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.

Tom Cruise Returns to His Roots in ‘Top Gun: Maverick’

Tom Cruise is one of the biggest box-office stars of all times. And in a career that has spanned the decades he is once again wearing the crown.

Film-goers may remember Cruise for his initial breakout vehicle, the 1983 classic “Risky Business.”

Other hits would soon follow for the actor-producer; notably, the “Mission: Impossible” franchise series, which kicked off in 1996 and played out over six installments.

This is where Cruise really established his credentials as an action star. He reportedly performed many of his own stunts, a rare feat in a business that in many cases computer-generated action scenes have supplanted authentic ones.

He is presently sitting atop the box office, courtesy of his latest blockbuster “Top Gun: Maverick.” The movie is the long-awaited sequel to his 1986 hit film “Top Gun.” Its Memorial Day weekend box-office tally rang in at over $150 million, making it the biggest debut of his career.

It’s been a long road for the movie’s 2022 release. Paramount Pictures first announced the idea in 2010 and secured from the original film the indispensable services of Cruise and Val Kilmer to reprise their roles.

Tony Scott, the first “Top Gun” director, was tapped to direct the sequel. Sadly, Scott passed away and pre-production was consequently halted. Years later Joseph Kosinski was brought in to handle the direction, and work on the project resumed. In a moving tribute, “Top Gun: Maverick” is dedicated to Scott’s memory.

Release of the sequel to “Top Gun” had been scheduled for July of 2019, but it was delayed until 2020 to allow additional time for some of the more complex action sequences to be filmed.

Paramount rescheduled the release to June 2020. But due to the onset of the pandemic, a new date of December was set. Then it was bumped to July 2021, and then to November as the studio and film industry attempted to cope with the unexpected prolonging of pandemic-related restrictions.

Writers painstakingly developed the characters with deference to the stars’ younger “Top Gun” selves.

In the case of Cruise’s character, Maverick’s romantic interest is portrayed by Jennifer Connelly. Her character’s name, Penny Benjamin, was brought up in dialogue in the original movie by Maverick’s Radar Intercept Officer and best friend Nick “Goose” Bradshaw. The dialogue revealed Penny to be the “admiral’s daughter,” a family relationship that was inserted into the new sequel’s plot.

Maverick has a new assignment in the sequel, i.e., to train a group of young pilots for the Navy’s Strike Fighter Tactics Instructor program, aka “Top Gun.” The crew of young aviators includes the son of Maverick’s now-deceased best friend, Goose.

In part because the new movie is a sequel to a film released over three decades ago, it includes themes that a whole lot of people have been hungering for. It is unapologetically pro-America, pro-military, and pro-manhood.

Social media posts tell the story of spontaneous hoots and hollers from gleeful movie attendees being emitted at cineplexes around the globe.

In Taiwan specifically, according to the Central News Agency of Taiwan, audiences who were present at the premiere of the film broke into applause and cheered at the sight of their national flag being displayed onscreen in the movie.

The Taiwanese and Japanese flags had reportedly been removed from a 2019 trailer because of China’s political demands.

“It is unprecedented,” Ho Siu Bun, a film critic in Hong Kong, told VICE.com. “Major film studios have never been shy about pandering to the Chinese market. And even if it is a simple scene, editing is very costly. So no one knows why they changed it back.”

China’s Tencent Pictures had been designated as an investor and marketing partner of the film. However, the Chinese company backed out of the business arrangement.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Tencent pulled out due to concerns that Chinese leaders might be miffed over the pro-military content of the film. It is presumed that Chinese officials would not pleased with the scene restoration of the Taiwanese and Japanese flags. So far “Top Gun: Maverick” has not been given a release date in China.

Cruise’s film, and the success it has experienced so far, brings up an important cultural issue that has seemingly received very little attention, but is deserving of public discourse.

Once upon a time Americans had a common bond in the television that they watched and the movies that they viewed. Hasn’t been that way for a while now.

But there really are palpable things that serve to bind any society together as a culture. One of these things is having a common body of literature, or in modern-day terms, a common body of entertainment fare. Something that everyone is tuned into at a given time.

These media components have the capacity to serve as a kind of glue that secures people together in a life experience. It also can translate into a unifying cultural dynamic.

One other film-related note deserves commentary.

“Top Gun: Maverick” is one of the first slices of entertainment media in quite a while that is not just entertaining. It is a nod to visceral manhood, which over time has been relegated to the cutting room floor.

WHO’s In Charge?

The World Health Organization (WHO) recently requested that governments from around the globe send in their input on what should be included in a new international agreement, which is currently being drafted.

The new document is being referred to as “the pandemic treaty.” By obtaining political commitments from potential signer-nations, the WHO is evidently seeking to bolster support for the latest addition to an already sizable body of existing global law.

Concerns are being raised by organizations and informed citizens about the sovereignty of established nations, as well as the public health care systems located within their purviews.

In a simultaneous unfolding of events, another international agreement is undergoing a substantial revision. It’s called the International Health Regulations (IHR), and it has been around for more than five decades. However, the United States didn’t sign on to it until 2005.

The purported role of the IHR is to provide public health guidance to the governments of nations throughout the world.

This past January the Biden administration submitted new amendments to the IHR, which will likely be subsumed within the proposed pandemic treaty. This would result in a global governance apparatus that would be tailor-made for the WHO.

Back in December 2021something called an “intergovernmental negotiating body” was established, the purpose of which was to draft and negotiate the pandemic treaty that is currently being designed.

The WHO’s primary funder is Bill Gates. Gates is reportedly forming a pandemic response team made up of thousands of disease experts who would work with the WHO.

The United States had withdrawn from the WHO under the Trump administration, due to the organization’s failed leadership and loss of trust in parts of the world, especially with regard to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the Biden administration rejoined the WHO and is now looking to strengthen the organization’s ability to direct health-related decisions internationally.

Despite the fact that the final text of the treaty has not yet been completed, documents from groups that are working on the international agreement indicate a significant expansion of the term “pandemic.” The WHO had already transformed the word’s definition to an “epidemic of a disease” that affects the world population, without requirements of high morbidity.

The treaty’s drafters are seeking to broaden the categorization of what would constitute a “pandemic.” If they succeed, it would allow the WHO to classify just about any potential malady as a “pandemic,” in effect granting the organization the power to direct the administration of health care responses worldwide.

Proposed amendments from the United States to the IHR would allow the director-general of the WHO to declare a public health emergency of international concern, without having to obtain agreement from the government of an affected country.

Former WHO legal consultant Silvia Behrendt, along with University College Dublin law lecturer Amrei Müller, criticized the Biden administration’s proposals.

“The proposed US amendments to Article 12 IHR will both considerably extend the executive powers of the WHO Director-General to declare global emergency-like situations and centralize this power further by removing the need to consult and find agreement with the respective state party,” the authors wrote.

The World Health Assembly (WHA) is meeting to vote on the IHR amendments, with the apparent hopes of making them an established part of international law.

The authors of the above referenced article call upon the members of the WHA to carefully consider the implications of the U.S.’s proposed amendments before endorsing and adopting them.

The following rhetorical question was posed by Behrendt and Müller:

“Have technocratic, biomedical approaches, developed and implemented from the top down primarily through executive action, worked well in response to Covid-19, justifying a further extension and centralization of global emergency powers at WHO?”

The authors also asked whether mechanisms need to be set up to ensure that the WHO complies with its “responsibilities for human rights that derive from international human rights law.”

The ultimate goal of the WHO and WHA appears to be a desire to make the proposed pandemic treaty enforceable in the United States and throughout the entire planet.

The Treaty Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2, spells out the process by which a treaty becomes domestic law. The primary negotiator of agreements between the United States and other nations is the president. The agreements become binding federal laws after they have been ratified by a two-thirds vote in the U.S. Senate.

Additionally, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Paragraph 2, grants to ratified treaties the status of being the equivalent of duly passed statutes, i.e., the “supreme law of the land.”

The most compelling issue for the American people right now can be summed up in two questions:

Do you want an alphabet of international agencies controlling your personal health care destiny? Or do you want to control your own?

Better look both ways before crossing this street.

Dog the Bounty Hunter’s Supernatural Assist

Most folks know Duane Chapman by his stage name, Dog the Bounty Hunter. He worked as a professional bounty hunter in the past, and he’s still at it.

Duane was ultimately able to parlay his work experience into TV stardom through a realty show based on his unique creds.

He became an international news item in 2003, when he apprehended Max Factor heir Andrew Luster. The keen interest and revved up publicity in the Luster story paved the way for his first reality series “Dog the Bounty Hunter,” which ran for eight years on the A&E network.

After the show completed its run, Duane jumped into another reality show, along with his wife Alice Elizabeth, best known as “Beth.” The show, “Dog and Beth: On the Hunt,” was part of the CMT lineup. Another series, “Dog’s Most Wanted,” aired on WGN America.

In a sad turn of events, Beth lost her battle with throat cancer in 2019. Her health struggles were chronicled in an A&E series titled “Dog and Beth: Fight of Their Lives.”

Most recently, Duane appeared, via a vocal performance, on the hit television show “The Masked Singer.” Dressed in gold armadillo attire, he presented The Clash’s “I Fought The Law.”

Although voted off the show, he didn’t skip a beat. He immediately moved on to his next task, which involved a manhunt over a reported double murder in Moab, Utah.

Duane knows exactly what it’s like to be on the opposite side of the law. At age 15, he ran away from home and joined a biker gang. It was back in the 1970s, when he was manning a getaway car, that his friend shot and killed a man during a struggle that involved an illegal marijuana buy.

Convicted of first degree murder, Duane was sentenced to five years in a Texas prison and wound up serving 18 months at the State Penitentiary. Through it all, the future bounty hunter was guided to a deeper relationship with God.

In a recent appearance on “The Prodigal Stories Podcast,” he revealed some of the details of his faith journey. Duane’s mother was an Assemblies of God minister who believed in the power of prayer.

“She was a pastor. My mother … all day long, her whole life, all she did was pray for us,” he said.

Going to church was a routine part of his early life.

“We had to go to church,” he shared.

If he didn’t, his mom would take away the keys to his wheels.

Like many who are raised in a faith-filled home, at one point he fell away from his faith. It happened during his youthful tumultuous years.

Rationalizing, he thought, “[God is] not going to care really what I do as long as I say the blessing and keep God kind of first.”

Soon he discovered that trying to fool yourself about your relationship with your Maker can lead you down a very dark path. In Duane’s case, it was a crime-ridden one.

“After going to prison in the ‘70s in Texas for 18 months, I realized right then that, at the end of this rainbow of crime and all that, is not a bucket of gold, it’s a cell,” he said.

Despite his criminal conviction and prison sentence, Duane’s mother never gave up on improving her son’s spiritual standing. After serving his time and being released from jail, his mom found a way to minister to him during his sleeping hours.

“As I slept, my mom put on a recording of the Bible, and every morning, when I woke up, I’m like, ‘Mom, why did you?’ She’s like, ‘I don’t know who turned that on,’” Duane said.

As time passed, his mother’s efforts and prayers began to produce miraculous results.

“I started acting nice,” he said, understanding that it would be difficult to sustain.

“I’m an Indian outlaw, so I started acting like I wasn’t [nice]. Then I started thinking, ‘What would Jesus do right now?’”

Duane found out that virtue can actually become a habit.

“I started pretending to be good and, all the sudden, I started being good.”

During his long and successful career as a bounty hunter, he has captured thousands of fugitives. The hardships that he suffered enable him to help others in a way that very few can – a vessel of saving grace delivered to a fellow wayward traveler.

“I would capture guys and tell them, ‘Listen, man, I’ve been there, done that … we need supernatural help,’” he said.

The Prodigal Son who shows others how to get back home.

The Targeting of Supreme Court Justices

The United States Supreme Court has just suffered an unprecedented attack on its fundamental integrity. A draft opinion, penned by Justice Samuel Alito and relating to the Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health case, has been made public.

An investigation is currently underway to try and determine the individual or individuals who are responsible for the leaking of the document, which was intended to be held in confidentiality, as it historically has always been, until an official ruling has been reached.

What has taken place is so egregious that words seem to be an inadequate means of conveying the gravity involved. The breach of the High Court’s deliberations is unparalleled. So, too, will likely be the ramifications of the leak as well as the aftermath of violent protests that are being fomented.

The High Court’s ultimate ruling in the case, which is still presently unknown, is expected to be finalized shortly and will likely be released at the end of the Court’s term.

The past few days have seen even more vitriolic speech and vile behavior piled on top of the dung heap. A group called Ruth Sent Us published six Supreme Court justices’ home addresses, accompanied by a map that outlined the locations of personal residences.

The group scheduled protests in the form of a “walk-by” outside homes of Justices Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Chief Justice John Roberts. Protestors have already staged demonstrations in front of the homes of Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh.

Ruth Sent Us is named for the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who actually took the position that Roe vs. Wade was ill-reasoned law.

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki initially failed to condemn the targeting of Supreme Court justices and their families and homes. When asked specifically for the White House’s reaction to the release of justices’ addresses for the purposes of supposed protest events, Psaki failed to denounce the tactic and went as far as making statements to minimize the ploy.

When the press secretary finally made reference to the Oval Office, she said, “I think the president’s view is there’s a lot of passion, a lot of fear, a lot of sadness from many, many people across the country about what they saw in that document.”

The fact of the matter is interference with the administration of justice in the manner in which it has recently been occurring is illegal.

Federal statute 18 U.S.C. 1507 states that whoever has the intent of “interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice,” or “influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer” and “pickets or parades…in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer,” may be fined and/or may receive a prison sentence of up to one year.

Pro-abortion protests have already gotten violent. Protestors in front of the federal courthouse in Los Angeles, California recently clashed with the police, and at least one officer was injured.

A fire at a pro-life organization’s office in Madison, Wisconsin, is being investigated as an arson case. Found inside the building was an un-ignited Molotov cocktail.

For people of the Roman Catholic Christian faith, things have become more deeply disturbing. Ruth Sent Us has called for the desecration of the most sacred doctrine and personhood of the Catholic Church itself – the physical presence of Jesus Christ in the form of the transubstantiated Eucharist.

Over the weekend protestors descended upon the iconic Basilica of St. Patrick’s Old Cathedral in New York City. As reported by Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review, pro-abortion activists proceeded to block the front doors of the church, where Catholic believers had gathered together to celebrate Mass.

As they have for the past fourteen years, some of the attendees at the conclusion of the Mass make their way toward a Planned Parenthood clinic, where they engage in a separate sacred practice involving prayers recited with the use of Rosary sacramentals. On this day, however, police officers advised against the visit to the clinic for their own safety and protection. Despite the warning, a number of the devoted pro-lifers managed to keep the vigil.

Parishioners at Boulder, Colorado’s Sacred Heart of Mary Church arrived at morning Mass only to find that the church windows had been smashed, and the front entry doors had been spray-painted with the words “MY BODY, MY CHOICE.”

Ruth Sent Us states on its website that it is targeting “six extremist Catholics” who voted against Roe vs. Wade.

The organization spurred on disruptions of Catholic Church services with a posting of a video that depicts its own group members interfering with a Catholic Mass, while dressed in costumes worn on a fictional streaming series.

What the group is calling for is, in fact, criminal behavior.

Federal law, 18 U.S. Code § 247 states that anyone who “intentionally obstructs, by force or threat of force…any person in the enjoyment of that person’s free exercise of religious beliefs” at a place devoted to religious worship, has committed a federal crime.

CatholicVote, a Catholic advocacy group, issued a statement demanding that elected Catholic leaders publicly condemn the group’s supposed protest methods and has asked Attorney General Merrick Garland to enforce the law and protect churches from threats.

Brian Burch, president of CatholicVote, called the group’s plans “religious bigotry of the worst kind.”

In what many are saying is too little, too late, following the past turbulent weekend Psaki released a statement via Twitter that read as follows:

“@POTUS strongly believes in the Constitutional right to protest. But that should never include violence, threats, or vandalism. Judges perform an incredibly important function in our society, and they must be able to do their jobs without concern for their personal safety.”

The administration has yet to explicitly and directly address the attempts to influence the deliberative process, the doxxing of Supreme Court Justices, the targeting of houses of worship, the interference with the free exercise of religion, and the efforts to intimidate those with opposing viewpoints through the use of fear tactics.

All are an egregious affront to the Constitution.

And one more affirmation that liberty itself is in freefall.

Microchip Implants in Human Hands Already Underway in Europe

British-Polish company Walletmor has come up with a microchip that is designed for implantation into the hands of human beings.

When purchasing goods or services, microchipped hands are able to be used by individuals in the same manner in which many people are currently using their credit and debit cards. A simple tap of the hand is all that is needed to tabulate and complete a transaction.

The subcutaneous implantable payment chip is inserted under the skin via an incision. This method of buying is presently being employed by participants in Europe to meet their everyday shopping needs.

This whole concept deserves some major moments of pause and a ramped up level of societal and spiritual consideration.

The above description denotes the first instances in human history that implanted microchips have been employed for average everyday consumer purchases.

Scary stuff for a whole lot of reasons.

“This is a revolution for the cashless and contactless payments market. Until now, the race for cardless payments has been theoretical,” Walletmor stated in a press release.

The company also indicated that so far at least 200 people have been chipped, but many more are receptive to the idea. A 2021 survey of more than 4,000 people across the UK and the European Union found that 51 percent would consider it.

Sweden was one of the earliest adopters of this type of technology. Thousands of Swedes already have their medical records stored on implanted microchips. However, this application does not involve the buying of goods and/or services.

Currently, the implant-in-hand procedure is only being offered to residents of a European Union country, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. But the practice is no doubt poised to make its way around the globe.

Legitimate concerns about privacy, individual rights, and identity theft have been dismissed by much of the corporate media and by many of the so-called fact-checkers as being overblown or unfounded.

Up until now people of faith, and Christians in particular, have been the ones who were most concerned about the concept of modifying the human body for the purposes of convenience and/or heightened security.

Bible adherents who are Christian believe that The Word of God contains prophecies within the Books of Revelation and Daniel, which provide a description of a future time in which a single global government will assert control over a world economy.

Not all Bible believers view prophecy in a literal sense, but a sizable number do. Such individuals give greater weight to the Scripture passage in which a malevolent world leader forces “…all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads.”

The Bible passage goes on to state that the people oppressed by this evil leader would be unable to “… buy or sell unless they had the mark…”

The demand that one’s hand or forehead be marked, in order to purchase or otherwise engage in trade, is commonly referred to by Scripture scholars and Bible adherents alike as the “Mark of the Beast.”

In order to conform to Biblical predictions, the above described hand implant technology would have to be implemented through coercion.

This is not nearly as far-fetched as it used to seem; that power hungry elites would actually mandate the microchipping of the population at large.

The notion of our economy being transformed into a cashless society, where governing authorities have the power to turn microchips on and off at will, is a nightmare scenario. Freedom itself would be snuffed out.

With many countries working on a central bank digital currency system, the implanted chip technology could be programmable so that individuals would only be able to buy and sell in accordance with algorithms set by the issuers of the digital currency.

Implanted devices would likely contain everything that is trackable, including health data, social media information, an individual’s search data, previous purchase patterns, etc.

Put this together with the fact that these technological developments are occurring at the same time that multilateral organizations are seeking to construct a global vaccine passport system.

The government’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has already worked with a private company to develop an implantable biosensor to be injected under the skin to track biochemical reactions inside your body.

“These sensors make it possible to detect, in ‘real time’ and over long periods of time, changes in the body’s chemistry,” Jared Adams, DARPA chief of communications said.

The ability to track such personal medical information is likely to obliterate all health-related privacy, as well as what’s left of the longstanding medical code of ethics that has safeguarded the life and health of the individual.

When you think about it, if all of your personal data were to be stored in your hand, it would be way too easy for that information to be misused and abused.

Bottom line: If you allow yourself to be chipped, you may find that you have handed over your life to the powers that be. And possibly even your soul.

SNL Goes on the Attack against Elon Musk

“Saturday Night Live” isn’t what it used to be.

During the early years of the program’s run, SNL’s writers had a track record of presenting fresh and original comedic content with one of a kind characters and hilarious sketches.

Back in the day, the fundamental goal of the show was to make people laugh. But that was a time when TV’s content creators weren’t beholden to left-leaning media heads and myriad PC bosses.

Unfortunately, much like the news scripters at MSNBC, SNL’s comedy writers have become apparatchiks of leftist media autocrats.

The recent treatment of Elon Musk is a prime case in point.

Many view Elon as a modern-day Edison. He’s an entrepreneur extraordinaire and highly successful business magnate to boot.

His recent treatment by SNL is serving to underscore the fact that decision makers of the show have been bowing lower and lower to a media monarchy that in turn has been bowing to a shadow ruling class.

Less than one year ago, Elon took on the daunting challenge of being host for an SNL episode. He now finds himself in the show’s comedic crosshairs.

Why? He had the nerve to suggest that changes needed to be made to the Twitter business model.

After being offered a seat on the social media company’s board of directors, Elon turned down the company’s invite. He then made a premium price offer to purchase the entire company.

He was blunt in his own choice of words about Twitter’s approach to online posts. In an SEC filing, Elon wrote, “I invested in Twitter as I believe in its potential to be the platform for free speech around the globe, and I believe free speech is a societal imperative for a functioning democracy. However, since making my investment I now realize the company will neither thrive nor serve this societal imperative in its current form. Twitter needs to be transformed as a private company.”

The Tesla CEO offered to purchase the social media company for approximately $43 billion in cash. This scared the wits out of those who are in favor of the present status quo; i.e., the censorship of selective speech.

With an estimated net worth of around $273 billion, Elon right now is the richest man in the world. Despite the highly attractive offer that he made, Twitter’s board of directors summarily rejected it and went on to adopt a strategy known as a “poison pill,” which modifies corporate governance documents to prevent takeover bids.

His desire to promote open discourse also prompted a panic-filled response from mainstream media and social media figures alike. Things got so bad that many of the elites actually began boldly declaring their opposition to free speech itself.

Washington Post columnist Max Boot opined in a tweet, “For democracy to survive, we need more content moderation, not less.”

MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski stated that the Musk acquisition of Twitter could set a “very dangerous precedent.”

Reactions from the far-left inspired Eli Lake to craft the following tongue-in-cheek tweet: “For most of my life I thought free speech was really good. But now that Elon Musk is trying to buy Twitter, I realize free speech is actually what Nazis like. The founding fathers started the revolution because King George wasn’t moderating enough content.”

SNL entered the whole fray by slamming Elon during the recent show’s cold open and its “Weekend Update” segment.

Mikey Day portrayed Musk during the opening.

“… I’m here to officially buy Easter. I’m offering 43 billion Peeps. That was a joke. Do you get it? That’s why afterwards I said ‘That was a joke,’ so you know it was a joke,” the Elon impersonator lamely quipped.

Day’s Musk character then asked if people were afraid he would “make Twitter bad,” adding, “What are you scared I’ll buy next? The Oscars?”

The writers then pulled out the big guns and went racial.

“Weekend Update” co-hosts Colin Jost and Michael Che did a spoof news sketch where they were discussing Elon’s offer. Che set up his punch line with a factual statement.

“Elon Musk offered to buy Twitter for over $40 billion so he can loosen its free speech rules,” Che said. Then he cracked, “That’s how badly white guys want to use the ‘N-word.’”

It deserves a second mention, not clever and not funny.

Jost followed up with a hack joke invoking the name of America’s Mayor.

“Honestly, I don’t understand why Elon even wants to own Twitter,” Jost said. “It used to be something that seemed important and even fun and now you look at it and it’s confusing and depressing. It’s the Giuliani of apps.”

It looks like Elon has just accomplished another amazing feat. He pulled the masks off the jokers.