Whose Land Is It Anyway?

nintchdbpict000588630535-2

The date is June 8, 2020. The place is a few neighborhood blocks located in Seattle, Washington. The time, otherworldly.

An assembled mob cordons off approximately six blocks of land in the downtown section of the city. No longer wishing to be part of the United States, the group declares that the land it has seized is now a sovereign nation.

The land is then christened with an official sounding name, CHAZ, which the mob explains stands for “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone.”

Other details about the nation-in-formation quickly emerge, such as CHAZ is not subject to local, state, or federal laws. Strict borders are in place. So are armed guards and even a self-proclaimed “warlord.”

Many folks might think that the events described above could never really happen in America, but they have.

Folks might also think that even if such things were ever to occur, elected leaders at the local and state levels would surely jump into action to right the wrongs. But no, they haven’t.

In fact, Washington’s Democrat Governor Jay Inslee recently became the subject of ridicule when he pretended to be unaware of the fiasco that was taking place in the largest city in his state. His feigned ignorance was on display for all to see. So was the CHAZ story, which was being covered by every media outlet on the planet.

In the land outside of the CHAZ borders, meaning the actual city of Seattle, Democrat Mayor Jenny Durkan was engaging in a little pretend of her own. Not only did she abdicate her responsibility as mayor of all of the constituents in her city, she decided to play head cheerleader for the lawless mob, which had taken over the city blocks and the police precinct to boot.

Despite numerous credible reports of CHAZ residents brandishing weapons and damaging public and private property, Durkan continued to flaunt her obliviousness.

During a CNN appearance with Chris Cuomo, Durkan described the armed takeover of her city as a mere “block party.”

When Cuomo asked how long she intended to allow the illegal occupation of the city to continue, her response was cavalier to the nth degree.

“I don’t know. We could have a summer of love,” Durkan responded.

Seattle City Council Member Kshama Sawant went further than both the governor and mayor.

In a recent CNN appearance, Sawant used phrases such as “incredible movement” and “incredibly inspiring” to describe the CHAZ occupation.

Meanwhile local Seattle residents are suffering and are in dire need of help. Reportedly, there is a mafia-style “protection racket” going on, with shakedowns and other criminal activity being inflicted on average ordinary people who are unlucky enough to have been swept up in the leftist vortex.

Seattle Police Chief Carmen Best informed her officers via a video address that the police had “received reports that these armed people may be demanding payment from business owners in exchange for some of that protection.”

As a law enforcement professional, Best seems to be expressing the frustration felt by so many with regard to the governor and mayor, who are allowing criminal behavior to go unabated.

“We’ve also heard that they may be demanding to see identification from people who live in the area,” Best said.

Extremist groups who have lassoed the land are engaging in another form of extortion in their submission of a ludicrous list of demands. They are seeking, among other things, the complete removal of police, new trials for convicts of color, the racial segregation of hospitals, and free college tuition.

Best also indicated that the CHAZ takeover has caused police response times to be tripled because of the occupation.

“These are responses to emergency calls — rapes, robberies, and all sorts of violent acts that have been occurring in the area that we’re not able to get to,” Best said.

President Donald Trump has made it clear that if the local elected leaders continue to fail to act, he will provide the necessary help.

The president has the legal authority to intervene militarily using the Insurrection Act of 1807. There have been scores of times that prior presidents have done just that. In the 20th century alone, there were more than a dozen such uses.

–Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Dwight Eisenhower, each invoked the

Insurrection Act one time.

–President George W. Bush did so twice.

–Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson each invoked the act four times.

Although Democrats and their media allies are claiming that the commander in chief must be invited before he can provide federal military remedies, the president does not necessarily need a governor to issue a request before using the military for domestic law enforcement. The legislation itself grants the president broad discretion in making his decision.

Use of the military involves risks, which include injury and sometimes loss of life. As has been the pattern for President Trump going all the way back to the 2016 election, the mainstream media are going to find a way to blame him anyway, for positives, negatives, and everything in between.

So whose land is it anyway?

Not a mob of leftists, that’s for sure.

The Roots of the Riots

2e7cba03-8187-409e-a46e-af276f2d6b61-large16x9_grandrapids

A peculiar phrase recently became a trending topic on Twitter. Its words read as follows: “Attack and Dethrone God.”

These same words were displayed on a graphic during a segment that had previously aired on Fox News Channel’s “The Ingraham Angle.”

Language contained in the graphic was intended to be a backdrop for a guest of host Laura Ingraham named Terrie Turchie, a former deputy assistant director of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division.

Turchie was discussing ideas that had once been fostered by a violence-based group from our nation’s past, the Weather Underground.

In his appearance, Turchie drew parallels between the recent rioting and mayhem that plagued urban areas across America and the insidious activities in which the notorious 1960s group had engaged.

As Turchie noted, in the wake of its efforts the Weather Underground had left an intriguing package behind, which took the form of a book-length manifesto.

If all went according to a warped wish list, the manifesto would be adopted as a blueprint for future like-minded radicals to use. Its title, “Prairie Fire.”

“They had a major goal, and that goal was to form a communist revolution,” Turchie stated.

Authors of “Prairie Fire,” which include the familiar subversive names of Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, referenced the goal of bringing down the United States government.

“We are a guerrilla organization,” the authors wrote. “We are communist women and men.”

As the Fox guest distilled six strategies that the Weather Underground had laid out in its manifesto, a graphic appeared on the screen with the following objectives listed:

–Destroy Capitalism

–The Weapon of Choice – Systemic Racism and Police Racism

–Identify the Victim Classes

–Organize the Victim Classes

–Engage in International Solidarity with the Global Movement

–Attack and Dethrone God.

The resemblance to the rhetoric used by today’s activist organizations and their allies is, to say the least, highly disturbing.

Back in the day, the Weather Underground used a benign-sounding term to summarize its approach. It turns out to be the same not so benign-sounding term now that leftist activists have been using since President Donald Trump was elected—resistance.

Following Turchie’s appearance, trolls on Twitter took to the internet speedway. The many salient points that Ingraham and Turchie had made were ignored altogether. However, the last phrase that Turchie cited would trigger the dropping of an anvil of snarky social media hate. It dared to mention the Creator of the Universe.

Some in the antagonistic media slid down the Alice in Wonderland rabbit hole of fact checking, going on to dismiss the anti-religion phrase and muttering about how the words on the graphic were not actually in the Weather Underground document, at least not those identical words.

For those who are still able to peer into the non-flipped side of the looking glass, the similarities between the Weather Underground and the Antifa movement are striking. This was observed by heralded scholar of the left Noam Chomsky, who happens to be one of the few “progressive” voices who has warned about Antifa.

Back in 2017, Chomsky described Antifa to the Washington Examiner as “a minuscule fringe of the Left, just as its predecessors were.” He also described the group as “a major gift to the Right.”

Chomsky additionally said, “What they do is often wrong in principle…and is generally self-destructive.”

“There’s some limited similarity to the Weather Underground,” Chomsky noted, pointing out that the historical context was different and implying that Antifa was more prone to harming people than the “Weathermen,” who committed their acts “almost always against property, in intent at least.”

There are other things about the two groups that appear to be markedly similar. Both seem to view themselves as possessing the purity of true communist revolutionary beliefs. Both advocate violence, particularly against law enforcement. And both embrace a communist worldview, which requires a fundamental presupposition of a materialistic conception of history, making religion antithetical to communist thought.

Marxist theorist Leon Trotsky wrote, “Religiousness is irreconcilable with the Marxian standpoint.”

Communist co-creator Vladimir Lenin similarly cited atheism as “an inseparable element of the materialist view of life…a necessary condition for the theoretical education of the revolutionist.”

Founder of communism Karl Marx infamously dismissed religion as “the opium of the people” and argued that religion prevents a better communist existence from becoming reality.

The attempt to Dethrone God has been part and parcel of communism from its inception. Atrocities that have been committed against religious people and institutions reflect the hatred for all things relating to the Almighty.

But thankfully, people who have the gift of knowledge that flows from the Spirit know the truth.

No one can ever take the throne from the King of the World.

What You Need to Know about the Heads of Social Media and Big Tech

untitled-5-6

In an unprecedented move by the head honchos of social media, President Donald Trump had several posts on his Twitter account slapped with “fact check” disclaimer labels.

When internet companies were in their infancy back in the 1990s, Congress, via legislation, provided them with immunity from certain civil lawsuits in order to encourage the development of “platforms,” i.e., digital places for users to share user-created content.

Similar to bookstores that are not in the business of creating, editing, or publishing the material contained on the shelves of their stores, companies such as Twitter were granted special protection from lawsuits so that digital platforms that merely host media content created by third parties (their users) would be able to operate unhindered by the threat of legal action.

Companies with very large social media platforms have been acting as if they merely provide space for third parties to share, when in actuality it is just that, acting. Based on the same premise, they additionally continue to maintain that they should not be held liable for what their users post.

Twitter’s decision to fact check in such a high profile and subjective manner stands as a watershed moment in the relationship between government and social media.

By fact checking the President of the United States on, of all things, an issue related to potential election fraud, Twitter tossed its identity of being a platform out into the ethersphere. But it also let the cat out of the bag as to its real present status, that of full-fledged publisher.

Twitter expressed a political opinion when it engaged in its fact checking. The issue was a mega-politically charged one involving mass mail-in voting and whether such a process is ripe for fraud.

President Trump’s tweet was evaluated by the overseers at Twitter, and users were prompted to “Get the facts about mail-in ballots.” Upon clicking a link, users were subsequently instructed that “experts say mail-in ballots are very rarely linked to voter fraud,” an unmistakable political statement that also happens to be false.

If one is willing to dig a little deeper, what is discovered is that Twitter has implemented a policy that currently seems to apply to a single user—President Trump.

When a social media company engages in the same activities as a publication, it must be treated as if it were one. Newspapers, magazines, etc., fall under the umbrella of conventional publishers that create and edit their own content and are not exempt from liability.

Twitter has not been considered a publisher, despite the fact that it has been acting like one. But to exacerbate the situation, it has increasingly become a publisher of the most highly partisan kind. And it just so happens that, as of this writing, we are less than six months away from a presidential election.

Some big tech companies have also demonstrated a political bias in giving liberals a pass while engaging in an all-out targeting of conservatives.

–PragerU’s Facebook page was marked with a virtual branding iron as containing “false news” and was demonetized as well.

–A study from NYU on the addition of zinc to a hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin treatment was removed by YouTube.

–A hydroxychloroquine video by Sharyl Attkisson was also removed, although it was subsequently reinstated.

–A contrarian Michael Moore-produced documentary, “Planet of the Humans,” was yanked from YouTube.

As reported by Vox, a number of top Silicon Valley figures appear to be working behind the scenes in a concerted effort to get presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden elected. Big tech names include LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz, Apple founder Steve Job’s widow Laurene Powell Jobs, and ex-Google CEO Eric Schmidt.

Twitter’s own Yoel Roth, who presently holds the title “Head of Site Integrity,” has referred to President Trump and his team as “actual Nazis.” Roth has additionally mocked Trump supporters, insulted Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and provided campaign donations to former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

President Trump recently signed an executive order that sets in motion a potentially costly change for Twitter with respect to the company’s civil liability exposure. The order directs all executive departments and agencies to ensure that their application of Section 230(c), the law that limits liability, falls within “the narrow purpose of the section.”

The executive order cites the legislative purpose of the law to maintain the internet as a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” The departments and agencies are instructed to “take all appropriate actions in this regard.”

The heads of departments and agencies must also review advertising and marketing expenses that are paid to Twitter and other online platforms. This includes the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the Department of Justice (DOJ), as well as other parts of the executive branch.

With regard to Twitter, Google, Facebook, YouTube, and others, it is possible that some of the personnel of these departments and agencies will be looking into the practice of the gathering of information about virtually everything users do and then selling the data for billions of dollars.

U.S. Attorney General William Barr has already indicated that the DOJ will begin drafting legislation to regulate social media companies.

President Trump’s executive order may have an immediate limiting effect on social media and big tech’s future editorial actions.

Apparently, tech CEOs, including Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, have already heard the footsteps of the federal government. Zuckerberg recently distanced himself from Twitter when he told Fox News that the social media platform had, in his opinion, made a mistake, and that no social media platform should be the “arbiter of truth.”

The bottom line is that social media and big tech companies can’t have it both ways. And hopefully, in the very near future, they won’t.

And the People Shouted Hallelujah

worship

In a bold move last week, President Donald Trump announced that his administration would seek to immediately reopen houses of worship across the country.

Next came an order to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to classify churches, synagogues, and mosques as “essential places that provide essential services.”

“Some governors have deemed liquor stores and abortion clinics as essential, but have left out churches and other houses of worship,” President Trump said in the White House press room, punctuating his statement with the words, “It’s not right.”

“The people are demanding to go to their church and synagogue, to go to their mosque,” the president said, adding that in America “we need more prayer, not less.”

Spirituality, by virtue of its existence, is essential. In America, its manifestation has historically been safeguarded by the words contained in our inspired foundational document.

Hard to believe that we could ever have been denied the necessity of the soul.

President Trump had another message for officials who have little sense of urgency and seem content to delay indefinitely when it comes to allowing houses of worship to reopen.

“If they don’t do it, I will override the governors,” the president said.

His remarks have been mischaracterized by the Democrats and the antagonistic media from the moment they were uttered. Many of the same partisan organizations and individuals show little or no regard for a paramount constitutional right—the free exercise of religion.

Some of the so-called experts have weighed in, indicating that President Trump does not have the authority to override governors who are dragging their feet on the reopening of religious institutions.

As head of the executive branch, the president maintains the authority to utilize the Department of Justice (DOJ) to accomplish the objective of securing the cooperation of the governors.

Among the many options, lawsuits can be filed and judges can impose limitations on the actions of governors who are in violation of federal and/or state constitutions. Attorney General William Barr has already demonstrated that he is willing to enter the fray of legal challenges to governors’ orders.

The free exercise of religion is included in our First Amendment precisely because the founders understood the essential nature of religious liberty. To ever have given houses of worship a “non-essential” label not only runs counter to the First Amendment, but it has the potential to hinder a primary life process in which an individual and/or groups engage, particularly in times of distress or anxiety.

Our country’s first president would have been on board with our current president in understanding the necessity for spirituality and religious expression.

As shown in Arnold Friberg’s famous painting “The Prayer at Valley Forge,” the image of then-General George Washington on his knees has inspired Americans since the work of art was first unveiled in 1976, the year of our nation’s bicentennial.

As the story goes, a young Pennsylvania senator named Isaac Potts was against the war that gave birth to America. His opposition would not last long, though.

One day he happened upon a man who was immersed in deep prayer. At his side a sword lay placid on the ground. The solitary figure turned out to be General Washington himself, asking the Almighty to assist him in his cause of emancipating a nascent country.

Reflecting on the prayer, Potts became convinced that the American Revolution “was the cause of God, and America could prevail.”

President George Washington would later say, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.”

Perhaps much like something President Washington would have said if faced with the same circumstances, President Trump let governors and officials across the land know that religious institutions, and the worship services they provide, play an essential role.

He has spoken for the searchers whose life-sustaining spirituality is, and always will be, essential.

And the people shouted hallelujah.

Woodstock: From Liberty to Lockdown

original

Said, I’m going down to Yasgur’s Farm, Gonna join in a rock and roll band, Got to get back to the land and set my soul free…”

The year was 1969. A music festival would set up shop on a rural farm in Bethel, New York. The event would become legendary in stature. But it would also become a signpost of a dramatic change that was about to occur in the American culture, and the displacement of a worldview that had been the foundation of our society for centuries.

The festival would ultimately draw a crowd of more than 400,000 people. The music would play for three days amid births, deaths, and some undesirable elements of nature. Miraculously, peace would hold and love would prevail, despite the numbers that gathered.

The lyrics cited above and below are from a tune written by Joni Mitchell and recorded by Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young. The song generated a solid hit for both the songwriter and the group. Predictably, an anthem was born for part of a generation that would fall in love with leftist ideology.

These would be the folks who would grow up thinking that they were thoroughly “progressive-minded.” They would have families of their own, but they would raise their children much differently than parents of past generations had, both in manner and substance.

They would also take over the reins of power in all of the institutions that make up the pillars of a once-envied society—educational, political, medical, legal, and religious.

And maybe it’s the time of year, Yes and maybe it’s the time of man, And I don’t know who I am, But life is for learning…”

A gigantic experiment was taking place without much of society’s knowledge or willingness. The counterculture of the 1960s was rebellious in nature, longing to be supposedly unshackled from traditional modes of authority, while still seeking an ideal new interpretation of “The American Dream.”

Something went terribly wrong, though.

It seems as if it would take an eternity to try and figure out what has actually occurred over these past decades as the result of an aggressive segment bulldozing an unassuming one. Time is a luxury we can ill afford, so for now the puzzle pieces will have to remain scattered.

An article dealing with Woodstock recently triggered a number of media outlets. The article about the iconic rock festival, titled “Woodstock occurred in the middle of a pandemic,” was published by the American Institute for Economic Research and written by Jeffrey Tucker.

As the article’s title indicates, the gist is that a very well attended, seminal rock festival took place smack in the middle of the 1968-69 Hong Kong flu pandemic.

According to the CDC, the Hong Kong flu was estimated to have caused 1 million deaths globally and 100,000 in the United States. Symptoms included coughing, fever, and shortness of breath. Most of the victims of the illness were over 65 years of age and had additional underlying medical conditions.

The government monitored the outbreak. People washed their hands and sought medical attention if they were ill. There were no masks, no lockdowns, no stay-at-home orders, and no prisoners released from jail. The press for the most part ignored the whole thing.

As for social distancing, Tucker wrote that the entire notion of using social distancing and public lockdowns is a relatively new one. The first time it came up was in a 2006 study by scientist Robert J. Glass, who got the idea from his teenage daughter’s science project. Two doctors who were working in the Bush administration suggested that government-enforced social distancing should be used in the next pandemic.

Tucker’s Woodstock article was not received well by the dominant media, likely because its content is at odds with the narrative that is being spun by a majority of the elite.

Reuters news service, which had initially classified Tucker’s article as True, apparently felt the need to fact-check itself. The news service downgraded its rating to Partially True and then downgraded its designation a third time to Misleading.

Reuters claimed that the pandemic came in two waves, and Woodstock took place in between the two waves, so therefore the rock festival did not take place “during” the pandemic.

Interestingly, Woodstock’s organizer Michael Lang was aware of the danger of the pandemic. He was quoted in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in August of 1969, specifically stating that a medical team was brought into the festival in the event an outbreak occurred. This came to light thanks to economic and political historian Phil Magness’s Twitter account.

Magness also revealed that the Altamont Speedway festival, or as it was known at the time, the “Woodstock of the West,” was held in December 1969, almost exactly when the second wave of the Hong Kong flu outbreak was peaking.

It is literally shocking that leftists of today who espouse the philosophical worldview of the 1960s are the same individuals who are now utilizing authoritarian tactics to strip away freedoms and stifle expression.

Ironically, they have become everything they never wanted to be.

We are stardust, we are golden, We are caught in the devil’s bargain, And we got to get ourselves back to the garden…”

Time to Reopen Main Street USA

farmington_michigan

Main Street USA is the heart of America.

From big cities to small towns, Main Street USA tells the story of where we came from, where we are going, and who we will always be—holders of the dream.

When the pandemic hit and Main Street USA shut down, our shared heart sank. Shaken yet ever sanguine, we gently sighed, looked to the ones we love, and vowed to carry on.

As Main Street USA boarded up, holders of the dream went to work in their kitchen-schoolrooms, walk-in closet offices, and backyard workshops. For many, the work seemed harder than ever and the reward more distant. But as voices of loved ones long ago reminded us, patience will prevail and morning will come. Holders of the dream tightened their grasp.

Small business is merely an academic word for Main Street USA.

So who is small business?

Just take a moment and think back to all the small business folks you have relied on over the years to help fill the gaps in the average everyday needs of life:

-the sitter who took care of you when mom fell ill

-the music teacher who lit the spark

-the roofer who kept the house dry in the storm

-the appliance repair tech who in mid-July raced to fix the freezer

-the veterinarian who lit candles, played sweet music, and helped you say good-by

-the local pharmacist who gave an inexperienced youth a job as a delivery boy

-the jeweler who readied your bride-to-be’s engagement ring

-the tailor who altered the suit from Goodwill that helped you nail the interview

-the furniture store owner who rushed to make the loveseat for mom and dad’s first visit

-the auto mechanic who traded the car you pushed into his shop for one he had already restored

-the florist who brought the flower-filled beach chair to your best friend’s memorial six states away

-the baker who designed the Princess Warrior cake for a friend who had beaten cancer

Holders of the dream have millions of stories such as these to share. So tragic that many of our leaders don’t care to listen.

The truth is the largest and most successful companies in America started out as small businesses. It wasn’t always this way, but as the Democratic Party moved further and further to the left, the notion that there is intrinsic value in saving Main Street USA was tossed to the wayside.

Now Democrats and their fierce allies in the media are resisting reopening and advocating for the continuation of the lockdown of Main Street USA.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., recently spoke to the Democratic Socialists of America about opposing the reopening of the country.

“When we talk about this idea of reopening society, you know, only in America does the president — when the president tweets about liberation — does he mean go back to work. When we have this discussion about going back or reopening, I think a lot people should just say ‘no’ — we’re not going back to that,” Ocasio-Cortez said.

The freshman representative also laid the groundwork for a future general strike.

“The majority of Americans don’t know what a general strike is and so our responsibility is to talk about it, expand consciousness about it, and to actually create the conditions in which working people can generate and really exercise their own power, the power that they already have,” Ocasio-Cortez said.

Retail shops, restaurants, and other local concerns in every community across our land have been hit harder than anyone could have imagined. If the shutdown continues much longer, most of the small businesses in our country will simply be wiped out.

Add to this the tens of millions of independent contractors, freelancers, and self-employed individuals, and it becomes apparent that there is a huge number of working folks that are on their last leg.

The manner in which the Democrats and their willing media accomplices are misleading people is cruel and contemptible. They continue to heighten anxieties over the possibility of more COVID-19 deaths, while simultaneously characterizing the reopening of “non-essential” businesses as a reckless choice of money over lives.

What holders of the dream keep tightly in their grasp isn’t about money. It’s about worth.

A little soundtrack:

Ted Cruz’s Legislation Could Halt China’s Censoring of Hollywood

worldwarz_dvd_en_800x1200

Texas Senator Ted Cruz may really be on to something big.

Sen. Cruz plans to introduce legislation soon, which will address a critically important issue involving the rights of Americans, as well as folks in other nations, to enjoy entertainment product that is free from Chinese communist censorship.

The former 2016 GOP presidential candidate has, in accordance with modern congressional practice, affixed a clever acronym to his new bill, SCRIPT, which stands for the “Stopping Censorship, Restoring Integrity, Protecting Talkies” Act.

The legislation seeks to deter a current practice of Hollywood studios in which, prior to release, they submit movies to Chinese censors. The proposed law would cut off any assistance given by the Department of Defense to those film studios that allow the communist regime to alter cinematic content.

With regard to many a film and television production project, Hollywood has often requested help from the Pentagon. It has been this way for years. In each branch of the military, there is actually a liaison office that aids filmmakers with consultation, personnel, equipment, and access to military installations.

“For too long, Hollywood has been complicit in China’s censorship. The SCRIPT Act will serve as a wake-up call by forcing Hollywood studios to choose between the assistance they need from the American government and the dollars they want from China,” Sen. Cruz recently said in a statement.

The truth is Hollywood is in need of a wake-up call. China was set to surpass the U.S. box office of 2020 just before the coronavirus shutdown occurred.

Hollywood executives are well aware of the fact that the Chinese regime limits the number of foreign films that can be released annually in its country. Additionally, many Chinese companies provide considerable amounts of capital for Hollywood productions.

The Chinese regime is preoccupied with projecting a false image in order for it to continue to maintain its power. As a result it has frequently injected itself into creative aspects of American entertainment production and oftentimes altered content to fit its own agenda.

Back in 1997, Martin Scorsese’s film “Kundun” was banned, because it appeared to be sympathetic to the Dalai Lama. Scorsese and other members of the production team were literally banned by the Chinese regime from ever entering the country again.

China also took the dramatic step of banning Disney films and television shows. Disney actually apologized in 1998 for releasing “Kundun.” Eventually, though, the company was able to make a deal in 2016 to open Shanghai Disneyland.

In 2006, creators of “Mission Impossible III” were required to remove part of the film’s opening sequence in which underwear hanging on a clothesline made its “undesirable” appearance in a Tom Cruise chase scene in Shanghai.

The following year, creators of “Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End,” were evidently persuaded to edit out footage of the character Chow Yun-fat, because it offended the Chinese powers that be.

In a 2012 reboot of “Red Dawn,” the original plot featured an invasion of the United States by China. The storyline was dutifully altered to depict the invading enemy as being from North Korea. Since the initial filming had already been completed, this feat was accomplished via re-shoots and digital alteration. It would be to no avail though, because the movie still ended up in the position of being unable to obtain a China release.

The James Bond 2013 installment, “Skyfall,” was released only after scenes that included Chinese police using torture tactics and prostitution occurring in Macau were edited out.

That same year the Brad Pitt film “World War Z” was banned by the regime in Beijing, because the plot of the film had the origin of the zombie outbreak kick off in China. Interestingly, Chinese officials also had a grudge against Pitt for his audaciousness in having starred in the movie “Seven Years in Tibet.”

As a condition of the China release of “Bohemian Rhapsody,” creators of the 2018 Queen biopic had to redact any references to lead singer Freddie Mercury’s sexual identity and the cause of his passing. The Chinese censors even removed part of star Rami Malek’s Oscar acceptance speech from the streaming Academy Award ceremony.

During the same year, Disney’s “Christopher Robin” was banned by Chinese censors, because activists had noted on the internet President Xi Jinping’s resemblance to Winnie the Pooh.

In the movie trailer of the yet to be released “Top Gun: Maverick,” missing from Tom Cruise’s iconic leather jacket are the Japanese and Taiwanese flag patches, which appeared on Maverick’s original coat. The patches have been replaced by two non-descript, similarly colored symbols.

Sen. Cruz’s SCRIPT Act would be a great first step in trying to address China’s egregious pattern of modifying U.S. entertainment product.

Now if only Hollywood could lend its support to the cause embodied in the legislation — that even in the entertainment industry, artistry and its dual pursuits of truth and self-determination, still reign supreme over profit.