The NBA was hoping for a Finals to remember, as league executives foresaw a supposedly sports-starved population turning to the Association for desperately needed entertainment relief.
Instead, it has been a Finals the NBA would love to forget.
Friday night’s Game 5 drew 5.7 million viewers, according to TVLine. While that very low number is actually very good compared to the viewership numbers earned by the first three games in the series, it represent a nearly 70 percent decline from the 18.22 million viewers who tuned-in for Game 5 of the 2019 NBA Finals when the Golden State Warriors took on the Toronto Raptors.
That’s right, Game 5 of the 2020 Finals (which includes LeBron James and the Los Angeles Lakers) drew over 12.5 million fewer viewers than a game which included a team from Canada.
Game 1 of the Finals brought with it the lowest viewership since 1994, and Game 2 was the lowest ever on record. Though, that was before Game 3 beat out Game 2 by becoming the least watched Finals game in NBA history, by peaking with a paltry 4.395 million viewers.
This horrific collapse should not be surprising after polls have found that many fans now believe that basketball is far too political.
A Sept. 2 Harris poll found that 39 percent of respondent who identified as sports fans felt that the league was too political. And another 19 percent said that they had turned off pro basketball because of the NBA’s deep links to China.
The 2020 post-COVID season launched with the heavy-handed presence of the anti-American Black Lives Matter agenda.
Recently, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver said that next year the NBA will likely not feature the on-court social justice displays that have become commonplace this season. The commissioner also says he understands that fans just want to see a basketball game, and not by subjected to social justice messaging.
A video appears to show a teenage Trump supporter being assaulted and spit on at school because of his political beliefs.
A boy wearing an American flag-themed shirt had his "Make America Great Again" hat stolen by a female classmate. The girl refused to give back the boy’s MAGA hat.
"Look how f****** stupid you look," the girl tells the boy, and then spits on him. "You f****** look like a clown!" She then points to the MAGA hat.
The boy attempts to take back his property. "Give me my f****** hat," the boy demands. A struggle ensues, and while the boy is grappling to retrieve his hat, a second female student winds up and smacks the boy in the face.
"It’s my hat…it’s my hat," the boy states.
The girl who stole the hat threatens, "Boy, I’m gonna knock you in your f****** mouth, let go of this f****** hat right f****** now! You wanna support Trump, I’m gonna knock you in the f****** teeth! I’ma knock you in the f****** teeth."
The girl then spits at the boy. She then turns to the camera, and then spits on the boy again.
"How you like that? You my little b****, huh? You my little b****," she says. "You my little b****, huh? Yeah, cuz it looks like it. My spit is on your face."
The camera zooms in on the boy and his face is covered in spit.
The girl dares the boy to hit her, but he is above the violence. "I was f****** raised right, I don’t f****** hit a little girl."
Does anyone know where or when this was?A young student was bullied, spit on, and had his hat stolen by some litt… https://t.co/xeWVwddz4N
WHO Flip-Flops: Urges World Leaders To Stop Using Lockdowns To Fight COVID Contagion Tyler Durden
Sun, 10/11/2020 – 12:00
In a stunning rebuke of the "science" and the "doctors" and leftist politicians and career bureaucrats in the US and across much of The West, The Epoch Times’ Evan Pentchoukov reports that The World Health Organization’s special envoy on COVID-19 has urged world leaders to stop using lockdowns as the primary control method against the spread of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) virus, commonly known as the novel coronavirus.
“We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus,” David Nabarro told The Spectator in an interview aired on Oct. 8.
“The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganize, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted, but by and large, we’d rather not do it.”
[ZH: How long before this video is removed by Twitter?]
Nabarro pointed to the collateral damage that lockdowns are having worldwide, especially among poorer populations.
“Just look at what’s happened to the tourism industry, for example in the Caribbean or in the Pacific, because people aren’t taking their holidays. Look what’s happened to smallholder farmers all over the world because their markets have got dented. Look what’s happening to poverty levels. It seems that we may well have a doubling of world poverty by next year. Seems that we may well have at least a doubling of child malnutrition because children are not getting meals at school and their parents, in poor families, are not able to afford it,” Nabarro said.
“This is a terrible, ghastly global catastrophe actually,” he added. “And so we really do appeal to all world leaders: Stop using lockdown as your primary control method, develop better systems for doing it, work together and learn from each other, but remember – lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer."
Nabarro isn’t the only scientist opposing lockdowns.
A number of medical or public health scientists and medical practitioners have signed the Great Barrington Declaration, which states that “current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health.”
The signatories include: “Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University and a biostatistician, and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring of infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations, Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases, and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations.”
“The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk,” the declaration states.
With few exceptions, world leaders followed in the footsteps of the Chinese communist regime when responding to the outbreak of the virus, imposing unprecedented lockdowns. Sweden, which did not impose a lockdown, did not experience an adverse outcome compared to some locales and nations that did.
In the United States, President Donald Trump delegated the decisions on lockdown measures to the governors of individual states, but has pushed for the economy to be reopened, and lockdowns lifted.
We have to understand that the political classes and their media have a vested interest in the lockdown status quo, and that includes regular provision of what only can be called disinformation. The mainstream media this past summer dutifully reported a highly questionable (I use that term charitably) report that the Sturgis Bike Rally in South Dakota led to more than a quarter million covid infections and more than $12 billion of medical costs. It should have been obvious on its face that the report was deeply flawed, yet in their desire to fuel the covid-is-killing-us narrative, journalists took this too-good-to-be-true story and ran with it.
As for politicians, the covid crisis has been a godsend for those governmental executives and bureaucrats who see constitutional restrictions that limit their authority as mere obstacles to be easily swept away. Governors such as Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, Andrew Cuomo of New York, Gavin Newsom of California, and Tom Wolfe of Pennsylvania have received adoring coverage in the media for seizing and employing dictatorial powers, Whitmer even unilaterally deciding that the sale of garden seeds in stores was illegal. Cuomo’s decision to force the housing of covid-19 patients in nursing homes led to the deaths of thousands of people, yet his national media coverage is uniformly positive.
Contrast the affirmative news coverage of Cuomo with the barrage of media attacks on Governor Kristi Noem of South Dakota. Noem has emphasized personal responsibility and did not attempt mass closures of schools and businesses in the state, and the mainstream media erupted with fury. That South Dakota has come through this pandemic relatively well does not matter with the media, as the only acceptable action (to mainstream and elite journalists) in response to covid is for governors to single-handedly seize power and lock down their citizens.
Keep in mind that the real losses that Americans suffered because of the heavy-handed governmental response to the covid outbreak are permanent. As Robert Higgs so eloquently pointed out in Crisis and Leviathan, governments often create crises or, at the very least, they manipulate events such as natural disasters and use them as opportunities to expand governmental powers. Even after the crises end, governments keep some of their newly self-granted powers—and most people raise little or no concern even when government has curtailed more of their freedoms.
We wonder how long it will be before WHO also urges the end of mask-wearing?
In the end, as Anderson concluded, the only way that the political classes can “make us safe” is for us to do what is necessary to make ourselves safe, or as relatively safe as possible. When a virus is afoot—as is the case most of the time—we do what we can to avoid it and do what we can to treat it. In other words, we appeal to real medical science, not what the political and media classes have cooked up for us.
The far-left Washington Post buried the news one of the alleged plotters in the scheme to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI) is a Black Lives Matter supporter.
You have to trudge through more than a dozen paragraphs to find this:
One of alleged plotters, 23-year-old Daniel Harris, attended a Black Lives Matter protest in June, telling the Oakland County Times he was upset about the killing of George Floyd and police violence.
But-but-but I was told by the media, Joe Biden, and Whitmer all the plotters are right-wing, racist, militia men inspired by Donald Trump!!!
Well, like everything else the national media and Democrats tell us, that was just one more big, fat fucking lie.
So among the alleged plotters, we can add Daniel Harris (pictured) to the list of those who do not fit the fake news media’s fake narrative about the whys and wherefores behind this appalling plot.
Wait, there’s more…
Also on that list of accused plotters is Brandon Caserta, who you can watch rail against Trump here. Please note Caserta’s anarchist flag and phrases like Trump “is a tyrant!”
Wait, there’s more…
And then there’s accused plotter Pete Musico, who you can watch speak out in favor of racial harmony as he attacks the police here.
Wait, there’s a whole lot more…
Another fairly important piece of information, this time about all of the alleged plotters, is wrist-flicked by fake news artists at the Washington Post: [emphasis added]
As their anger mounted, they trained together with firearms and experimented with explosives, discussing plans to storm the state capitol building and attack police officers in their homes, authorities said.
“Attack police officers in their homes?”
ATTACK POLICE OFFICERS IN THEIR HOMES!?
Does that sound to you anything like a militant group of MAGAMEN taking subliminal orders from Trump’s secret dog whistle?
Who does that sound like?
Close your eyes and picture the words “attack police officers in their homes” and what do you see? You know what you see… You see the left-wing terrorists in Antifa and Black Lives Matter… It’s all two sides of the same coin.
Finally, let me say this…
One of the most dishonest conceits the media hang their hat on to pretend this alleged plot to kidnap Whitmer was some sort of dastardly MAGA plot is that some of the alleged plotters are in favor of less government.
Uhm…
Well…
Guess who’s in favor of less government…?
I mean, a lot less government…?
As in no government at all…?
Anarchists!
That’s right, left-wing anarchists want zero government, which is why the left-wing anarchists in Portland and elsewhere are attacking police and government facilities.
Overall, 13 people have been charged in some capacity with this plot, and we now know — according to the actual charging documents — that they stand accused of wanting to attack police officers in their homes, which is anathema to everything Donald Trump has stood for throughout his presidency and stands for now as the left wreak havoc across the country with the blessing of the national media and Democrats.
And we all know who is in favor of attacking the police, who is inspiring all of this hatred and violence against the police — Democrat politicians like Whitmer and Biden, and media outlets like the Washington Post.
So when the media and Biden and Whitmer tell you Trump inspired this, that’s a lie.
But you already knew that.
Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. Follow his Facebook Page here.
The DOJ filed a lawsuit against Yale University on Thursday over charges that the university’s admissions office unlawfully discriminates against Asian and white applicants. Yale receives about $600 million in federal funding each year and holds an endowment of $30 billion.
According to a press release, the DOJ has filed a lawsuit against Yale University for allegedly discriminatory practices by the university’s admissions office. The lawsuit claims that the university discriminates against both Asian and white applicants during the admissions process. In fact, the department believes that race is the “determinative factor” in hundreds of admission decisions each year.
In a statement, Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband said that the Justice Department is working diligently to end illegal race discrimination by America’s colleges and universities. Dreiband said that he wants American students to know that they will be judged by colleges and universities based on their merit.
Illegal race discrimination by colleges and universities must end. This nation’s highest ideals include the notion that we are all equal under the law. For centuries, people from all over the world have learned of this ideal, left their ancestral homes, and come to the United States hoping that this country would live up to its ideals and that they and their families could enjoy equal opportunity and pursue the American dream. Countless Americans have pursued their dreams through higher education, and they continue to do so. All persons who apply for admission to colleges and universities should expect and know that they will be judged by their character, talents, and achievements and not the color of their skin. To do otherwise is to permit our institutions to foster stereotypes, bitterness, and division.”
The Justice Department believes that the university has violated Title VI by discriminating against students on this basis of their race. “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, … be subjected to discrimination under any program … receiving Federal financial assistance,” the relevant section of Title VI reads.
The press release points out that Yale University receives approximately $600 million each year in federal funding. The university’s endowment currently sits at over $30 billion.
Breitbart News reported in August that the Department of Justice had begun an investigation into discriminatory practices at Yale. The investigation followed a lawsuit filed against Harvard University over allegations that they, too, discriminated against Asian-American applicants during the admissions process.
Stay tuned to Breitbart News for more updates on this story.
The first Presidential debate and the Vice Presidential debates avoided any mention of the hot-button, trillion-dollar immigration issue that got Donald Trump elected in 2016.
“I’m consistently surprised about the lack of focus on immigration in these debates given Trump’s pitch in 2016,” tweeted Ali Vitali, an NBC reporter.
“Me too!” responded Julia Ainsley, who covers migrants’ issues for NBC. “Would have liked to hear more on Biden’s border plans and Pence’s response to recent reporting on family separation. Trump/Pence should be asked if they would ever separate migrant families again.”
“Agreed!” responded Michael Shear, a White House reporter for the New York Times, who sometimeswrites about immigration issues.
The issue is not getting time in the debates because “the question isn’t being asked,” said Kevin Lynn, founder of U.S. Tech Workers. “The questions are being created without input from either of the parties, so it’s really the media and the entities that are putting on the debate that are not talking about immigration.”
“They really should have brought it up because [Trump’s] immigration policy is impacting wages in a positive way,” he added.
“It’s the 2000-lb elephant in the room that’s been egregiously omitted even though this is what got Trump elected,” said an experienced and unemployed network engineer from the Midwest. He continued:
I’m not holding my breath … The moderators get to pick the questions all by themselves, and they’re clearly going to show bias. They’re totally pretending like its not an issue — even with this horrible labor market when there’s still so many foreign workers here.
“I have long past hit the point of accepting that a presidential debate is not going to have the candidates discuss immigration,” tweeted Dara Lind, a former Vox.com writer who is now working at ProPublica.org. She continued:
Or if it does, it will ask a question in such a broad way that it can be answered with the candidate’s single canned talking point on immigration.
This was true in 2016, when Trump was running on immigration far more than he is now.
…
I’m sick of specifics being asked on other policy issues, and immigration being treated as a culture war issue instead of a policy one.
The Vice Presidential debate moderator was Susan Page, the Washington bureau chief for USA Today, which has a pro-migration, pro-business skew.
Page asked about climate change, the coronavirus crash, abortion, President Donald Trump’s willingness to leave office after a defeat, and other questions from an establishment, corporatist perspective. But she did not ask about the public’s preference that employers hire Americans before importing migrants, or the impact of immigration on wages, or the Democrats’ promise to import more immigrants, visa-workers, and refugees, or the GOP’s preference for skilled workers over unskilled migration.
Trump’s campaign is not pressuring the issue in 2020 as it did in 2016, said Jessica Vaughan, policy director at the Center for Immigration Studies. Trump’s “campaign staff seemed to fear offending people,” she said, adding:
But they’re separate from the actual immigration agency officials who understand the issue and how it resonates with Americans. There’s some disconnect there between those in the Trump administration who understand how important this issue is to Americans — and who want to see Trump carry on what he has started with respect to controlling immigration — [versus] the campaign staffers whose goal seems to be to avoid offending anyone, and by doing so, squandering an opportunity to attract support for the president.
“Trump has a lot to talk about, and it’s good,” said Lynn. “When you look at what he did with the Tennessee Valley Authority [workers], and when you look at the H-1B rules that were launched this week … that are going to save America jobs and that are going to save job opportunities for Americans,” he said.
“This is why I believe there’s no mention of it — Immigration is what Trump won on in 2016,” he said, adding:
The Democratic party– the party of labor — is scared to talk about immigration because with so many Americans, either furloughed, unemployed, or underemployed, they know how the public would react to the [Democrats’] concept of open borders. And as our country faces an economic crisis like we have now, and people are not optimistic about the future, they naturally will become more insular when it comes to immigration. So that’s why the Democrats don’t want it mentioned.
Recently released court documents reveal that Google is sharing data on search keywords with police departments. According to the documents, police departments are able to obtain data from Google on every individual who has searched for a specific keyword. If the allegations are true, police departments are using IP addresses provided by Google to connect users to specific crimes. However, privacy experts believe the practice violates the Fourth Amendment.
According to a report by CNET, Google is sharing data on search keywords with police departments around the country. Recently published court documents suggest that Google is handing over the identity of all users that have searched a specific keyword that may be relevant to a police investigation.
The report claims that police in Florida used Google’s keyword search data to link Michael Williams to the burning of a vehicle. Investigators asked Google to provide them with a list of every user that had searched for the victim’s address around the time of the arson.
Privacy experts are concerned that recent trends suggest that police departments can obtain evidence without a proper warrant. Instead of asking Google for data on a specific user, police departments may be able to obtain the IP addresses of the hundreds of users that have searched for a specific keyword.
Albert Fox Cahn, the executive director of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, argues that Google’s practice of sharing data with the police could be unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.
“When a court authorizes a data dump of every person who searched for a specific term or address, it’s likely unconstitutional,” Cahn said.
In a statement, a Google spokesperson said that “keyword warrants” make up less than one percent of the total warrants issued by the courts for Google data.
“We require a warrant and push to narrow the scope of these particular demands when overly broad, including by objecting in court when appropriate,” the spokesperson said. “These data demands represent less than 1% of total warrants and a small fraction of the overall legal demands for user data that we currently receive.”
Stay tuned to Breitbart News for more updates on this story.
President Trump speculated House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s bill that seeks authorization for Congress to determine whether a president is fit for office is all about Joe Biden.
