NBA Ratings Are Down This Year And The Association Can’t Figure Out Why. Here’s A Theory.

Ratings for NBA games are down across the three major networks that show the games – ESPN, TNT, and NBA TV, and the National Basketball Association isn’t totally sure why. Here’s a theory: China.

Variety reported that viewership for basketball is “down 15% year-to-year overall, according to Nielsen figures.”

TNT’s coverage is averaging 1.3 million viewers through 14 telecasts, down 21% versus last year’s comparable coverage, while on ESPN the picture isn’t much prettier. The Disney-owned network is down 19%, averaging 1.5 million viewers versus just under 1.9 million viewers at the same stage last year,” the outlet added.

As to why viewership is down, the outlet reported what “sources at all three organizations” told them: It’s because of the injuries.

“So far this season, 63% of games on ESPN and TNT (or 22 games out of 35) were missing one or more stars missing due to injury. Eleven of the 14 games broadcast on TNT have had one or more stars missing due to injury, and 11 of the 21 ESPN games have had the same problem, per the league,” the outlet reported.

Nowhere in its article does Variety mention another possibility; that people are sick of getting a dose of politics with their sports and may have been turned off this season by the NBA’s kowtowing to China.

In early October, just weeks before the 2019-2020 NBA season began, Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey tweeted support for Hong Kong protesters. He was swiftly rebuked by the Association and deleted the tweet with an apology. The Chinese government and the Chinese Basketball Association threatened to cut ties with the Rockets, which would have been a huge monetary loss for the team and the NBA. Fears that China would pull funding and support for the NBA led the Association’s chief communications officer Mike Bass to release a statement on the issue:

We recognize that the views expressed by Houston Rockets General Manager Daryl Morey have deeply offended many of our friends and fans in China, which is regrettable. While Daryl has made it clear that his tweet does not represent the Rockets or the NBA, the values of the league support individuals’ educating themselves and sharing their views on matters important to them. We have great respect for the history and culture of China and hope that sports and the NBA can be used as a unifying force to bridge cultural divides and bring people together.

Soon after, while NBA stars were in China to drum up support, the Association grabbed the microphone from a CNN reporter who was asking about Chinese censorship of the league.

The NBA then banned media access to its players while they were in China because it put them in a “complicated” and “unfair” position.

Basketball megastar LeBron James received more criticism for other players because, though he regularly espouses liberal political positions, he declined to talk about the China-censorship issue and instead tried to claim he and his teammates were the real victims in the scandal.

There are probably many reasons why NBA viewership is down. Injuries are probably part of that, so is the ability for viewers to watch the games in ways other than the three networks mentioned above. But just as ESPN and the NFL had to grapple with politics affecting viewership (though they refused to admit that was the case), one can’t ignore the idea that politics may be hurting the NBA as well.

via The Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com

Kentucky Abortion Ultrasound Requirement Will Stand, SCOTUS Says

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a case challenging a Kentucky abortion regulation, leaving the law intact.

Without issuing an opinion, the Court summarily denied a hearing to EMW Women’s Surgical Center v. Meier. The plaintiffs—an abortion clinic and its operators in Louisville—sought to strike down a Kentucky law which requires doctors to display and describe an ultrasound of the child to his or her mother before conducting an abortion. The law violates doctors’ First Amendment right to free speech, plaintiffs argued.

The Supreme Court’s decision not to take the case leaves the ultrasound law in place, as a federal appeals court ruled in June that the law did not violate the First Amendment.

The Court did not provide further context for its decision to take the case, such as whether it would have considered a challenge to the law on the basis of the previously recognized constitutional right to an abortion. In the past, SCOTUS has been quick to strike down regulations perceived as an "undue burden" on abortion access, including in 1992’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey and 2016’s Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.

But since those decisions, the Court has swung to the right, and the choice not to take up EMW may signal that its liberal wing is concerned that taking abortion cases will lead to a rolling back of rulings like Hellerstedt.

SCOTUS is expected to hear one major abortion case, June Medical Services v. Gee, in the coming months. That case, which concerns a Louisiana state law requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, may serve as an opportunity for the Court’s conservatives to begin rolling back the "undue burden" standard imposed nearly three decades ago.

The post Kentucky Abortion Ultrasound Requirement Will Stand, SCOTUS Says appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

via Washington Free Beacon

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://freebeacon.com

TICK TOCK: Rudy to Release Report on Ukraine-Biden Crime Family Findings This Week

President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani traveled to Hungary and Ukraine last week and met with officials in Kiev in his ongoing efforts to expose corruption and pay-to-play schemes involving the Biden crime family and other Democrats.

Mr. Giuliani revealed Monday morning on Steve Bannon’s radio show “The War Room: Impeachment” that he is working to release a report on his findings from his latest trip to Europe to Attorney General Bill Barr and GOP lawmakers in Congress this week.

OAN reporter Chanel Rion has been traveling with Rudy Giuliani and reporting on his investigations in Hungary and Kiev, Ukraine.

In her report released on Sunday night Chanel Rion mentioned that Ukrainian officials showed her six criminal cases involving the Bidens, Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.

“I was going to do an outline of it and try to present it at the convenience of the Republicans in Congress and the attorney general at the end of this week,” Rudy said on a podcast interview with Steve Bannon Monday.

We know so far that Joe Biden’s drug addict son Hunter was sitting on the board of Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian natural gas company and being paid by some accounts over $200,000 a month even though he had zero experience in the field.

Then-Vice President Joe Biden, who was tasked to oversee US dealings with Ukraine, threatened to withhold over $1 billion in loan guarantees to Ukraine unless they fired Viktor Shokin, the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating Burisma and Hunter.

Biden bragged about shaking down Ukraine and getting Mr. Shokin fired during a 2018 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations.

The post TICK TOCK: Rudy to Release Report on Ukraine-Biden Crime Family Findings This Week appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

Man Arrested After Scrawling ‘Epstein Didn’t Kill Himself’ On Wall Where $120,000 Duct-Taped Banana Exhibit Was Displayed

It’s been a crazy week at Miami’s Art Basel.

First, a work of “art” — a banana duct-taped to a wall — sold for $120,000. Then, a guy ate it right off the wall.

And then, another guy scrawled a message in lipstick where the banana had once hung — “Epstien [sic] didn’t kill himself.”

That’s a crazy week.

The banana piece, crafted by Italian artist Maurizio Cattelan and titled “Comedian,” drew headlines when it was sold to a French collector for $120,000. Cattelan made news earlier this year when another artwork, an 18-karat solid gold working toilet titled “America,” was stolen by burglars from its exhibit in Britain’s Blenheim Palace.

Over the weekend, artist David Datuna walked up to the exhibit, pulled the banana off the wall, and ate it. He said he was doing an “art performance” and called himself a “hungry artist.” Of course it was all caught on video.

“I love Maurizio Cattelan artwork and I really love this installation,” he later captioned a post on his Instagram page. “It’s very delicious.”

In the video, gallery Director Peggy Leboeuf can be heard asking, “Are you kidding? This is so stupid.”

“No,” Datuna says.

Leboeuf told the BBC that Datuna was asked to leave the exhibit but not arrested. “We can go further, but I don’t think we will,” she said.

Then Roderick Webber, 46, from Massachusetts, used the empty wall space for his own work of art, writing in red lipstick: ‘”Epstien [sic] didn’t kill himself.”

Webber was quickly arrested. As he was escorted out of the Miami Beach gallery, he shouted: “If someone can eat the $120,000 banana and not get arrested, why can’t I write on the wall?” the Daily Mail reported.

The “Jeffrey Epstein didn’t kill himself” meme has been sweeping the country ever since the convicted pedophile was found dead in his prison cell on Aug. 10. Epstein had been facing charges of trafficking and sexually abusing dozens of girls, some as young as 14, for more than a decade. Some high-level politicians, including Bill Clinton, and prominent individuals, including the UK’s Prince Andrew, had ties with Epstein.

For instance, rapper Suffa declared “Jeffrey Epstein didn’t kill himself” during an acceptance speech at an awards ceremony in Australia last month.

“I’m going to get out a few thank yous because I think this is the last time you’re going to see us. To our road crew Mugga, Pauly, Snebs, everyone, you’re all legends and we love you. Thanks to our wives, our children. And Jeffrey Epstein did not kill himself. Thank you,” Suffa said at the ARIA Music Awards in Sydney.

Arizona Republican Rep. Paul Gosar once shared the meme in a series of 23 tweets in which the first letter of each tweet spelled out the phrase.

But wait. The art house made even more headlines when Madonna’s daughter Lourdes “Lola” Leon stripped off her clothes and, wearing just a nude thong and pasties, joined about 30 other people who were modeling clothing in a simulated orgy.

Now that’s a crazy week.

via The Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com

Obama gave CommonCore contract to publisher, got $65 million book deal in return?

As far-left Democrats yell about bribery and high crimes and misdemeanors, let’s turn to their own side of the aisle, starting with the once-penniless President Obama who left public office a very, very rich man.

He just bought a Martha’s Vineyard mansion for a cool $11.75 million, which is in addition to his Kalorama lookout post, his Chicago home, and possibly a Hawaii spread. At some point you’ve made enough…but not him.

Ostensibly, it’s mainly the work of his book deals. No bribery there, right?

Well, ahem…

According to Investment Watch (IWB), something doesn’t quite look right.

Obama gave Pearson Publishing $350 million to create Commoncore text and Pearson gave Obama a $65 million dollar book deal in return.

…and…

Pearson Publishing was paid for Commoncore but Penguin Random House Publishing did the Obama book deal. But there is commonality with the two:

From Wiki:
Penguin Random House was formed on July 1, 2013, upon the completion of a £2.4 billion transaction between Bertelsmann and Pearson to merge their respective trade publishing companies, Random House and Penguin Group. Bertelsmann and Pearson, the parent companies, owning 53% and 47%, respectively.

In July 2017, Pearson agreed to sell a 22% stake in the business to Bertelsmann, thereby retaining a 25% holding.

That sounds like a classic bribe. You give me this big contract and I’ll kick back some to you at a later date. Chicago Way. The book cash flowed to Obama in 2017. Pearson incidentally, seemed to lose money anyway, given the public distaste for Obama’s federal takeover of education via Common Core, which extended to states cutting the program.

President Trump complained about the apparent quid pro quo last summer

It’s not the first time Obama has done things like this either. IWB notes that Obama’s net neutrality stance benefited Netflix, and surprise, surprise, he got a lucrative deal wtih them, too.

One hand washes the other.

Book deals, incidentally, have been some pretty spectacular avenues for bribery based on their apparent deniability. Here’s a famous one from Russia in 1997 that rocked the Russian political landscape:

Ethical questions were raised this week when a Russian reporter revealed that Mr. Chubais and his collaborators had accepted $90,000 each for writing a monograph on the history of privatization. The publisher, Segodnya Press, is owned by Oneksimbank, a powerful financial institution that recently won a series of coveted auctions of state property.

Chubais is Anatoly Chubais, former Russian finance minister and famed Russian ‘reformer,’ who apparently reformed his bankbook, too. He was in tight with Democrats, particularly John Podesta, and might have been the role model or maybe the guy who gave Democrats the ideas about how useful the publishers could be.

Here’s what Chubais might have taught them:

In the middle of these seven circles of hell stood Anatoly Chubais. He was in the middle of Russia’s privatization effort which saw huge state assets sold for pennies on the dollar to oligarchs while Russian citizens were completely cheated of the shares they were promised, either through devaluation, fire-sale desperate unloading to raise cash (remember, many were starving), intransparent transactions, and sometimes disinformation and thuggery: False dates and places for sales were announced to conceal real ones. Thug vehicles sometimes blocked roads so no one could line up to buy the shares they were entitled to. It was that bad. Once again, Chubais was in the middle of it.

 

Chubais got  snared in a bribery scandal of Clintonian character – he was given a $90,000 book advance (huge sum in Russia at the time)  paid for by a murkily backed publisher (sound familiar?) which looked a lot like a disguised bribe or payoff. That caused a scandal and got him booted from his position as finance minister. He continued to tool around in cronyish business deals and retained the good opinion of Harvard as a ‘reformer,’ which was quite a node of Clinton loyalists – Larry Summers, being one, John Podesta being on friendly terms with the crowd, too, by making speeches there.

 

Book deals. The way to get rich upon leaving public office, just as congressional insiders make themselves rich in public office by trading on insider information, as described by Peter Schweizer in “Throw Them All Out.

 

There are a hundred ways to Sunday for politicians to get rich both in and out of public office. As the Democrat House now focuses on impeaching President Trump, their hypocrisy is pretty glaring. Obama’s book deals are what need investigating, not President Trump’s bid to halt corruption in Ukraine.

 

As far-left Democrats yell about bribery and high crimes and misdemeanors, let’s turn to their own side of the aisle, starting with the once-penniless President Obama who left public office a very, very rich man.

He just bought a Martha’s Vineyard mansion for a cool $11.75 million, which is in addition to his Kalorama lookout post, his Chicago home, and possibly a Hawaii spread. At some point you’ve made enough…but not him.

Ostensibly, it’s mainly the work of his book deals. No bribery there, right?

Well, ahem…

According to Investment Watch (IWB), something doesn’t quite look right.

Obama gave Pearson Publishing $350 million to create Commoncore text and Pearson gave Obama a $65 million dollar book deal in return.

…and…

Pearson Publishing was paid for Commoncore but Penguin Random House Publishing did the Obama book deal. But there is commonality with the two:

From Wiki:
Penguin Random House was formed on July 1, 2013, upon the completion of a £2.4 billion transaction between Bertelsmann and Pearson to merge their respective trade publishing companies, Random House and Penguin Group. Bertelsmann and Pearson, the parent companies, owning 53% and 47%, respectively.

In July 2017, Pearson agreed to sell a 22% stake in the business to Bertelsmann, thereby retaining a 25% holding.

That sounds like a classic bribe. You give me this big contract and I’ll kick back some to you at a later date. Chicago Way. The book cash flowed to Obama in 2017. Pearson incidentally, seemed to lose money anyway, given the public distaste for Obama’s federal takeover of education via Common Core, which extended to states cutting the program.

President Trump complained about the apparent quid pro quo last summer

It’s not the first time Obama has done things like this either. IWB notes that Obama’s net neutrality stance benefited Netflix, and surprise, surprise, he got a lucrative deal wtih them, too.

One hand washes the other.

Book deals, incidentally, have been some pretty spectacular avenues for bribery based on their apparent deniability. Here’s a famous one from Russia in 1997 that rocked the Russian political landscape:

Ethical questions were raised this week when a Russian reporter revealed that Mr. Chubais and his collaborators had accepted $90,000 each for writing a monograph on the history of privatization. The publisher, Segodnya Press, is owned by Oneksimbank, a powerful financial institution that recently won a series of coveted auctions of state property.

Chubais is Anatoly Chubais, former Russian finance minister and famed Russian ‘reformer,’ who apparently reformed his bankbook, too. He was in tight with Democrats, particularly John Podesta, and might have been the role model or maybe the guy who gave Democrats the ideas about how useful the publishers could be.

Here’s what Chubais might have taught them:

In the middle of these seven circles of hell stood Anatoly Chubais. He was in the middle of Russia’s privatization effort which saw huge state assets sold for pennies on the dollar to oligarchs while Russian citizens were completely cheated of the shares they were promised, either through devaluation, fire-sale desperate unloading to raise cash (remember, many were starving), intransparent transactions, and sometimes disinformation and thuggery: False dates and places for sales were announced to conceal real ones. Thug vehicles sometimes blocked roads so no one could line up to buy the shares they were entitled to. It was that bad. Once again, Chubais was in the middle of it.

 

Chubais got  snared in a bribery scandal of Clintonian character – he was given a $90,000 book advance (huge sum in Russia at the time)  paid for by a murkily backed publisher (sound familiar?) which looked a lot like a disguised bribe or payoff. That caused a scandal and got him booted from his position as finance minister. He continued to tool around in cronyish business deals and retained the good opinion of Harvard as a ‘reformer,’ which was quite a node of Clinton loyalists – Larry Summers, being one, John Podesta being on friendly terms with the crowd, too, by making speeches there.

 

Book deals. The way to get rich upon leaving public office, just as congressional insiders make themselves rich in public office by trading on insider information, as described by Peter Schweizer in “Throw Them All Out.

 

There are a hundred ways to Sunday for politicians to get rich both in and out of public office. As the Democrat House now focuses on impeaching President Trump, their hypocrisy is pretty glaring. Obama’s book deals are what need investigating, not President Trump’s bid to halt corruption in Ukraine.

 

via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

BREAKING: Pro-Lifers Land Major Win With Latest Supreme Court Ruling

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a challenge to a 2017 pro-life law in the Kentucky requiring doctors to perform ultrasounds and play the sound of the baby’s heartbeat to women seeking abortion.

“The Supreme Court has allowed Kentucky’s ultrasound requirement law to go into effect!” posted Live Action founder and prominent pro-life advocate Lila Rose. “When women have the chance to see the humanity of their child & hear their heartbeat, many reject the violence of abortion.”

“This is a great win for Kentucky & our nation,” she added.

“Kentucky argued the law is ‘simple and straightforward,’ calling it part of an ‘informed-consent process.’ The law, Kentucky said, ‘does nothing more than require that women who are considering an abortion be provided with information that is truthful, non-misleading and relevant to their decision of whether to have an abortion,’” CNN reported.

CNN noted that the court “rejected the case without comment or noted dissent by any of the justices.”

Pro-life advocates praised the Supreme Court for their decision to uphold the Kentucky law.

“March for Life applauds the U.S. Supreme Court decision today upholding a Kentucky ultrasound law,” March for Life President Jeanne Mancini said in a statement sent to The Daily Wire. “Women facing an unexpected pregnancy deserve to have as much medically and technically accurate information as possible when they are making what could be the most important decision of their life.”

President and CEO of American United for Life (AUL) Catherine Glenn Foster said the decision “confirms that women deserve the truth.”

“Americans United for Life hails the final legal victory today of Kentucky’s common-sense informed consent provision simply ensuring that abortion facilities offer women who are thinking about abortion visual, ultrasound confirmation of the humanity of the life in their womb,” Glenn Foster said in a statement sent to The Daily Wire.

“Consistent with the Supreme Court’s direction that mothers considering abortion may be given accurate, nonmisleading information about abortion and the nature of human life, today’s decision confirms that women deserve the truth, and cannot give real informed consent to an abortion unless facilities are transparent and honest about what abortion really is,” the AUL president added. “That’s a right that was denied to me when I was 19 years old and making a difficult, life-changing decision, and I am so relieved that going forward, the women of Kentucky will have the opportunity I never did.”

“The fact that there were no recorded dissents from any of the justices is notable,” added Daily Wire Editor-at-Large Josh Hammer, a former federal law clerk on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. “That ought to help demonstrate the common-sense, straightforward nature of Kentucky’s law.”

Pro-abortion advocates had claimed Kentucky’s pro-life law violates the First Amendment by mandating abortion-seeking women see their child and hear their heartbeat before going through with the life-ending procedure.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that this was nonsense.

“As a First Amendment matter, there is nothing suspect with a State’s requiring a doctor, before performing an abortion, to make truthful, non-misleading factual disclosures, relevant to informed consent, even if those disclosures relate to unborn life and have the effect of persuading the patient not to have an abortion,” the three-judge Sixth Circuit panel said in its ruling, CNN noted.

via The Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com

WAYNE ALLYN ROOT: The Trump Economic Miracle is the Best Revenge

By Wayne Allyn Root

I got a kick out of a recent Letter to the Editor about my last newspaper column. It was from another angry, bitter liberal (is there any other kind?) complaining that I’m a liar. They claimed Trump’s economy is not so great. And they claimed it’s actually worse than either the Obama or Jimmy Carter economy.

I should stop writing about liberals being unstable, unbalanced, delusional and hateful. It’s much better to just let them talk. The more liberals say, the better Trump looks to voters.

Ironically, on the very same day this angry, Trump-hating, Root-hating, Letter to the Editor appeared, America received some of the best economic news in years.

The November jobs report came out on Friday. Set aside the fact that Trump has produced one of the greatest stock markets in history; GDP is far above Obama or Jimmy Carter, who both produced disastrous economies that nearly destroyed the middle class; 3.5% unemployment is the lowest in 50 years; the highest number of Americans are working in history; and black and Latino unemployment is the lowest in history.

But the latest jobs report is better news than all of that!

266,000 new jobs were created in November. That’s 79,000 jobs more than economists expected…in a month! The number of jobs was also revised upwards by 41,000 for the two preceding months.

Manufacturing jobs soared by 54,000 in November, the biggest monthly gain in over two decades (since 1998).

Wages were up 3.1%. That’s the 16thmonth in a row wages are up 3% or higher under President Trump.

Ask any worker if a bigger paycheck for 16 months in a row matters? I dare you.

CNBC called it “a blowout jobs report.” They also reported, “You can’t contradict these are the best numbers of our lives.” CNN said, “A couple of generations of people have not seen this kind of unemployment rate continue to be that low.” Fox Business reported, “This is one of the best reports…What a way to end the decade, on this report, it’s outstanding.”

So, I ask all my readers, who is the one lying? Who is the delusional one?

I don’t need to wait for an answer. Just look at the latest Rasmussen Presidential Approval poll. It was already a robust 49% for Trump before the latest impeachment hearing on Wednesday. That’s when Democrats trotted out a bunch of angry, radical, Marxist, white male-hating, America-hating, capitalism-hating, Ivy League law school professors to testify in front of the nation.

Smart move. This group makes even Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren seem likable!

The very next day, Trump’s approval soared to 52%- just a smidge below the highest of his entire presidency. Those Ivy League law professors made quite a depression. I’m surprised Democrats didn’t trot out used car salesman and dentists.

On Friday Trump’s approval was 51%- significantly above where Obama was on the same day of his presidency. Even though Trump has faced 96% negative news coverage.

Among white voters Trump’s approval is positive 53% to 46%. Among male voters it’s positive 59% to 40%. And most shocking, Trump’s approval is 31% among black voters.

It’s clear what voters think about President Trump and the Trump economy. It’s clear who they believe and who they think is lying. But please keep the angry, delusional liberal Letters to the Editor coming. You’re making my job so much easier.

I’m honored to report I received a personal invitation from President Trump to visit the White House next week. I’ll be sure to say congratulations and THANK YOU from all my fans who have better jobs, higher wages and far higher retirement accounts because of President Trump’s policies.

All I can say is, the Trump Economic Miracle is the best revenge.

Wayne Allyn Root is the host of “The Wayne Allyn Root Show” on Newsmax TV, nightly at 8 PM ET, found on DirecTV Ch #349, or Dish TV Ch #216, at https://ift.tt/2zOf79k He is also a nationally syndicated radio host of “Wayne Allyn Root: Raw & Unfiltered” found at https://ift.tt/2g4uzmV

The post WAYNE ALLYN ROOT: The Trump Economic Miracle is the Best Revenge appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

Breaking: Ukrainian Official Reveals Six Criminal Cases Opened in Ukraine Involving the Bidens

President Trump spoke to the press Saturday at the White House as he departed for Florida for speeches before the Israeli-American Council National Summit in Hollywood and a Republican fundraising dinner in Aventura.

Trump told the waiting reporters that his personal attorney former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani “found plenty” of “good information” during his recent trip to Ukraine and Europe.

Trump then added that he believes Giuliani wants to present a report to the Attorney General William Barr and to Congress. Trump added Giuliani has not told him what he found.


Rudy Giuliani and Viktor Shokin

Giuliani reportedly traveled to Budapest and Ukraine this past week to meet with several Ukrainian officials about corruption.

OAN reporter Chanel Rion has been traveling with Rudy Giuliani and reporting on his investigations in Hungary and Kiev, Ukraine.

In her report released on Sunday night Chanel Rion mentioned that Ukrainian officials showed her six criminal cases involving the Bidens, Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.

The post Breaking: Ukrainian Official Reveals Six Criminal Cases Opened in Ukraine Involving the Bidens appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

Alan Dershowitz to Mark Levin: Impeachment ‘would be an utter abuse of the power of Congress’

If the House of Representatives votes to impeach President Donald Trump based on the evidence currently on the record against him, it would be a violation of the U.S. Constitution, Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz says.

“It would be an utter abuse of the power of Congress. The Constitution sets out four criteria for impeaching a president: Treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,” Dershowitz explained to LevinTV host Mark Levin on Sunday night’s episode of Life, Liberty & Levin on Fox News. “Unless one of those criteria is met, Congress does not have the authority to impeach, and if they do, their impeachment would be void. Alexander Hamilton said any act of Congress that is inconsistent with the Constitution is void.”

The Harvard legal scholar also took issue with the notion that impeachment is whatever Congress says it is, which has become a popular talking point among Trump’s political opponents.

“Congress may be able to get away with it,” Dershowitz added, “but this confuses what Congress can get away with with what Congress is sworn to uphold. Any member of Congress who votes to impeach President Trump without a finding that he is guilty of treason, bribery, other high crimes or misdemeanors is violating their oath of office.”

Dershowitz also compared House Democrats’ search for an impeachable offense to use against the president to the authoritarian behavior of the leaders of the former Soviet Union.

“What they’re trying to do is what the KGB under Lavrentiy Beria said to Stalin, the dictator — I’m not comparing our country to the Soviet Union; I just want to make sure it never becomes anything like that,” Dershowitz said. “Beria said to Stalin, ‘Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.’ And that’s what some of the Democrats are doing. They have Trump in their sights, they want to figure out a way of impeaching him, and they’re searching for a crime.”

Dershowitz went on to warn that Democrats have created “open-ended criteria which bear no relationship to the words of the Constitution itself” and that a potential impeachment of President Trump would set a precedent that will “weaponize impeachment, and the next Democrat who gets elected will be impeached.”

Watch:


Don’t miss an episode of LevinTV. Sign up now!

The post Alan Dershowitz to Mark Levin: Impeachment ‘would be an utter abuse of the power of Congress’ appeared first on Conservative Review.

via Conservative Review

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.conservativereview.com

The History of America’s Consumer Culture

Turn back the pages of history to the rise of consumerism in America. Josh McMullen, interim dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Regent University in Virginia Beach, delves into when and how America become the consumer giant that it is today. 

How have department stores and advancements in transportation influenced consumerism? What are the striking similarities between advertisements through the decades? And did consumerism play a role in the battle against communism in the mid-1900s?

We discuss these questions and more on this episode of The Daily Signal Podcast. Enjoy reading the lightly edited transcript below or listening to the podcast:

Virginia Allen: We are joined on The Daily Signal Podcast by Dr. Josh McMullen, interim dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Regent University in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Dr. McMullen, thank you so much for joining us.

Josh McMullen: It’s very wonderful to be here. Thank you.

Philip Reynolds: Dr. McMullen, let’s start with an easy question. How long have you been teaching history and was that something you always knew you wanted to do?

McMullen: I’ve been teaching history … at the university level for close to 12 years now, almost 10 of those here at Regent University. I’ve always been fascinated by history. Even as a child, I tended to really enjoy nonfiction kind of history books.

My undergraduate degree was actually in biblical studies but I did make the transition over to history when I was in seminary. I first began as a church historian and then eventually went on to do doctoral work in American history.

Allen: Both Philip and I graduated from Regent University and we were both privileged to to have you as a professor and to take your history classes. I remember sitting in your history classes just being amazed at how you were able to really make history come alive.

One of my favorite subjects that we discussed in your U.S. history class was the rise of consumerism in America. You know, it’s so easy to forget that there was a time before Amazon Prime where we couldn’t just buy anything when we wanted to, but there actually was a shift in society and this didn’t just happen by accident.

You break down that shift in American history when the home really began to become a place of consumption instead of production. Can you explain a little bit of that transition?

McMullen: Sure. I’d be happy to. Particularly in the colonial era, the home really was kind of a place of production. I mean, it was either family farms and so you were producing crops either to sustain yourself or maybe to also engage in trade, or if you are an artisan, you know, a baker, a butcher, your shop tended to be connected to your home or very close to your home and so work and family life, there wasn’t a sharp distinction. These things overlapped.

I mean, even children, if we think about it, children often engaged in farm work. They also tended to be apprentices and they learned the trade of their father or their grandfathers. This is why so many of our last names are based on maybe the trade of our family.

We do begin to see a shift in the late 1700s and early 1800s in American culture. There’s this kind of what we might call bifurcation between work and home life, where people begin to leave home to go to work. That seems, of course, completely normal to us now. I mean, it’s hard for us to actually imagine anything different than that but that was not always the case.

The home then in some ways after work gets taken out of the home and put into a business or a factory or the office, the home then becomes, particularly during the Victorian Era, during the 19th century, as really a place of consumption, right? We purchase things, we put them in our homes on display. The home, and really the family, kind of shifts pretty dramatically in American life after the early 19th century.

Reynolds: You know, this shift of work identity really that we see taking place, it was very important to that era, especially, I remember, in our U.S. History 1 class we talked about the Victorian Era and that was kind of one of the hallmarks of the Victoria Era, this work identity.

Could you go a little more in-depth about sort of the thought process behind this shift in work identity and the thought processes behind that and behind this larger amount of consumption that started to take place?

McMullen: Yes. You know, there is this interesting shift, particularly in identity, and so in the Victorian Era you have pretty strong, and we might even say strict, kind of female and male roles, and of course there have always been male and female roles in all periods of society.

In the Victorian Era, you really begin to see this kind of rise of the Christian gentleman who kind of … leaves the home, goes out into the marketplace, kind of does battle—the marketplace is this kind of jungle, this place where, you know, he’s really got to fight tooth and nail—and then he comes home and the home is kind of a place where he’s the gentleman, it’s full of etiquette.

And we see a real shift with women as well, where the Victorian mother, she … gets really separated from work. She’s no longer really seen as a worker. She’s kind of seen more in a domestic role and that domestic role in a lot of ways also takes on a consuming role, a consumption role.

In the colonial period, men really probably did as much purchasing as women, to the best of our knowledge, but once we get into the Victorian Era and then even further into the 1900s we see that men are kind of seen as the workers and women in many ways are kind of seen as the consumers. There’s this kind of interesting gender role change that is affected by the market economy and the role of consumption in American life.

Allen: Let’s talk about the rise of the department store. What was the very first department store and how did Americans react to its establishment?

McMullen: Yes. The department store … you know, it wasn’t like it was unveiled at one moment. These stores developed over time and so there’s actually a lot of debates surrounding which was really truly the first department store in terms of how we think of a department store.

Le Bon Marché in Paris makes a case that it’s really the first. You have others like Macy’s. In New York, of course, we think of the Thanksgiving Day Parade, and you’ve got Marshall Field’s in Chicago, Wanamaker’s in Philadelphia. You know, all of these these now-department stores can kind of try to make a case that they were truly the first, but they all really begin to emerge in the mid-1800s and by the late 1860s, really 1870s and 1880s, the department store as kind of we know it really emerged.

I think Americans at this point were already embracing consumerism, that in many ways the middle class and consumption were almost synonymous, right? Kind of American thought is you’ve reached a particular status and basically that status means that you’re able to consume.

I guess if there was one criticism of the department stores, it was the fact that so many young women worked in department stores and in some ways this gave those women a little bit more social and economic independence.

Some critics of the department store may have seen it as loosening maybe the moral fiber of the Victorian family. But really most of these women, at least in the 1800s, working in department stores were not kind of radical feminists.

They liked the independence that the job gave them, the economic and the social independence, but most of them still went on to get married. They would quit their job, they would quit their job at the department store, and kind of really become that kind of domestic matriarch of the Victorian Era. Their time in the department store was more kind of a period of life rather than a new self-identity.

Now, that does change once we get into the 20th century, but throughout the 1800s we kind of see that’s the role that department stores play.

Allen: That is really interesting.

Reynolds: Yeah, absolutely. Now to sort of shift gears here, and, yes, pun intended, but to shift gears, let’s talk about road infrastructure. I think that’s something that not a lot of people realize is something that influences us day to day. … What sort of role did [road infrastructure] play in the rise of consumerism?

McMullen: Yeah, that’s a great question. Well, in the early period of the department store, so 1860s, 1870s, 1880s, it was the railroad that played a key role because the railroad really did primarily two things. It allowed those goods to be brought in at cheaper rates to these department stores and so the department stores, you know, they don’t rise in a vacuum. They rise in the context of all kinds of industrial revolution and transportation developments.

Then the railroad also could bring people on the outskirts of the cities or these kind of just beginning suburbs into the department stores. The train played a key role in that early part of the consumer era in America.

Post-World War II we do see that roads play a very key role in the development of what we might call modern American consumer culture.

You know, we tend to think of the 1950s as kind of this car-crazy culture. The interstate highway system is built during this time. We do see that roads play kind of a key role, right? People can take vacations, they can live in the suburbs, they can travel further to work, they can drive to stores. There’s a whole industry of consumption that arises around roads.

You know, Thanksgiving was very recently. Think about the kind of consumption that would have happened because of all of that holiday travel. You’ve got hotels and motels, you’ve got fast food, you’ve got all kinds of things that just cater to people traveling the roadways.

Again, with those roadways, just like with trains, we see increased transportation through trucking, which allows goods and services to be done more cheaply, which brings down prices of consumer goods, which allows people to spend more or to get more … bang for their buck. It allows people to travel to stores. … Transportation in general has always been tied very closely to consumer culture in America.

Allen: With that rise of consumerism, obviously, all those products now needed to be advertised so that people would buy them. What are some of those maybe early advertising trends that we’re even still seeing today?

McMullen: Yeah, there’s been some wonderful cultural historians who have done work on advertising in America. It really is shocking how closely the advertising strategies of our own era match some of the advertising strategies of the 1910s, 1920s.

From the very beginnings of advertising, you begin to see a celebrity endorsement. I mean, you have celebrity endorsements dating all the way back into the 1920s and, of course, celebrity endorsements are a huge aspect of advertising in the modern era. You know, you want this basketball player or this football player or this musician to endorse your product, whatever that product may be. That kind of celebrity, that celebrity status.

There’s always been an appeal to image as well. Very early on in the 1900s and 1920s we see that beauty products were the most advertised consumer products. I don’t know what the exact statistics today would be, but I’m assuming that beauty products still tend to be some of the most heavily advertised products that we have on the market.

There’s easily this appeal to image from the very beginning, right? You want to look this way because first impressions matter and many of the commercials that we see today still appeal to that “first impressions matter” kind of mentality. Yeah, [there are] striking similarities between early advertising and today.

Reynolds: Yeah. Now, this whole rise in consumerism has been going on for quite some time, but we definitely, I think, see somewhat of a boom, and you can confirm or deny this, but a boom in the 1950s and that’s right around the time when we have Communist Russia really growing in power and the Soviet Union expanding. Is there a link between this expansion of communism and America’s fear of communism and the rise of consumer culture?

McMullen: Yeah, I mean, I think that there is. I mean, I think it’s important to realize that consumer culture had developed earlier than the Cold War, but that the Cold War really expanded it and maybe increased it.

I think that one of the key ways that as a culture, and there are many ways that America defined itself in the face of kind of Soviet communism, but one of the key ways that Americans wanted to distinguish themselves from Soviet communism was to be this land of abundance, this land of economic, particularly, abundance.

We wanted to show that democratic capitalism literally could produce the goods in comparison to, you know, these descriptions of the Soviet Union as kind of these bleak non-consumeristic … you know, this land where no one had access to the latest and greatest goods.

This is absolutely tied to American identity in the ’50s and ’60s. … You know, here is a family, an average family, who can afford the latest washing machine. They can afford this nice home in the suburbs. They can enjoy this good meal. This is a comparison to this Soviet family who lives in Soviet bloc housing, who lives on rationed food, who doesn’t have the latest technology.

There really is this comparison with kind of the Soviet Union. I think one of the places that we see this very clearly is in this Nixon/Khrushchev debate.

There’s this debate in Moscow in 1959 between Richard Nixon and Nikita Khrushchev and they’re having this debate in this model American home. The United States had gone over there as part of the United States Information Agency. We don’t necessarily need to get into details but there was this model American home and Nixon and Khrushchev have this debate in this model American home.

Nixon is … basically pointing at this model American home and saying, “This is where our average American family lives. This is what they have. Clearly democratic capitalism is better than Soviet communism.”

I think that’s a key kind of moment and I think it really illustrates the importance of consumption in the battle against communism in the ’50s, ’60s, and even into the ’70s and ’80s.

Allen: So interesting. Wow. For anyone who’s interested in learning more about the history of this rise of consumerism in America, do you have any great resources that you could recommend?

McMullen: Yeah, I mean, there’s a lot out there. People have been doing a lot of great work in this field for many, many years. I think one of the leaders in this field is an historian by the name of T.J. Jackson Lears. … He’s been doing work for several decades now in the area of consumerism and American culture advertising but there’s a lot of others as well.

There’s a classic book on advertising in the American dream by Roland Marchand. There’s even some great books out there that talk about the intermingling of economic and political policy in the United States with consumerism. Lizabeth Cohen has written a book called “A Consumers’ Republic,” which is excellent in that area.

I think there’s also kind of a fun read by Leigh Eric Schmidt. It’s called “Consumer Rites.” It talks about the intermingling of consumerism and holidays in America. He looks at Easter, he looks at Christmas, he looks at Valentine’s Day, and that’s kind of a fun read for people who really enjoy those holidays, but they can also see the intermingling of consumerism with those holidays. Those are just a few resources that people could go to.

Reynolds: Awesome. Thank you so much, Dr. McMullen.

McMullen: Well, thank you so much for having me. I appreciate it.

The post The History of America’s Consumer Culture appeared first on The Daily Signal.

via The Daily Signal

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailysignal.com/