Author: jh staff

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.

How Godlessness Leads to Tyranny

So many people are feeling it in the core of their beings.

The country has been unmoored from its anchor, an intangible one that for generations provided the stability needed to form communities in which people were able to reside together and care for one another.

We’ve known for a while that we had been drifting toward a destination that was strange and unfamiliar.

Now that we have seemingly arrived, we find ourselves at a place that is deeply disturbing and at times even intolerable.

An analysis may be helpful in understanding how the fix we find ourselves in came to be. It is also useful in a self-comforting kind of way, societally speaking. And it may prove especially helpful in figuring out ways in which we can get ourselves back on course.

Every society has an underlying ideology upon which beliefs, attitudes, norms, customs, institutions, etc., are structured.

Years ago a destructive type of worldview took root. As things would have it, this harmful ideology burgeoned over time and ended up displacing important foundational building blocks of our society, including those of civility, integrity, respect, and the like.

A new Gallup poll provides a key to understanding what happened.

Gallup’s recent Values and Beliefs Poll found that Americans’ belief in God has dropped to the lowest level since the polling organization first began to gather research data on the topic about 88 years ago.

From the 1940s to the 1960s, a consistent 98 percent of Americans indicated that they maintained a belief in God. The rate of believers has since taken a steady downturn, hitting an all-time low of 81 percent in 2022.

Gallup’s data indicate that in recent years belief in God has declined most significantly among young adults and those who are of a politically liberal persuasion.

Removing God from public life has been a goal of secularists, who for a long time now have been hard at work restricting religious expression in all major American institutions.

Prayers, holiday celebrations, music, etc., which since the nation’s founding were culturally unifying aspects of American life, have been supplanted or, in some cases, completely removed.

In his Farewell Address, the country’s first president emphasized the importance of religious values as he assessed the future of a then-budding nation.

“Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports,” President George Washington said.

His words were very precise. If an indispensable support is absent, an entire structure is destined for collapse.

Most people are aware that, despite the capacity for goodness contained within each and every individual, there is a dark component of human nature that lurks below the surface.

The Judeo-Christian explanation of this concept, and for the existence of evil itself, is the notion that humankind initially had a virtuous nature but early on took a precipitous fall from grace.

Judeo-Christian values in large part serve to restrain the human tendency to indulge in the most negative inclinations, which are manifested societally from street gangs to government corruption.

Without constraints on evil, society will become spiritually ill. Such sickness results in a culture that literally hits bottom, with the attendant failure to protect the most vulnerable and an apathetic attitude toward injuries suffered.

If God does not exist, then what is determined to be good or evil becomes merely a subjective human construct.

If no guidelines are in existence when decisions are being made regarding which ethical options would be preferable, then in conflicting situations the self-interests of decision makers will inevitably rule the day.

If good and evil are only human concepts, then morally upright actions will take a back seat to expeditious ones.

To cut to the chase, if God doesn’t exist, then neither do objective moral values.

In his book, “The God Delusion,” atheist-author Richard Dawkins wrote the following: “It is pretty hard to defend absolutist morals on grounds other than religious ones.”

Any system of government that lacks moral underpinnings is a system where freedom cannot flourish or even be mildly sustained.

As promised, God stands in the way of would-be tyranny, if those who keep the faith take to their knees.

Lessons from the Left Coast Primaries

On the minds of Left Coast voters are some major concerns, which happened to be revealed in California’s recent primary elections.

It’s been said, “As California goes, so goes the nation,” so it may be that California’s primaries are also a foreshadowing of things to come in November’s general midterm elections.

Democratic Party turnout in the Golden State was dismal this time around. It may be an indication that liberal and even moderate Dems are experiencing a lack of enthusiasm.

At the same time, the primary election results showed that Republicans and Independents are deeply concerned over rising crime rates, exorbitant gas prices, and soaring food and housing costs.

Two of the Left Coast’s largest cities let their electoral voices be heard loud and clear.

In San Francisco, a far-left prosecutor was actually recalled. The electoral earthquake occurred when voters overwhelmingly chose to terminate District Attorney Chesa Boudin’s job right in the middle of his first term.

Boudin, a public defender-turned-district attorney was fired via a recall election, primarily for his policies of non-prosecution of criminal activity, lenient sentencing of criminals, and abolishment of cash bail, all of which resulted in a horrific spike in violent crime.

The ousting of Boudin should serve as a warning signal for politicians and government officials, apart from political affiliations. Those who promote, pursue, and implement policies that de-fund law enforcement agencies, reduce sentences of convicted felons, release back into society those who have not yet completed their prison time, eliminate cash bail, and abuse prosecutorial discretion may be in for a day of reckoning.

Boudin’s removal may also be a predictor for another elected official, one in Los Angeles County. A campaign is underway to recall District Attorney George Gascón, who appears to be cut from the same left-leaning political cloth as the aforementioned San Francisco prosecutor.

Before Gascón set his sights on destroying the criminal justice system in Los Angeles, he was Boudin’s predecessor as the district attorney of San Francisco.

The primary elections in Los Angeles were illuminating, particularly when it came to the mayoral race. Real estate developer Rick Caruso, a former Republican, came in first, with Democratic Congresswoman Karen Bass finishing second. The two are set to face one another in November, and right now Caruso appears to have an edge in the upcoming race.

Caruso left the Republican Party in 2019 and registered as a Democrat in 2022. He ran a campaign that emphasized a tough on crime position and a determination to address the homeless crisis.

California Governor Gavin Newsom, who survived a recall vote in 2021, was able to avoid any serious competition in the recent primary election, partially due to the unusual manner in which the state currently conducts its primaries. This November, Newsom will face the second-place primary election finisher, GOP state lawmaker Brian Dahle.

A whole lot of voters who participated in the Golden State’s primary were understandably confused by the ballot. What they saw, in addition to the incumbent Newsom’s name, was a dizzying array of 27 gubernatorial candidates, 14 of which were labeled as Republicans. Those who, prior to casting their votes, researched the candidates’ qualifications and positions on issues had quite a difficult and time-consuming challenge.

It wasn’t always like this. Years ago, via a ballot initiative, voters eliminated conventional closed primaries and replaced them with a so-called blanket primary system. Consequently, all candidates appeared on the same ballot in the form of a list. The top vote-getter from each party advanced to the general election.

The Supreme Court actually struck down this system, saying that it violated a political party’s First Amendment right of association. However, with a push from then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, California voters passed a new electoral initiative for something called the “top-two” open primary system.

In this system, all candidates on the list from all political parties, along with non-affiliated candidates, appear on the same ballot, with the top two finishers, regardless of party, advancing to the November general election.

This system and other types of open primaries frequently have unintended consequences that seriously undermine the main purpose of primary elections – to afford political parties the opportunity to pick their own candidates.

The conventional closed primary limits participation strictly to those who are designated party members. This concept relates to the previously mentioned right of free association contained in the Constitution.

Open primary laws violate the freedom of association of a political party, because they force a party to allow outsiders to select its candidates, a patently unfair and non-representative construct. Such primaries enable members of opposing political parties to subvert the nominating process.

Additionally, the California top-two primary system and similar designs oftentimes create circumstances that are disturbingly disenfranchising to voters.

In 2016, listed on the primary ballot in a run for U.S. Senate were 34 candidates. The top two finishers ended up being members of the same Democratic Party.

The top two vote-getters happened to be Loretta Sanchez and the now-Vice President Kamala Harris. Both emerged from the Senate primary as the lone candidates listed on the general election ballot. Their political parties, ideological positions, and policy proposals were, for the most part, identical.

This left voters with no real choice. However, Harris had the party backing, and she ended up winning the senate seat in a low turnout election.

The top-two primary system hasn’t delivered the increase in voter turnout that its proponents promised either. Since 2012, when the top-two rules took effect, turnout in primaries has averaged just 37.6% of registered voters.

In the recent primary, only 16% of the roughly 22 million mail-in ballots sent to voters were cast, and based on the count thus far experts believe the final turnout will be a record low.

Conversely, in a conventional closed primary system the top vote-getter from each partymoves on to the general election, thereby giving voters a bona fide choice.

This is what a functioning republic looks like.

Maybe it’s time for another visit to the Supreme Court.

A Convenient Scapegoat for the Surging Crime Rate

The recent spate of mass shootings is serving an unseemly purpose for those who wish to strip each individual within our nation of a fundamental constitutionally secured right – the right to defend life itself.

Those with this ill-intent are attempting to shift public attention away from the crime wave that has been plaguing cities and towns across our land.

Look over here at this inanimate weapon is the current rallying cry being used to turn heads in another direction, understanding that the minds contained within, particularly those under duress, will frequently follow.

Due to the exponential rise of violent crime, especially in so-called progressive-leaning cities, the fast-approaching midterm elections seem to be creating a high degree of discomfort in a sizable segment of the current ruling class.

With voters increasingly concerned about their personal safety and that of their families, political elites and their media allies are seeking to change the subject in hopes of saving their electoral skins.

The same people who embraced the de-funding of our police officers and have been serving as cheerleaders for the George Soros-funded assault on the criminal justice system are now using the wretched results of their destructive policies to propose even more devastating “solutions.”

Those inclined to exploit the tragic occurrences of mass shootings are simultaneously seizing a concurrent opportunity to duck responsibility for the massive rise in crime.

How are they accomplishing such a feat? By conditioning the public to jump onboard the “gun reform” bandwagon, which at its core is just more gun-grabbing by the government.

Those who live in urban areas of the country have already experienced the lack of law enforcement presence and decline of justice in the form of criminal prosecution.

Images of lawlessness resulting in the dreadful loss of life, limb, and property have left scars on many a mind and body as a result of an Orwellian “re-imagining” of law enforcement by far-left radicals, a previously fringe portion of the population that somehow managed to consolidate power in the past few years.

Adding to the insidious mix are the numerous jurisdictions across the country that are now saddled with partisan prosecutors who refuse to pursue cases involving egregious crimes.

Then there are the district attorneys across the nation who secured their offices via the political and financial support of Soros, the one-sided left-wing donor who altered the criminal justice landscape in heretofore unimaginable ways.

Currently, there are about two dozen local prosecutors who are running for re-election. They were initially placed into office via financing from Soros-connected entities.

Policies that these seemingly sham prosecutors have employed include the crime-inducing practices of extinguishing cash bail, de-criminalizing violations, reducing sentences, and frequently abusing prosecutorial discretion, all of which have resulted in dangerous criminals winding up back on the streets. Such policies directly correlate with the spike in crime rates experienced across our great land.

Elites of all economic and political persuasions are not immune to the devastating fallout.

For instance, in Los Angeles, California, a category of misdeeds has emerged that specifically targets wealthy individuals. Law enforcement has given the label of “follow-home” robberies to the crimes. Perpetrators seek out finely attired folks at upscale restaurants, hotels, and various other exclusive venues, people who happen to be wearing pricier jewelry and driving more luxurious vehicles.

In a malevolent calculated ambush, carloads of multiple armed suspects pursue victims to their homes and proceed to engage in brutal attacks. Social media users have posted descriptions, photos, videos, and the like, providing graphic examples of these and other cold-blooded criminal activities.

Back to the effort on the part of those who are practiced at the art of deception, i.e., those who in this case are trying to frame the crime rise problem as a public safety issue in need of gun regulation attention.

The right to defend oneself through means of gun ownership is an inherent natural right – popularly, historically, and religiously designated as a God-given right.

God-given rights are a substantive building block of America’s foundation. The Declaration of Independence unequivocally states the following:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

These words are based on a belief that every individual is under a protective umbrella of “natural law,” which supersedes any conceptual legal design of human origin.

Another way of saying this?

The State is not allowed to mess around in these sacrosanct areas.