ESPN On Brink Of Collapse As Millions Of Republican Subscribers Boycott

May 28, 2017 1 comment

ESPN is facing financial collapse after 11.5 million Republican subscribers canceled subscriptions, disgusted with the leftist politics.

Cable TV sports giant ESPN is teetering on the edge of financial collapse after 11.5 million mostly Republican subscribers canceled subscriptions, disgusted with the sports broadcaster’s hard-left political provocations.

ESPN announced 100 layoffs recently, including letting go a number of high-profile broadcasters, as the financial punishment began to hit. The forecast is not looking good from this point.

What is happening with ESPN, and why is it important? As Clay Travis of the sports website Outkick the Coverage explains, the main ESPN business plan, the one that brings in the most revenues to the firm, is doomed to near-extinction, and there is nothing ESPN can do about it. Writes Travis:

 In recent times ESPN has lost 11,346,000 subscribers according to Nielsen data.

If you combine that with ESPN2 and ESPNU subscriber losses this means that ESPN has lost over a billion dollars in cable and satellite revenue just in the past five years, an average of $200 million each year. That total of a billion dollars hits ESPN in the pocketbook not just on a yearly basis, but for every year going forward.

It’s gone forever.

American consumers simply do not appreciate a sports channel preaching hard-left politics. It sticks in the craw. Even Democrat subscribers have complained that ESPN has lost the plot. Continues Travis:

ESPN is losing 10,000 subscribers every day so far in 2017. In the past six years they have lost 13 million subscribers and that subscriber loss is escalating each year. That’s billions of dollars in lost revenue.

Every year for the next five years ESPN is spending more and bringing in less. You don’t have to be Warren Buffett to see that’s a business problem. 

Travis gets to the heart of the matter, and it isn’t pretty for ESPN:

ESPN is spending over eight billion dollars on sporting rights this year and by 2021 I believe they will be losing money regardless of how many people they fire. ESPN can’t fire employees into profitability. It’s just not possible. These firings are going to become a yearly thing and they still aren’t going to prevent the business from dying. 

Liberals deep within ESPN have politicized and destroyed the once proud sports channel. If the powerful reaction of their audience doesn’t wake them up from their delusions, they soon won’t have an audience, or a business, at all.

Putin Bans Russian Travel To UK, Cites ‘Inevitable’ Coming Terror Attack

President Putin has urged Theresa May to listen to her people and reject the New World Order, and warned Russians not to travel to the United Kingdom until they get their house in order.

President Putin has urged British Prime Minister Theresa May to listen to her people and reject the New World Order, and warned Russians not to travel to the United Kingdom until they get their house in order.

Britain is the New World Order’s testing ground, and according to Putin a follow-up terror attack, hot on the heels of the Manchester atrocity, is now “inevitable” as the globalists continue to ramp up tension in Western countries.

Putin also suggested that the “growing influence of Islamic radicalism” among Muslim groups in British cities was a factor in the rising terrorist threat, and Theresa May’s decision to call in the army showed that Britain allowed a serious problem grow into a “very serious situation”.

Warning British citizens to “expect the worst before the general election“, Putin said, “Men of Great Britain, protect your women and children.”

The New World Order put hornet nests in your countries,” the Russian president said on Wednesday, referring to radical Islamist communities. “And now they are poking them.

The Russian state tourism agency also warned Russians to stay away from the UK, amid claims that the deployment of a dirty bomb is being organized to create the next level of “chaos and destruction” in a major British city.

The Russian embassy in Great Britain recommends Russian citizens refrain from travelling to the country, especially from visiting major cities, if such trips are not absolutely necessary.

This is due to the fact that the government of Great Britain has raised the level of the terrorist threat in the country to the maximum possible.

With France in a state of emergency, the United Kingdom under martial law with thousands of troops patrolling the streets, and Germany and Sweden suffering migrant-related breakdowns of law and order, it is hard to argue with Putin.

The New World Order’s plan to fill Western nations with radical Islamic immigrants – against the will of the citizens of these countries – and then unleash hell on earth by “poking them“, has been achieved.

Putin believes that the open border policies forced on European nations by elite globalists must be rejected if the continent is to have any chance of a peaceful future.

My European brothers and sisters must reject the globalist open border policies being pushed onto them by the elite.

NYPD Arrest Young Democrat President On Pedophile Charges

The New York Police Department have arrested the president of the Manhattan Young Democrats on felony charges of child pornography.

The President of the Manhattan Young Democrats and employee of New York City’s Democrat mayor Bill de Blasio has a secret taste for sickening pedophile and child porn that involves baby girls as young as 6 months, court documents revealed Friday.

Jacob Schwartz, 29, is the president of the Manhattan Young Democrats and the downstate region vice president of the New York State Young Democrats, though both websites have now removed the disgraced Democrat’s photo.

New York Police Department investigators arrested him for downloading 3,000 images and 89 videos of child pornography, including female babies as young as 6 months old, the New York Post reported.

Schwartz was charged with two felonies, promoting a sexual performance by a child and possessing a sexual performance by a child under 16.

Court papers said Schwartz’s laptop revealedyoung nude females between the approximate ages of 6 months and 16, engaging in sexual conduct … on an adult male.”

The illegal smut shows “young nude females between the approximate ages of 6 months and 16, engaging in sexual conduct… on an adult male,” court papers say.

Schwartz’s father — Democratic insider Arthur Schwartz, who served as the New York counsel to Bernie Sanders presidential bid in 2016 — called his son’s case “a personal tragedy.

I understand these are serious charges,” said the elder Schwartz, who watched his son get arraigned in Manhattan Criminal Court on Thursday night, before following up with the kind of excruciatingly inappropriate remark that only a liberal parent could make.

He’s already in therapy for this,” said Mr. Schwartz.

Therapy, Mr. Schwartz? As long as that therapy is taking place behind bars. There is only one place for your son, and that is jail.

Jacob Schwartz surrendered to the NYPD in Manhattan on Thursday morning and was released on $7,500 bail.

Schwartz has been involved in politics from a young age, and helped his father campaign for Democratic district leader in Greenwich Village, according to his online biography.

This Is Why the World Should Fear India’s Nuclear Weapons

India, the world’s most populous democracy, occupies a unique strategic position flanked by powerful adversaries. As a result, its 1.3 billion people are guarded by an arsenal of approximately one hundred nuclear weapons deployed on land, at sea and in the air. Despite its status as a Cold War holdout, the country was forced to develop its own nuclear weapons.

India’s nuclear program dates back to 1948, just one year after independence. The Nehru government looked to nuclear power as an inexpensive energy source for the young country. An Indian Atomic Energy Commission was created that year to oversee the country’s nuclear efforts. Due to a lack of uranium on Indian territory, the country naturally gravitated towards using plutonium instead. India’s first nuclear reactor, Apsara, was built with help from the United Kingdom and went critical in August 1956.

New Delhi originally considered building nuclear devices, not as weapons, but as what were then called “peaceful nuclear explosives” capable of building harbors, excavating for natural gas, and other large construction and mining projects. While functionally identical to nuclear weapons, the plan demonstrated that India was not yet convinced it needed an actual nuclear deterrent—yet. As a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement, India was a bystander to the feverish pace of the nuclear arms race between the United States and Soviet Union.

The 1962 war with China, however, changed that. The limited attack on Indian territory could have been much worse had the two countries engaged in all-out war, particularly if Pakistan and China had paired up together. Furthermore although China was not yet a nuclear power, its nuclear status was considered an inevitability and a nuclear Beijing could blackmail India into territorial concessions—at the risk of atomic annihilation. New Delhi’s nuclear race was on.

India’s first nuclear test was conducted on May 18, 1974, at the Pokhran Test Range in the Rajastan desert. The device, nicknamed “Smiling Buddha,” had an explosive yield of between six and fifteen kilotons (the Hiroshima device is generally estimated at sixteen kilotons). The test was conducted in an underground shaft to contain radiation. India described the test as peaceful in nature but China’s nuclear status, achieved in 1964, meant that it was almost certainly designed to be a weapon.

The test propelled India into the so-called “Nuclear Club” that had previously consisted of the United States, Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, France and China. India refrained from nuclear testing for another twenty-four years, until detonating three devices on May 11, 1998, and another three on May 13. Most of the devices had low yields, between two hundred and five hundred tons, suggesting they were designed to be tactical nuclear bombs, but one device was a thermonuclear device that failed and reached a yield of only about forty-five kilotons.

Today India is estimated to have at least 520 kilograms of plutonium, enough for, according to the Arms Control Association, “between 100 and 120 nuclear devices.” New Delhi describes this a “credible minimum deterrent” against neighboring nuclear powers China and Pakistan. By comparison, China—which must also contend with nuclear rival the United States—has enough fissile material for between 200 and 250 devices. Pakistan is thought to have an arsenal of 110 to 130 devices. India has a firm No First Use policy with regards to nuclear weapons, vowing to never be the first to use them in any conflict and only use them to retaliate in kind.

As a result India has built its own “triad” of land, sea and air forces, all equipped with nuclear weapons. The first leg to develop was likely tactical nuclear devices for strike aircraft of the Indian Air Force. Today, India possesses more than two hundred Su-30MK1 twin-engine fighters, sixty-nine MiG-29s and fifty-one Mirage 2000 fighters. It is likely at least some of these aircraft have been modified and trained to carry nuclear gravity bombs to their targets.

The land-based missile leg of the triad consists of Prithvi tactical ballistic missiles. First produced in the late 1990s, Prithvi initially had a range of just ninety-three miles, but future versions increased their range to 372 miles. Despite this, Prithvi is still firmly a tactical weapon, while the Agni I-V series of missiles, with ranges from 434 to 4,970 miles, are strategic weapons with the ability to hit foreign capitals—as well as all of China.

The third leg of the triad is new, consisting of nuclear ballistic-missile submarines (SSBNs) of the Arihant class. Four submarines are planned, each with the ability to carry twelve K-15 Sagarika (“Oceanic”) short-range ballistic missiles with maximum range of 434 miles, or K-4 medium-range ballistic missiles with a 2,174 mile range. Using the Bay of Bengal as a bastion and protected by assets such as India’s carrier INS Vikramaditya, the Arihant SSBNs can just barely reach Beijing.

India’s nuclear buildup has been relatively responsible, and the country’s No First Use policy should act to slow escalation of any conventional conflict into a nuclear one. As long as India’s nuclear deterrent remains credible, it should cause rational adversaries to think twice before edging to the nuclear threshold. Still, the country’s volatile relationship with Pakistan, which has no such policy, as well as its “Cold Start” blitzkrieg plan of action against its neighbor, means nuclear war cannot be ruled out.

Kyle Mizokami is a defense and national-security writer based in San Francisco who has appeared in the Diplomat, Foreign Policy, War is Boring and the Daily Beast. In 2009 he cofounded the defense and security blog Japan Security Watch. You can follow him on Twitter: @KyleMizokami.

Image: Indian Air Force Jaguar GR-1 Shamser. Wikimedia Commons/Public domain

The One Big Reason Russia Might Lose a War Against America

An air campaign requires a sprawling, complicated supply chain. Fire enough missiles and drop enough bombs, which require a heavy investment in materials and chemicals, and there will come a point when the logistics trail starts to strain.

Nearly 20 months into Russia’s intervention in Syria’s civil war, the strain is starting to show.

Russia has heavily relied on airpower to support Syrian dictator Bashar Al Assad. At times, the Russian air force has dropped bombs at a faster pace than the United States in Syria, benefiting from significantly shorter flight times, and being hampered by the need to rely on a greater number of unguided bombs.

The results include the deaths of more than 9,000 people including 4,000 civilians from the start of the campaign through September 2016, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a Britain-based monitoring group.

Every bomb contains chemicals, and every rocket requires a propellant to send it from a plane or helicopter’s pylon or pod to the ground. The strikes have “bled our arsenals, according to some estimates, nearly 40 percent,” the influential Russian defense newspaper Military-Industrial Courier noted in a recent report about the Russian military’s chemical shortage. “And there is no way to quickly replenish them.”

The good news for Russia is that there are enough high-explosive compounds and rocket propellants to keep the Kremlin’s aircraft in the war for years to come, if necessary. The bad news for Russia is that the declining stockpiles will reduce its ability to engage in a large-scale, major conflict—which to be fair, is unlikely.

Russia does not lack raw materials, in many cases, but the post-Soviet decline in industry has affected production in terms of quantity and quality.

Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991, research institutes and production plants went bankrupt. They lost valuable workers and technical documents. Machinery turned into scrap metal. The Bijskij chemical plant, one of the Soviet Union’s most important ballistic powder and composite solid propellant plants, went under.

Years of planning came to an abrupt halt. Russian plants currently manufacturing high-explosive chemicals have a poor safety record, while Russia faces a shortage of qualified engineers. Opening up a new military powder plant—which Russia hasn’t done in decades—is also a highly complex, capital-intensive project that takes years.

The engineering jobs at military-affiliated plants and institutes have become devalued, the newspaper notes, and have lost certain Soviet-era perks, such as housing and childcare provided for workers. More importantly, the Soviets relied on a centralized system which distributed graduates from universities into ready-made jobs. Many young Russians today prefer to go into other fields.

Only one Russian company manufactures ammonium perchlorate—a critical compound used in rocket propellants. To be fair again, there is only one company in the United States which makes it, too. However, the Russian firm, Anozit, is facing financial uncertainty, according to the newspaper.

It’s not going away, but without a steady supply of orders, plants must make costly tradeoffs, such as delaying needed refurbishment and upgrades. The biggest problem is that Russia’s plants can’t simply keep pace.

“If no action is taken, the Russian army in the near future will be left without ammunition,” the paper warned. “Tanks, ships, planes and helicopters will become a common means of transportation.”

That may be an exaggeration. And in the short-term, no one can say Russia’s air campaign isn’t achieving results. It helped stabilize the Assad regime and push back the rebels which have fought for years to try and topple him, and Russia’s presence in the country remains a major deterrent to a deeper American intervention.

However, it’s come at a cost to Russia’s military, weakening it in this one important respect. But it’s a short-term cost. The consequences are much greater, longer-term or permanent for those in Syria—on the ground.

Trump’s Message to NATO Was the Right One to Deliver

President Donald Trump’s very first conference with NATO heads of state, coming after so many months of NATO bashing during last year’s campaign, can’t be described as anything but awkward and uncomfortable. These kinds of meetings are designed to be rehearsed, with every single speech by a leader heavily scripted and prepared weeks in advance and every handshake and hug between presidents and prime ministers perfectly choreographed. Of course, Trump is immune to choreography—the guy is a bull in a china shop, running around like a tornado, breaking the china.

There were so many cringe worthy moments that one wonders if German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau regretted making the trip to Brussels. Before the ribbon cutting ceremony commemorating the new NATO headquarters, a camera caught Trump shoving the Montenegrin Prime Minister (Montenegro is NATO’s newest member) out of the way to he could get at the front of the pack. Trump’s puffing up his chest after the minor altercation was an apt illustration of his Type A, hyper-intensive personality—the same image-obsessed personality that has gotten his administration into trouble. The handshake between Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron almost turned into a twenty-first-century version of a gladiator match. When Trump delivered his speech, reminding the Europeans and Canadians that they’ve been slacking off the NATO military spending guidelines that they all agreed too over a decade ago, it looked as if the pack of politicians to the side of the podium was a funeral procession.

Despite all of these strange Twitter moments, President Trump’s message to the allies—that they have been riding on the backs of the United States for far too long—was the right one to deliver. When Trump remarked that the current funding trends are “not fair to the people and taxpayers of the United States,” he was right on the money. It’s almost inexplicable why a bloc of countries that is the wealthiest in the world is reticent to increase their defense budgets to 2 percent of GDP, a goal that some military strategists believe is too small given the weight of Europe’s problems. From a pure numerical standpoint, this isn’t too much to ask; the United States spends 3.6 percent of its GDP on defense, so the least that rich economic powerhouses like Germany can do is strive for 2 percent. Nobody is asking the Europeans (and the Canadians) to meet this target in a year or even five years, a demand that would be unrealistic to the point of looking foolish. All Washington is asking is that Germany, France, Spain, Italy, and the rest of the slackers start pulling their own weight and meeting the promises that they themselves set.

Critics of the 2 percent benchmark will argue that it’s a completely arbitrary figure, a random number plucked out of a list that doesn’t correspond to any legitimate defense need. And they would be right; there’s nothing special about 2 percent. But it’s a commitment that the transatlantic alliance made nonetheless, and commitments are pointless if the people making them don’t bother to take them seriously. President’s George W. Bush and Barack Obama had the same complaints about European dilly dallying. Donald Trump is just continuing the argument, albeit in his own unique way.

You don’t have like the messenger to agree with the message: NATO’s credibility as an alliance and as an institution suffers when its members can’t even build up the political will to follow their own rules. Trump can certainly smooth the rough edges, because he doesn’t do himself any favors when he publicly scolds America’s closest friends and provides leaders like Merkel and Macron with another reason to worry about United States staying power in Europe. But it’s difficult to disagree with the underlying sentiment—NATO isn’t sustainable if only five member states are upholding their responsibility.

How To Improve Your Odds Of Surviving If A Massive Catastrophe Hits Your City

city-catastrophe-disaster

Joshua Krause

The main thread that seems to run through the prepper community, is that most preppers really want to get out of the cities and live a rural life. It’s easy to understand why. Most preppers rightfully believe that the cities would be the most dangerous places to be if society collapsed. Rural areas are generally safer, have less burdensome governance, and provide the opportunity to gain some degree of self-sufficiency.

Unfortunately, making that transition away from the city is difficult. There’s a reason why the vast majority of the population in America lives in urban and suburban areas. That’s where the jobs are, and that’s where most modern conveniences exist.

So if for whatever reason you can’t move away from the city, the next best thing you can do is find a city that will give you better odds of surviving a SHTF scenario. I know, it sounds like blasphemy. However, not all cities are created equal and believe it or not, there are certain conditions that make some urban areas better suited for preppers over others, such as:

City Size and Density

The best cities for preppers are on the smaller size, with a slightly lower population density. And obviously, I’m not talking about one of those cities that is part of a larger metropolitan area. There are plenty of cities that range in size from 50,000 to 250,000 people and aren’t subsumed by a wider urban sprawl. Instead, they are surrounded by a few suburbs, small towns, or even just wilderness. If you lived in one of these places, you’d have the benefit of job security while still being just a stone’s throw away from rural areas that you could flee to.

Conservative Values

I hate to sound biased. Though I don’t consider myself liberal or conservative, I have to confess that cities with populations that lean a bit more to the right are much better places for preppers. Aside from the fact that local governments and regulations would be less onerous, these cities are a lot more stable. The cost of living tends to be less in conservative cities, and there usually isn’t as much wealth inequality as there is in liberal cities.

That means there won’t be as many people dependent on the government and not as many people living on the streets. It means fewer people who are living at the end of their rope by the time catastrophe strikes. It means fewer people with a “kill the rich” attitude. So in short, living in a conservative city means that when the SHTF, there won’t be as much looting and rioting, and law and order won’t erode as quickly.

Logistics

When you’re prepping in a rural area, it’s important to consider how connected you are to the rest of the world. Since you’re probably trying to protect yourself from people fleeing the cities, you don’t want to be living down the road from an interstate. However, when a prepper is looking for a city to live in, the opposite strategy should be employed.

Since self-sufficiency isn’t an option, you have to think about what will allow a city to recover faster from a disaster. I’d wager that the more connected that city is with the rest of the country, the faster it will recover. If you’re in living a place that is landlocked in the mountains with only one major road running through it, you might be in trouble. It’s going to be so much easier for that city to be cut off, which will make it harder for aid to arrive. It will also make it harder for people to flee. If you’re stuck in a city during a disaster, you want people to leave, and you want it to be easier for you to leave if need be. If society collapses, a city can only support a very small population, so the fewer people there are the better your odds of surviving are.

So look for cities that have plenty of ways in and out. Better yet, pick a city that is at least near a railroad that carries freight. We all know that if there was a nationwide disaster, the freeways would be clogged for miles in every direction. But railroads won’t have that problem. And if they suffered any damage, then they’ll be a lot easier to fix.

Are You Downwind?

If the grid goes down for a long period of time, there is a serious risk that many of America’s nuclear power plants could meltdown, so it would be wise to live in a city that isn’t downwind from these facilities. You should also be wary of any major military bases or nuclear silos. They will be prime targets if there is a nuclear war, and you certainly don’t want to be downwind from that.

Water

You should also seriously consider what kinds of water resources are in or near your city. Throughout the 20th century, sprawling cities like Las Vegas, Phoenix, and Los Angeles, have grown in areas where there is very little water. These populations are heavily reliant on water that is piped in from long distances. Should society collapse, these cities will die with it. So you should find a city that isn’t so reliant on the water that comes from hundreds of miles away.

Energy

And finally, consider how your city is powered. If the city you choose is near a flowing source of water, check to see if it’s near a hydroelectric dam too. In an urban area that is receiving at least some of its energy from a dam, it’s probably not going to take long to get the lights back on. Cities that are powered by natural gas aren’t such a bad choice either since gas pipelines are relatively stable. It may not take very long to make that infrastructure functional again. However, those pipelines could easily be destroyed during a war.

Cities that are powered by coal would probably be the worst choice because coal needs to be delivered by truck and train. This will be especially true for cities that reside further inland, where many miles of roads will need to be cleared before coal shipments can be delivered. In most cases in America, coal is delivered by train, so if you pick a city that is also near a railway then there are better odds that your city will receive power after the SHTF.

%d bloggers like this: