Hollywood Has a Meltdown over Roe v. Wade Film

16867473389_38224ac3ea_b

“You can’t handle the truth!”

The memorable line by Jack Nicholson in “A Few Good Men” fits like a glove.

When it comes to subject matter that is outside the leftist box, Hollywood just can’t endure any factual information coming to light, as witnessed by the massive overreaction by the entertainment elite to a pro-life project that is currently in production.

According to the Hollywood Reporter, the film, which deals with the backstory of the landmark decision that legalized abortion in America, Roe v. Wade, is being shot in Louisiana. Its working title is “1973,” a reference to the year of the Supreme Court decision that polarized the nation.

The left is particularly rattled over the abortion issue right now since President Donald Trump is naming a conservative nominee to the Supreme Court.

Nick Loeb, a banking heir who formerly dated actress Sofia Vergara, is directing the movie and began filming in mid-June. He told the Hollywood Reporter that his court battle with Vergara over access to the couple’s frozen embryos prompted him to do the film.

“I have my own pro-life issue going on with my fight over embryos, but no one has really told the whole truth about Roe v. Wade in a film,” Loeb said.

Aware of the disdain that the entertainment industry has for the pro-life perspective, Loeb initially attempted to be low key about the project, cast and crew so as to forestall the backlash that would inevitably come.

However, when Loeb told LifeNews about his motivation behind the film, he left subtlety behind. “This is the untold story of how [abortion activists] lied and manipulated Jane Roe, the media, and the courts into the decision to allow abortion in 1973,” Loeb said.

In knee-jerk fashion, the entertainment press began trashing the film, despite the project not having been completed, edited, or screened.

–The Daily Beast published a piece with the headline “‘Roe v. Wade’ Script Leak: Pro-Life Movie Pushes Conspiracy Theories and Lies.”

–A Huffington Post headline read “Anti-Abortion Movie About Roe v. Wade Is Pushed By Nick Loeb.”

–The New York Daily News used the following title for an article on the movie: “No one wants to help Nick Loeb make his anti-abortion film ‘Roe v. Wade.’”

Particularly snarky was the Daily Beast’s characterization of the project as a “movie in chaos,” describing cast and crew departures due to the nature of the subject matter. And the Hollywood Reporter indicated that a costume maker, electrician, and director had walked off the project.

The subject matter also created difficulties for Loeb’s choice of filming locations. Loeb shared the following about a request that was made to shoot at Louisiana State University: “We were told we were rejected due to our content, even though it will be a PG-rated film. They refused to put it in writing, but they told us on the phone it was due to content.”

Even after the production was permitted to use a local synagogue, the crew was kicked out after the leaders found out about the movie’s message.

“Once they found out what the film was about, they locked us out. We had to call the police so that the extras and caterers could retrieve their possessions,” Loeb told the Hollywood Reporter.

Facebook blocked crowdfunding for the film, but it is still ongoing at GoFundMe and IndieGoGo.

The Daily Beast obtained a copy of a leaked script that reportedly showed the project’s “severe anti-abortion stance.” The Beast is apoplectic that the narrator of the story is Dr. Bernard Nathanson (portrayed by Loeb). Nathanson happens to have co-founded the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL). However, after having witnessed the details of an abortion procedure via ultrasound, he became a dedicated pro-life activist.

Nathanson became an archenemy of the left after having narrated the profoundly compelling 1984 pro-life film “The Silent Scream.”

The cast of the upcoming pro-life movie includes many openly conservative Hollywood residents including Stacey Dash, who portrays Dr. Mildred Jefferson, a founder of the National Right to Life Committee; Jon Voight, Robert Davi, Corbin Bernsen, John Schneider, William Forsythe, Wade Williams, Richard Portnow, and Jarrett Ellis Beal, who portray Supreme Court justices; and Jamie Kennedy, Joey Lawrence, and Greer Grammer (daughter of Kelsey Grammer) are also cast members.

Adding to the left-wing discomfort are some cameos courtesy of commentators Tomi Lahren and Milo Yiannopoulos.

The film’s executive producer is pro-life advocate Alveda King, the niece of Martin Luther King, Jr.

“This big screen movie is the real untold story of how a mountain of lies led to an injustice that deprived millions of people of human dignity and human rights,” King says in the trailer.

The untold story includes Planned Parenthood’s scheme to recruit a pregnant girl to file a lawsuit that would create a right to an abortion. According to the film’s description, Nathanson, Betty Friedan and Planned Parenthood searched “the country to find a pregnant girl” that they could “use to sue the government for her right to have an abortion.”

The film also takes on the forbidden facts concerning the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger. Despite the left’s attempts to minimize Sanger’s fondness for eugenics, Sanger solicited eugenicists’ writings for her conferences, asked them to testify in congressional hearings, and gathered them together to advance the cause.

Sanger also urged state-imposed compulsory sterilization and segregation of people with mental or physical disability, those in poverty, and those considered illiterate. She sought out eugenicists to become board members of her American Birth Control League, the predecessor organization to what is now known as Planned Parenthood.

Advertisements

Hollywood Aligns with the Democrats to Try and Get Rid of ICE

33b6bce9-d8ba-4eb9-a850-98c9252c3442-large16x9_ap18179734713168

Hollywood celebrities recently made their presence felt at gatherings across the country, ostensibly to protest the separation of children from their illegal immigrant parents, a policy that actually existed during prior presidential administrations.

Similar to other nationwide events that the left has managed to engineer, this one had a social media hashtag name attached to it: “Families Belong Together.”

Left-wing groups are apparently choosing to ignore President Trump’s recently signed executive order, which ended the policy of separating children from their detained parents after the parents had illegally crossed the United States border.

In Los Angeles, protestors were joined by actors Laura Dern, Mira Sorvino, and Connie Britton, along with singer John Legend and his wife Chrissy Teigen. Legend used the opportunity to debut his newly released single.

In New York City, actors Kerry Washington, Amy Schumer, Alec Baldwin, Ellen Page, and Carrie Coon participated in the march.

In Washington, D.C., Broadway star Lin-Manuel Miranda, singer Alicia Keys, and actors America Ferrera and Diane Guerrero took part in demonstrations.

Many who were at the Downtown L.A. rally called for the dismantling of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, commonly known as ICE, and even carried signs that read “Abolish ICE.”

The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, a group involved in the march on the West Coast, issued a statement that spoke of how the agency was “terrorizing…entire communities,” adding the admonition that “all of these violations will continue to take place unless ICE is abolished.”

The “Abolish ICE” movement has dramatically morphed from a position that was held by a socialist fringe to a political slogan that is embraced by significant national Democratic office holders and candidates.

After a surprise upset primary win by 28-year-old self-described socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the victor’s central slogan “Abolish ICE” began to spread throughout the left-wing infrastructure.

The first sitting senator to embrace the trend was Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who declared that the U.S. should “get rid of” ICE and “start over.”

New York Mayor Bill de Blasio tweeted, “ICE is broken, it’s divisive and it should be abolished.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren posted on Facebook that the nation should replace “ICE with something that reflects our values.”

Sen. Kamala Harris and former actor-turned-New York gubernatorial candidate Cynthia Nixon both hopped on the bandwagon as well.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal called ICE a “rogue agency,” and Rep. Mark Pocan announced that he would be introducing a bill to abolish the agency.

As the proposal gains momentum with those on the left side of the political aisle, a brief analysis is warranted, which will hopefully bear fruit.

The notion of doing away with ICE has profound ramifications with regard to national security, law enforcement, and border integrity. ICE was formed following the horrific terror attacks of September 11, 2001; this was the same time period during which the Department of Homeland Security was created.

The functions of several border and revenue enforcement agencies were consolidated into ICE, resulting in it becoming the largest investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security.

–The agency handles the investigatory work and enforcement of over 400 federal statutes and additionally provides attachés at major U.S. diplomatic missions overseas.

–The agency’s all-important activities impact national security with regard to investigation for the prosecution and removal of foreign-born terrorists, terrorist supporters, and hostile foreign intelligence agents located within the United States.

–The agency regularly provides counter-terrorism information in order to prevent and disrupt terrorist cells.

–The agency is also charged with important policing functions and targets violent transnational street gangs in order to prosecute and remove illegal immigrant gang members from the country.

–The agency investigates criminal drug traffickers, manufacturers and distributors of images of child abuse, child exploiters, money launderers, arms dealers, and intellectual property counterfeiters.

The idea of abolishing an agency that is responsible for so many vital functions is a flat-out dangerous one, and the more people learn about this essential agency called ICE, the less willing they will be to support anyone who would advocate its abolition.

‘Roseanne’ without Roseanne Barr?

roseanne-cast-new

After Disney and ABC gave Roseanne Barr the severest of penalties for her ill-fated tweet by canceling her television show “Roseanne,” sources indicate that the ABC brass are now looking into the idea of continuing the sitcom in some fashion without Barr.

TMZ first reported the following: “The powers that be at ABC are exploring the possibility of re-branding the show and focusing on the character Darlene instead of Roseanne.”

A pitch meeting is set to take place between the producers of “Roseanne” and Disney ABC executives on June 4 to explore a revival of the “Roseanne” reboot with a new name minus the show’s namesake.

The key individuals that have been pursuing the continuation of the sitcom include co-star and executive producer Sara Gilbert, showrunner and executive producer Bruce Helford, and executive producer Tom Werner.

Gilbert was the driving force behind the initial “Roseanne” reboot. Helford was the co-creator and executive producer of “The Drew Carey Show” as well as the executive producer and writer for the original “Roseanne” during season five of the series. Werner co-founded the Carsey-Werner Company and was executive producer of the original “Roseanne,” along with “The Cosby Show,” “A Different World,” “3rd Rock from the Sun,” and “That 70s Show.”

Even if ABC greenlights a revival of a reboot, financial and legal obstacles may end up thwarting its plans. Carsey-Werner owns the lion’s share of the rights to “Roseanne.” However, Barr was the co-creator and executive producer of the show and has contractual financial interests in the series.

ABC is aware of the fact that a competing network faced a similar problem when it removed the lead actor from a top sitcom. Charlie Sheen was fired from “Two and a Half Men” in 2011, and Ashton Kutcher became the star of the show. Sheen also possessed contractual financial interests in the show and filed a $100 million lawsuit to pursue those interests, which concluded with a settlement of $25 million.

Barr has indicated via her Twitter account that she is thinking about fighting back against the cancellation of her reboot. Depending on the provisions in her contract, she may be able to legally challenge the attempt to create a spinoff that has the same characters and similar plotlines.

Disney ABC attorneys could even find themselves working overtime to negotiate a buyout of Roseanne’s rights in order to move forward with a project without her.

Another significant challenge involves the cast. Key members may not wish to be associated with the show or may have conflicting projects. Actors need to know that a project is real so that they can reserve time on their calendars.

It would be crucial for the producer to secure co-stars John Goodman and Laurie Metcalf for the new project. Goodman is a sought after character actor, and Metcalf just snagged an Oscar nomination for “Lady Bird” and is additionally doing well on Broadway. The aforementioned Gilbert has her continuing spot on CBS’s “The Talk” to protect.

The writing staff would have to be contracted as well. Ironically, on the very same day that ABC cancelled “Roseanne,” the writers had gathered at the studio lot to begin work on the upcoming season.

Despite the cancellation, ABC and Carsey-Werner reportedly have a contractual obligation to pay key cast members and writers for the upcoming season on a 10-episode guarantee, which provides an incentive to revive the series reboot.

There are other shows that have continued on following the departure of their lead actors. Current streaming programs “House of Cards” and “Transparent” have both made the transition following the removal of their respective stars Kevin Spacey and Jeffrey Tambor.

An example often cited by industry experts is one from the 1980s. A successful sitcom, “Valerie,” starred Valerie Harper as a career mother, who along with a somewhat invisible airline pilot husband is raising her three sons. After Harper had a dispute with the show’s producers, she was written out of the series. Sandy Duncan joined the cast as the boys’ aunt, who moved in and became their de facto parent. The series was renamed “Valerie’s Family: The Hogans,” which was later shortened to “The Hogan Family.”

However, the unprecedented success of the “Roseanne” reboot differs from the run-of-the-mill television project. Barr had built a sizable reservoir of conventional fandom during her syndication run of 25 years. What gave the reboot such exceptional impetus was the bond that she shares with millions of people, many of whom voted for President Trump, who were chiefly responsible for the phenomenal ratings of the show and who managed to transform a television debut into a cultural event.

A “Roseanne” series without Roseanne may initially draw the curious. But without the show’s comedic and cultural core cast member, it would likely end up as a shadow of its former self.

The Left’s Attempt to Silence Kanye West

629490020_donald-trump-kanye-west-zoom

Author and conservative icon Andrew Breitbart had a phrase that rings true to this day: “Politics is downstream from culture.”

For decades now the left has maneuvered its way into dominating the pop culture as well as the cult of personality itself. Liberal political mantras have engulfed a once vibrant arena in which an exchange of ideas lived and breathed.

Far-left activists, who in many instances amassed their fortunes on fertile Left Coast soil, took to using their positions of prominence to force agenda-ridden content into every facet of the entertainment industry.

Kanye West, one of the most well known celebrities in the entertainment world, recently disrupted the info world order and did so by expressing to his millions of Twitter followers material that is contrary to current liberal doxology.

Kanye’s first tweet made social media heads explode.

I like the way Candace Owens thinks,” the rapper-entrepreneur posted.

Essentially Kanye endorsed Owens, who is a talented African-American woman who speaks out against victim-hood and, in her words, the “Democratic Party plantation.”

The media organs of the left reacted in predictable fashion, attempting to disparage, isolate, and destroy Kanye as well as any other notable individual who would dare traffic in liberal political “heresy.”

The pattern has become all too familiar as has been witnessed with various other celebrities, including Shania Twain, Roseanne, and Tim Allen. However, Kanye’s position in pop culture appears to pose a greater threat to the liberal powers that be, particularly because he is an African-American who is held in high esteem within his own community and an ever widening circle.

West has been known to frequently delve into matters deemed controversial, but in this case the media appear to have placed him on an exile list for having expressed views that differ from the mandated liberal slate.

A highly unusual number of Kanye-bashing headlines have arisen, including the following:

— “You Know You’ve F***ed Up When Donald Trump Thanks You” (Esquire)

— “How Red-Pill Culture Jumped the Fence and Got to Kanye West” (Wired)

— “The bizarre political evolution of Kanye West” (The Washington Post)

The Post was not done yet. It went on to viciously associate Kanye with the Alt-Right in a piece titled “Kanye West, alt-right darling.”

Throughout the Internet and social media, reactions by resistance trolls were filled with vulgar, profanity-laced tirades, including platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other left-of-center websites. Celebrities began to unfollow Kanye on Twitter, including Drake, Justin Bieber, BTS, The Weeknd, Rihanna, Ariana Grande, Harry Styles, Katy Perry, Nicki Minaj, and Kendrick Lamar.

Members of the Kardashian clan, Khloé and Kourtney Kardashian and Kylie Jenner, apparently also stopped following Kanye. Rosie O’Donnell and Samuel L. Jackson tweeted out highly negative reactions to Kanye’s posts.

John Legend and his wife Chrissy Teigen are no longer Kanye followers. The reflexively liberal Legend evidently texted Kanye to try and convince him to back off from his recent posts.

I hope you’ll reconsider aligning yourself with Trump,” the singer-songwriter wrote.

In a tweet of a screenshot of a text thread, Kanye made it a point to let Legend and the public know that he takes his pro-Trump expressions seriously. He texted that Legend was using “a tactic based on fear” to undermine Kanye’s political and cultural beliefs.

With a post that read “Black people don’t have to be democrats,” Chance The Rapper tweeted out what appeared to be support for Kanye. However, in a redux of the Shania Twain debacle, after being blasted on social media Chance backtracked and made statements that he is not a Trump supporter.

Despite all of the backlash, Kanye forged ahead with a stream of posts expressing his affection for the president, including a photo of his personal “Make America Great Again” cap, complete with an autograph by the current occupant of the Oval Office.

You don’t have to agree with Trump,” Kanye tweeted, “but the mob can’t make me not love him.”

He referred to President Trump as his “brother” and explained that they both possess “dragon energy.” He even doubled down on his pro-Trump expressions with the release of a new song “Ye vs. the People”

Because Kanye is such a seminal figure within the pop culture, his independent minded thoughts threaten the exclusivity of a territory that the left wing and the Democratic Party have always dominated.

The African-American vote is a significant part of left-of-center constituents. African-American voters typically choose Democrat candidates at a 90 percent level. If there is even a small drop in the African-American Democrat vote, the Party’s candidates are simply going to lose.

Trump’s Twitter Account Is Keeping Us Safe

271367a1836502b483d9378415e1d2868feeea2482fc8e657137db2de10ddef6_4091255

President Donald Trump’s tweet, which was in response to Kim Jong Un’s posturing, has put CNN media reporter Brian Stelter into an even greater degree of hysteria than usual.

Stelter was in an agitated state when he disclosed to CNN host Anderson Cooper that he had contacted the authorities at Twitter to prompt the social media giant take action against the president.

The exchange between the North Korean dictator and the democratically elected leader of the free world dealt with the subject of the “nuclear button” of each country. Stelter apparently saw an opening in the digital realm to put a stop to President Trump’s tweets, something that those who are opposed to the Trump administration’s agenda have been trying to do since day one.

Stelter evidently wanted the Twitter censors to act in some policing type way against the Trump Twitter account phenomenon, @realDonaldTrump. The CNN propagandist cited the social media platform’s terms of service and claimed that the president’s tweet had somehow violated the Twitter-verse rules.

In a New Year’s Day address, North Korea’s leader, now branded as “Rocket Boy,” declared that the rogue nation’s nuclear capabilities are “reality,” not mere threats, and boasted of having a nuclear button on his desk.

“The U.S. should know that the button for nuclear weapons is on my table,” Kim said, adding that “the entire area of the U.S. mainland is within our nuclear strike range.”

In the reply tweet, President Trump posted that he also has a nuclear button, and made it clear that “it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his [Kim], and my Button works!”

Stelter also claimed, as many of his fellow fake news purveyors have of late, that President Trump’s tweet raises questions about his cognitive abilities, another transparent effort by the liberal media to distract, since their Russia-collusion allegations have fallen flat.

The CNN fiction reporter said that social media should be used by politicians to “persuade the public to come to their side.” However, Stelter is asserting that President Trump is doing something other than trying to persuade via his Twitter account.

Stelter essentially tried to play the role of snitch by reporting the president’s tweet to a Twitter spokesperson. Although there have been repeated demands from adversaries of President Trump to have Twitter shut down the now famous account and remove it from service, Twitter has unequivocally refused to do so.

In a recent blog post, Twitter indicated that tweets posted by world leaders ought to be discussed, and additionally noted that removing such statements from the Twitter platform would not be effective.

“Blocking a world leader from Twitter or removing their controversial Tweets, would hide important information people should be able to see and debate,” the Twitter post read. “It would also not silence that leader, but it would certainly hamper necessary discussion around their words and actions.”

Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, concisely highlighted the usefulness of the president’s Twitter account by explaining the diplomatic value of the “nuclear button” tweet.

During an appearance on ABC’s “This Week,” when asked whether the president’s tweet was a good idea, Haley responded, “I think that [Trump] always has to keep Kim on his toes. It’s very important that we don’t ever let him get so arrogant that he doesn’t realize the reality of what would happen if he started a nuclear war.”

Haley said North Korea should clearly understand that the United States means business when it comes to Kim.

“We’re not going to let them go and dramatize the fact that they have a button right on their desk and they can destroy America,” Haley said. “We want to always remind them we can destroy you too, so be very cautious and careful with your words and what you do.”

Hollywood’s Wrong on Choice of Anita Hill to Lead Sexual Harassment Commission

It has been a couple of months since allegations of sexual improprieties began to rain down on Hollywood, and the entertainment community has been struggling to come to grips with the continuing fallout.

Bombshell accusations that began with Harvey Weinstein have continued to flow and alleged perpetrators of wrongdoing now include Kevin Spacey, Dustin Hoffman, Brett Ratner, Matt Lauer, Louis C.K., Russell Simmons, Charlie Rose, Garrison Keillor, and Tavis Smiley.

Elites from the highest ranks in Hollywood have been under pressure to demonstrate major concern and provide reassurance to the public that something is going to be done to remedy the situation.

Amid all the trepidation and turmoil, the awards season quickly approaches. This is traditionally a high intensity time when the spotlight shines on the entertainment industry to the maximum degree, and the whole world tunes in to prestigious events that include the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) Awards, Critics’ Choice Awards, Grammys, Golden Globes, and, of course, the apex of awards shows, the Oscars.

The mood in the greater Los Angeles community, though, has darkened as a result of the scandals, and the awards shows themselves cannot help but be affected.

Next year’s SAG Awards ceremony, which will dole out thirteen acting awards, will feature female host Kristen Bell and will additionally have all women presenters. The Golden Globes will address the sexual impropriety issues by having all of the actresses involved, including nominees Emma Stone, Jessica Chastain, and Meryl Streep, wear black outfits while on the red carpet as well as during the ceremony itself.

As for the form of seriousness and sorrow that the Oscars will display has yet to be made known. It is highly likely, however, that a similar approach will be taken during the Academy Awards telecast.

The general form-over-substance expressions are, in many instances, rather harmless. This is not the case with regard to a recent appointment to head a new presumably powerful Hollywood group.

If there were any doubts that the entertainment community remains decidedly out of touch with the majority of its customers, the choice of Anita Hill to chair Hollywood’s newly formed Commission on Sexual Harassment and Advancing Equality in the Workplace is the latest manifestation of a kind of tone deafness on the part of Tinseltown, especially when it comes to the Hollywood brand.

Hollywood executives have decided to follow the lead of politicians in the nation’s capital, the ones who routinely convene a “blue ribbon commission” to give the perception that problems are being solved. A similar body has been created to deal with the growing list of Hollywood sexual abuse scandals.

Hollywood executives have chosen precisely the wrong individual to head the commission. The announcement that Hill would be taking the top spot came after a meeting was spearheaded by Lucasfilm President Kathleen Kennedy, Nike Foundation Founder and Co-Chair Maria Eitel, entertainment attorney Nina Shaw, and venture capitalist Freada Kapor Klein.

Hollywood’s deep concern over the issue of sexual misconduct is reflected by the power players that attended the event, which included Disney Chairman and CEO Bob Iger, Paramount Chairman and CEO Jim Gianopulos, CBS Corp. Chairman and CEO Leslie Moonves, Warner Bros. Chairman and CEO Kevin Tsujihara, Universal Chairman and CEO Jeff Shell, Sony Chairman and CEO Tony Vinciquerra, Netflix Chief Content Officer Ted Sarandos, William Morris Endeavor Co-Chairman Ari Emanuel, CAA Co-Chairman Bryan Lourd, and Founding Partner of ICM Chris Silbermann, along with the heads of the motion picture, recording, and television academies, and the actors, writers, directors, and producers guilds.

Hill achieved fame in the early 1990s when she brought forward allegations of sexual harassment during the Senate confirmation process for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

The problem for Hollywood is that Hill failed to tell the truth. Her behavior was inconsistent with someone who had been a victim of sexual harassment. Hill followed Justice Thomas from one job to another, made numerous personal telephone calls to the man she claimed had sexually harassed her, and the calls continued even after she was no longer working for him. She denied having ever made the calls but changed her story after phone records were produced.

Hill initially asked that her name not be mentioned when the accusations were presented to Justice Thomas. The accusations referred to events that were supposed to have occurred when only she and Justice Thomas were in the same room, so if the allegations were true, Justice Thomas would certainly have known who had made them. The anonymity request only made sense if the charges were false.

On several occasions, Hill denied that she had communicated with a Democratic staffer. She later reversed herself when under oath.

A witness that was supposed to be corroborating Hill’s accusations claimed that Hill told her details about the supposed sexual harassment in a telephone call. However, it turned out that the call took place before Hill worked for Justice Thomas.

Polls taken following the hearings, which had been televised daily, showed that twice as many Americans believed Justice Thomas over Hill.

The left continued to attempt to smear Justice Thomas in the intervening years and even went as far as producing an HBO film, which disingenuously attempted to make Hill into a heroine.

The Business Toll of Taking a Knee

20140808_190852

A once great institution is literally in the process of destroying itself.

For the longest time the National Football League was the top drawing sport on television. Now it looks as though it is willingly abdicating its ratings throne.

In the season just prior to the current one, 34 of the top 40 televised sports games were NFL football match-ups. Come the fall of 2017, however, the NFL’s popularity took a severe hit and so, too, did the league’s bottom line.

Regarding the current season, TV ratings have declined almost 20 percent, while the television networks have reportedly lost as much as 500 million in advertising dollars.

When compared with the previous year’s numbers, ratings for Week 11 dropped 6.3 percent. And the traditional prime time Thanksgiving NFL game ratings were 10 percent lower than last year.

Millions of football fans have opted to change the channel on the TV set, cancel season tickets, and/or protest in countless other ways over the disrespect of the national anthem that has been shown by many.

The ratings downturn has been accompanied by surprisingly small stadium crowds across the country. In cities populated by die-hard sports fans, the highly unusual sight of empty seats has become commonplace.

In the sports crazed town of Chicago, a recent Bears home game played to a Soldier Field stadium in which over 16 percent of the seats were unoccupied, which meant that more than 10,000 tickets went unused.

The league’s all-important brand, which has been decades in the making, appears to have been severely marred in mere months. The NFL in large part has Colin Kaepernick to thank. The unemployed quarterback kicked off a wave of national anthem protests by football players across the league.

Last season, rather than standing during a performance of the national anthem, Kaepernick knelt down; this was in violation of the written policy of the NFL.

At a time when his career was on the wane and his playing days were coming to an end, Kaepernick managed to make himself more conspicuous than other professional football players by ignoring league policy and, more importantly, insulting the NFL’s primary consumers.

According to the league’s game operations manual, “The national anthem must be played before every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the national anthem. During the national anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking.”

Despite the fact that the manual’s language could not be any clearer, Kaepernick’s act of disrespect to the league and to the country was not only condoned by the media elites, among others, but it was praised.

In one of the most absurd accolades to come along in the history of publishing, as part of its “Men of the Year” edition, with the subtitle “The New American Heroes,” GQ Magazine honored the former San Francisco 49ers quarterback with its “Citizen of the Year” title.

It seems as though young athletes are the ones who have really been led astray by the heaping of praise upon the undignified behavior.

–Four high school football players in Michigan were preparing to take a knee but were benched before they could carry out their plans.

–Two Texas high school players were thrown off their team after protesting during the anthem.

–Child football players in Illinois, on a team made up of boys who were 8-years-old and younger, were joined by their coach in kneeling during the anthem.

–After football players at a New Jersey high school knelt during the anthem, two referees walked from the game in disgust. The referees were subsequently suspended for the remainder of the season while the players escaped reprimand or punishment.

Protests by professional football players have continued to harm the NFL’s bruised image. During Week 12 of the most recent season, which was played over this past weekend, Kansas City Chiefs cornerback Marcus Peters failed to come out of the locker room; Philadelphia Eagles safeties Malcolm Jenkins and Rodney McLeod raised their fists, as did Los Angeles Chargers left tackle Russell Okung; and Miami Dolphins wide receiver Kenny Stills, safety Michael Thomas, tight end Julius Thomas as well as New York Giants defensive end Olivier Vernon all knelt down while the anthem played.

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has come under fire for allowing the protests to grow and continue. This is the same Goodell who is reportedly demanding a $50 million salary and private jet service for life as part of his new contract. He is currently paid $30 million a year.

Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, who used to be an ardent supporter of Goodell, is now leading an insurgency against the commissioner and has declared that he will sue the NFL if Goodell’s contract extension is finalized without the approval of all team owners.

Former University of Georgia, USFL, and NFL running back Herschel Walker has placed the blame for the NFL protests squarely on Goodell.

“I absolutely think the protests are so upsetting, and I blame the commissioner,” Walker told the New York Post. “I know people are going to be angry when I say it, but he should have stopped the protests at the very beginning.”