previously stated objectionable material, Season 4 of the series ridicules religion and denigrates adult authority.

Unfortunately, the series has continued the idea that adult authority is dispensable and that children have greater wisdom than adults. Young characters in the series routinely deceive, falsify, undermine, and/or steal from adult characters in order to achieve their goals.

Where there’s awareness there’s hope. So as word about this issue gets out, the public just may get a ratings system that is once again accurate and reliable.

After all, stranger things have happened.

‘Lightyear’ Minus Tim Allen Equals a Flop

Hollywood is in love with franchises, and the public enjoys them too.

When it comes to entertainment industry product, franchises oftentimes provide a safe harbor for execs in the risky day-to-day struggle to come up with new projects.

Hard to believe, but a major Disney franchise recently went down in flames. It’s the latest in the “Toy Story” series.

Yes, “Lightyear,” Disney-Pixar’s “Toy Story” spin-off is a dud.

The movie tanked at the box office, taking in only $50 million domestically in its first week. And the following week it took a 65 percent dive, earning less than $18 million.

With a production budget of $200 million, and an additional $100 million or so in marketing costs, Disney is likely looking at a significant loss, despite the fact that the film was thought to be a sure shot.

Franchise power, in the conventional sense, was shown in the box-office performance of prior sequel “Toy Story 4,” which took in a haul of $120 million in its first week.

Moviegoers definitely didn’t show the same love for “Lightyear.”

There are two major reasons for the film’s apparent failure.

1. If you want to draw “Toy Story” franchise fans, it’s not a good idea to ditch the guy who made Buzz Lightyear famous in all four previous “Toy Story” flicks.

That’s right. The filmmakers left actor Tim Allen out of the project, despite the fact that Allen’s voice is what madeBuzz buzz.

A lot of excuses have been given as to why Allen was cut out.

Claims were made that Allen’s voice was the film-version voice of a toy, and the voice of “Captain America” actor Chris Evans is the film-version voice of a supposed living, breathing, real-life Buzz.

However, plenty of folks sense that politics are at play. That’s because fans of Allen’s successful “Last Man Standing” sitcom remember all too well that Disney-owned ABC inexplicably canceled the show at a time when it was still popular with the public.

“Lightyear”’s Evans-for-Allen swap prompted a number of celebrities to take to social media and express their chagrin over the decision.

– “Everybody Loves Raymond” star Patricia Heaton used her Twitter account to post, “Disney/Pixar made a HUGE mistake in not casting my pal Tim Allen. Tim Allen in the role that he originated, the role that he owns. Tim IS Buzz! Why would they completely castrate this iconic, beloved character?”

– Tom Hanks, who voiced Buzz Lightyear’s sidekick Woody in previous films, entered the fray via a CinemaBlend interview that was posted on the publication’s Instagram account. The actor discussed how his film “Elvis” hit theaters at the same time as “Lightyear.”

“I actually wanted to go head-to-head with Tim Allen and then they didn’t let Tim Allen do it,” Hanks said. “I don’t understand that.”

Allen revealed that quite a while back he had been in on discussions about the “Lightyear” concept, but the new spin-off didn’t have the same filmmakers involved as the original.

“We talked about this many years ago,” Allen said, and he remarked at the time, “What a fun movie that would be.”

He explained, “But the brass that did the first four movies is not [the same one]… this is a whole new team that had nothing to do with the first movies.”

2) A big reason for “Lightyear”’s tepid response is the unmistakable woke-influence. Inserted in an animated movie for children is a same-sex kiss.

The scene has resulted in “Lightyear” being banned in many locales that have typically welcomed Disney films, including the countries of Malaysia and Saudi Arabia.

It seems as though Disney has been on a self-destructive course. There have been a series of decisions that have led the public to believe that the company wants to shed its family-friendly brand.

Guess we can just chalk it up to one more thing we thought we’d never see –Mickey’s smile turned upside down.

Domestic Terrorism Waged Against Pregnancy Centers and Houses of Worship

Ever since a leaked draft opinion went public, which indicated that the U.S. Supreme Court was about to overturn Roe v. Wade, vicious attacks began to be carried out against facilities that offer women health care, counseling, financial assistance, and multiple alternatives to the pregnancy-ending option of abortion.

In addition to the centers, houses of worship have been the target of similar kinds of assaults, including destruction of property and physical harm to individuals. Dozens of church campuses and parish facilities across the country have been firebombed, burned, looted, and vandalized by abortion-advocating extremists.

In many cases, culprits leave behind the ugliest of trademarks, which oftentimes include spray-painted graffiti with rallying cries the likes of “If abortion ain’t safe, you ain’t safe.”

A pro-abortion organization, which identifies itself as “Jane’s Revenge,” is taking credit for many of the attacks. The group issued a public communication earlier on, declaring “open season” on what it called “anti-choice” groups and demanding that all pro-life organizations disband.

According to NBC News, pro-abortion vandals are utilizing a map created by two University of Georgia professors to target centers that provide assistance other than abortion to pregnant women. The map discloses centers’ addresses from across the nation.

A radical group from the state of Washington posted a link to the aforementioned map, along with instructions on how to go about pinpointing the locations of pro-life pregnancy centers.

Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act states that a person engages in domestic terrorism if said individual engages in “an act ‘dangerous to human life’ that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population…”

The FBI is succinct in its definition of domestic terrorism, identifying it as follows: “Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.”

The above-described acts in question were preceded by public messages that telegraphed political intent and specifically targeted religious groups. The acts were also carried out by those seeking to intimidate the public and to further ideological goals.

It should be called exactly what it is – domestic terrorism.

The manner in which attacks on chiefly faith-based facilities have been conducted emphasizes the heinousness of crimes committed.

One center in Colorado was torched. One in Virginia was defaced and had its windows smashed. And another in Oregon was vandalized.

In Los Angeles, California, one protestor reportedly aimed a flame thrower at a police officer, who ended up being one of four officers injured. The assailant is being charged with attempted murder.

Another group of demonstrators shut down a main highway, blocking cars and beating with sticks those who failed to stop.

In Nashville, Tennessee, a Molotov cocktail was thrown through the first-floor window of a pregnancy center. The message “Jane’s Revenge” was spray-painted on the side of the building.

Tennessee Governor Bill Lee had an appropriate reaction to the crime. “This is terrorism and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,” Gov. Lee posted in a tweet.

Pregnancy centers across the nation provide millions of dollars worth of free services and material assistance to women who choose life over death for their unborn babies.

One of TV’s most beloved sitcom stars, “Everybody Loves Raymond”’s Patricia Heaton, helps run one of the facilities. Heaton is one of a handful of Hollywood A-listers who is willing to stand up for the pre-born and their mamas-in-waiting.

“Our medical pregnancy clinic serves client families for five years, providing superior services for anyone who asks. We raised $250K for a mobile medical clinic for underserved areas, treating everyone,” the actress recently tweeted.

Heaton used her social media account to respond to Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) after an inflammatory statement was posted about pregnancy centers at a most dangerous time for the facilities.

Sen. Warren falsely claimed that these centers “mislead and deceive patients seeking abortion care,” and added that it is “more important than ever” that a “crack down” on the clinics occurs.

Heaton responded to the senator’s remark, pointing out that such incendiary language made facilities, such as the one with which she herself is affiliated, less safe.

“Because of people like @SenWarren we now have to hire armed security,” she tweeted.

Heaton has gone public with her pro-life views in the past, sharing the following: “I find it impossible to subscribe to a philosophy that believes that the destruction of human life is a legitimate solution to a problem that is mostly social, economic and psychological.”

She summarized her thoughts in one sweet sentence.

“Women who experience unplanned pregnancy also deserve unplanned joy.”

Thumbs-up from grateful babies in the womb.

Hollywood in Major Uproar over Roe v. Wade Reversal

Following the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 24, 2022, to return to the states the power to determine the legality of abortion, Americans now find themselves in a post-Roe v. Wade world.

What’s it like? In a word, awesome. But not for everyone.

Folks are still in disagreement with one another, perhaps more intensely than ever before.

We can’t even seem to come to terms with the premise that – there is no constitutional right to abortion but there is a fundamental right to life. So demonstrably obvious and yet so seemingly elusive.

Alongside the tragedy of abortion itself is the fact that we have fallen woefully short in bridging this divide.

Hollywood isn’t helping.

Celebrities of the pro-choice persuasion are using over-the-top language while simultaneously attempting to virtue-signal to the max. It’s occurring largely through social media.

Here’s a small sampling.

– Barbara Streisand tossed a mean tweet at the Supreme Court, re-labeling the revered judicial institution as the “American Taliban.”

– Aisha Tyler called the Roe v. Wade ruling a “terrible tragedy” and seemingly took a page from fellow past-and-present leftists in designating it as “a dark day in American history.”

– Halle Berry let it be known in writing that she was “outraged” and used the vulgar version of animal excrement to express her opinion on the Supreme Court decision.

– Alyssa Milano posted that the ruling would have “deadly consequences” and would be “hardest on people of color.”

– Patricia Arquette called the High Court decision an “absolute disaster.”

– Elizabeth Banks characterized the ruling as “devastating news.”

– Taylor Swift shared that she is “absolutely terrified.”

The melodrama wasn’t confined to Hollywood stars. Entertainment industry labor and trade organizations raged against the ruling as well.

– SAG-AFTRA, the union that represents actors, announcers, broadcast journalists, and other media professionals, called the Roe v. Wade reversal “archaic and dangerous.” Issuing a statement, the union suggested that the Supreme Court’s ruling allows states to enact “draconian restrictions” on health care and that it will “destroy lives.”

Like other Hollywood organizations and companies, the union is providing money for employees to travel to the nearest location where they can obtain termination of pregnancy services, if they reside in states that have restrictions.

– The Directors Guild of America (DGA) “strongly condemned” the High Court’s ruling, calling it a “travesty.” In a statement, the DGA president opined that the ruling is putting “women’s lives at risk.”

The DGA also approved a new policy that provides financial assistance to DGA members who need to travel out of state in order to obtain abortion-related procedures.

– The Producers Guild of America, a nonprofit trade organization, issued a statement that characterized the Supreme Court decision as “deeply dangerous” and suggested that it would cause “untold harm.”

– Actors’ Equity Association, which represents actors and stage managers in live theater, called the ruling “a catastrophic step backwards for human rights.”

– The Board of Directors of the Writers Guild of America (WGA) West and the Council of the WGA East said in a joint statement that the decision will lead to “injury, death and the denial of basic human rights.”

– The American Guild of Musical Artists, which represents singers, dancers and staging staff in opera, ballet and concert dance, released a statement indicating that the “system is broken” and went so far as to urge that “the legitimacy of the Supreme Court must be reevaluated.”

– IATSE, the union that represents behind-the-scenes film and television workers, called the Supreme Court’s ruling “one of the worst contractions of freedoms in modern U.S. history.”

The fact of the matter is six jurists, who comprised the majority in the ruling, courageously upheld the law, despite the intimidation tactics of the left in protesting in front of justices’ homes and even the apparent assassination attempt against Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

The coercive efforts began with the strategic leak of Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion in May 2022. The stalwart six stood firm, and the Supreme Court as an institution gained strength.

On a positive note, there are still a sizable number of prominent and influential Hollywood stars, who have fought the good fight in defense of our babies and their right to live.

Included in this brave bunch are Patricia Heaton, Kelsey Grammer, Mel Gibson, James Caviezel, Chuck Norris, Celine Dion, Jack Nicholson, Martin Sheen, Kirk Cameron, Candace Cameron Bure, Kanye West, and Justin Bieber.

In the initial Roe v. Wade ruling, Justice Byron White wrote in his dissent that the decision was an “exercise of raw judicial power.”

It was.

The majority in that fateful case actually created out of whole cloth a constitutional right to abortion that didn’t exist in American common law and wasn’t present anywhere in the text of the Constitution.

When the raging of the left is long forgotten, the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which has now thankfully resulted in the reversal of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, will be recognized as the High Court ruling that rectified one of the most egregious injustices in our nation’s history.

There is a time for every purpose under heaven.

Now, after almost fifty years have passed, a time for healing has begun.