Connect with us

Latest

News

All out war breaks out between NFL and US President Trump

NFL fires back at Trump, players refuse to honor US national anthem.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

1,474 Views

Identity politics has now seeped into US professional sports, and all out war has broken out between the NBA and NFL, with a politically incorrect US President Trump.

This Sunday NFL players decided to take a knee after Trump’s “get that son of a bitch off the field” comment, made during an Alabama weekend rally.

From around the NFL:

Tom Brady, who is a friend of Trump, joined his Patriot teammates in locking arms during the anthem before the game against the Texans in Foxborough.

Brady did put his hand over his heart.

Aaron Rodgers posted messages of solidarity with protesters on his Instagram page.

#unity #brotherhood #family #dedication #love #

A post shared by Aaron Rodgers (@aaronrodgers12) on

The Pittsburgh Steelers announced that they will remain in the locker room during the anthem before kick off against the Chicago Bears in Chicago.

Steelers head coach Mike Tomlin made the announcement during an interview with CBS.

“For us as a football team it’s about us remaining solid. We’re not going to be divided by anything said by anyone. I told the players if you feel the need to do anything I will be supportive of that, as Americans you have that right, but whatever we do, we’re going to do 100% we’re going to do together…we’re not going to play politics with football players or football coaches. We’re not participating in the anthem today. We’re not going to let divisive times or divisive individuals affect our agenda. We’re not participating in the anthem..to remove ourselves from this circumstance…because people shouldn’t have to choose.”

Steelers LT Alejandro Villanueva, an army veteran, left the locker room during the anthem and stood by the tunnel with his hand over his heart.

In Philadelphia, Eagles and Giants players and coaches locked arms, as a massive American flag was raised over the field and military jets performed a flyover.

A few players raised fists. Several players on the Bills and the Broncos took a knee during the anthem.

Zerohedge reports that during an appearance on ESPN’s “NFL Sunday Countdown”, a football show that this week was coopted by politics, former Buffalo Bills and New York Jets head coach Rex Ryan admitted that he was “pissed off” about President Donald Trump referring to pro athletes who don’t stand for the pledge as “sons of bitches” and urging fans to boycott the league, or at least walk out of stadiums when they see players protesting.

“I’m pissed off, I’ll be honest with you,” Ryan said on ESPN’s “Sunday NFL Countdown.” “I supported Donald Trump. When he asked me to introduce him at a rally in Buffalo, I did that. But I’m reading these comments and it’s appalling to me and I’m sure it’s appalling to any citizen in our country.”

“Calling our players SOBs and all that kind of stuff? That’s not the men that I know,” Ryan, who’s now an analyst, continued. “The men I know in the locker room, I’m proud of, I’m proud to be associated with those people.”

Patriots owner Robert Kraft, who supported Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign, said he was “deeply disappointed” with US President Trump.

From the White House:

Trump doubled down on his weekend comments, calling on players, coaches, and owners to respect the US national anthem.

The US President continued to slam the NFL, and the NFL Commissioner, for allowing players to disrespect American flag and country, in a series of three tweets…

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
mdufour
Guest
mdufour

Respect for the anthem sure…But what about your voters desire for no more war?

bluewater
Guest
bluewater

Kosher approved false opposition-
Po-sports feud with Trump fuelled by Jewish ownership-
https://saboteur365.wordpress.com/2017/09/23/zerohedge-weighs-in-on-nggerball/

joos have always been slave traders and the jig continues. Unfortunately, via the world banksters’ schemes, idiots swallowing the chosenites’ biblical bullcrap have allowed all of us to be enslaved.

bluewater
Guest
bluewater

NFL players: 68% black

NFL audience: 78% White

NFL owners: 34% jewish FREEMASON OWNERS

Turn it off, goy. #BoycottNFL FOOTBALL ..A FREEMASONIC GAME

comment image
comment image

santiago
Guest
santiago

USA : 80% jewish owners

Boycott the USA

sesame
Guest
sesame

Are we supposed to sympathize with Trump for catching flack after telling club owners to discipline players who don’t make the requisite display of “patriotism” (i.e. pro-imperialist jingoism) at large entertainment events? Why are sports events turned into patriotic pep rallies in the first place? And are we still supposed to be concerned about Trump’s domestic woes? Hasn’t that time passed?

Guess
Guest
Guess

Fuck your Flag, National Anthem and country.

Le Ruse
Guest
Le Ruse

Yupp..Vote with your feet !! F**k the NFL !

MelvinSSmith
Guest
MelvinSSmith

Google is paying 97$ per hour,with weekly payouts.You can also avail this.
On tuesday I got a brand new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $11752 this last four weeks..with-out any doubt it’s the most-comfortable job I have ever done .. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
!sl92d:
➽➽
➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleNetJobsTalentWorkFromHome/more/cash ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::!sl92l..,…..

Le Ruse
Guest
Le Ruse

Carol.. Only a cheap two bit ho, would make home porn for 97$ an hour ??
But if you’re happy with 97$, who am I to tell you otherwise ?

AltaSDavie
Guest
AltaSDavie

Google is paying 97$ per hour,with weekly payouts.You can also avail this.
On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $11752 this last four weeks..with-out any doubt it’s the most-comfortable job I have ever done .. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
!dw196:
➽➽
➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleOnlineEasyCoTechJobsOpportunities/easy/jobs ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::!dw196l..,…

Le Ruse
Guest
Le Ruse

Alta.. Only a cheap ho, is making home porn for $97 an hour ??

Keith Smith
Guest
Keith Smith

Liberals really do not need a boycott of the NFL to go with their disastrous hollywood and MSM revenue drops. Oh wait, they put politics in sport lol. Dont they ever learn?

santiago
Guest
santiago

The world should boycott the USA, left and right, they are all crazy, delusional and perverted SOBs. There is little difference between those that believe in American Exceptionalism and the left.

A true American would be putting efforts in to destroying the entire system and destroying myths like the “US constitution is great” myth.

CumExApostolatus
Guest
CumExApostolatus

American “exceptionalism” is judeo-freemasonic psych warfare.

Isabella Jones
Guest
Isabella Jones

Frankly my dear, I dont’ give a damn. Trump and his pampered pooch gamesman can hurl sand from the toddler pit as much as they want. It’s nothing compared to what he’s just done, if reported correctly “The first change, reported last night, is that Trump is preparing to “dismantle key Obama-era limits on drone strikes and commando raids outside conventional battlefields.” The language is a tad overblown, but the essence of the reported change is that Trump intends to delegate strike decisions to lower levels of the command chain and expand the list of potential targets from “high-level” militants… Read more »

tiger
Guest
tiger

But remember, Trump is doing nothing. His military govt is carrying out orders from the real powers. Trump’s outbursts are mere distractions for the gulled rabble, while the real crimes are put into motion. When Trump has served his purpose, he’ll be discarded like all the others.

Isabella Jones
Guest
Isabella Jones

I suspect you are absolutely right. Which makes paying any attention to anything he does a complete waste of time. It’s the new orders given that matter, because if they carry them out it could lead to firing on Russian military “accidentally” and God knows what other mayhem.

Bill Rood
Guest
Bill Rood

The Star Spangled Banner is militaristic, jingoistic ditty set to an un-singable drinking song, commemorating a minor stalemate in America’s first “war of choice.” The excuse for war was impressment, which had already been tolerated for several years. The likely real motivation for the US declaration of war was the hope that the US could take Canada while Britain was preoccupied with Napoleon. The US failed in several attempts to invade Canada. Racist snowflakes love to complain that their speech is unfairly circumscribed by “political correctness,” while at the same time they invoke their own form of “political correctness” by… Read more »

Bear Gibbons
Guest
Bear Gibbons

Hmmm… This is turning out to be QUITE the distraction, eh?
Is anyone else wondering, just exactly what they’re trying to distract us all from knowing?
For instance, this seems to be taking away the focus on HRC and her illegal comings & goings, just to name one thing…
This is all just a bit too contrived for me…
Much ado, about nothing, actually… 😉

CumExApostolatus
Guest
CumExApostolatus

The fact that the NFL team owners came together so quickly smells like this is just another piece of the Joo plot to denigrate Trump for whom the Joos have no love, especially since he keeps pushing Nuttyahoo for a peace deal with the Palestinians, (but assassinating him ala JFK would just be too obvious) and to further fan the flames of racial divide.

samo war
Guest
samo war

#

Latest

New York Times hit piece on Trump and NATO exposes alliance as outdated and obsolete (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 61.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

RT CrossTalk host Peter Lavelle and The Duran’s Alex Christoforou take a quick look at the New York Times hit piece citing anonymous sources, with information that the U.S. President dared to question NATO’s viability.

Propaganda rag, the NYT, launched its latest presidential smear aimed at discrediting Trump and provoking the establishment, warmonger left into more impeachment – Twenty-fifth Amendment talking points.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via The American Conservative


The New York Times scored a serious scoop when it revealed on Monday that President Trump had questioned in governmental conversations—on more than one occasion, apparently—America’s membership in NATO. Unfortunately the paper then slipped into its typical mode of nostrum journalism. My Webster’s New World Dictionary defines “nostrum” as “quack medicine” entailing “exaggerated claims.” Here we had quack journalism executed in behalf of quack diplomacy.

The central exaggerated claim is contained in the first sentence, in which it is averred that NATO had “deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years.” This is wrong, as can be seen through just a spare amount of history.

True, NATO saved Europe from the menace of Russian Bolshevism. But it did so not over 70 years but over 40 years—from 1949 to 1989. That’s when the Soviet Union had 1.3 million Soviet and client-state troops poised on Western Europe’s doorstep, positioned for an invasion of Europe through the lowlands of Germany’s Fulda Gap.

How was this possible? It was possible because Joseph Stalin had pushed his armies farther and farther into the West as the German Wehrmacht collapsed at the end of World War II. In doing so, and in the process capturing nearly all of Eastern Europe, he ensured that the Soviets had no Western enemies within a thousand miles of Leningrad or within 1,200 miles of Moscow. This vast territory represented not only security for the Russian motherland (which enjoys no natural geographical barriers to deter invasion from the West) but also a potent staging area for an invasion of Western Europe.

The first deterrent against such an invasion, which Stalin would have promulgated had he thought he could get away with it, was America’s nuclear monopoly. By the time that was lost, NATO had emerged as a powerful and very necessary deterrent. The Soviets, concluding that the cost of an invasion was too high, defaulted to a strategy of undermining Western interests anywhere around the world where that was possible. The result was global tensions stirred up at various global trouble spots, most notably Korea and Vietnam.

But Europe was saved, and NATO was the key. It deserves our respect and even reverence for its profound success as a military alliance during a time of serious threat to the West.

But then the threat went away. Gone were the 1.3 million Soviet and client-state troops. Gone was Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. Indeed, gone, by 1991, was the Soviet Union itself, an artificial regime of brutal ideology superimposed upon the cultural entity of Mother Russia. It was a time for celebration.

But it was also a time to contemplate the precise nature of the change that had washed over the world and to ponder what that might mean for old institutions—including NATO, a defensive military alliance created to deter aggression from a menacing enemy to the east. Here’s where Western thinking went awry. Rather than accepting as a great benefit the favorable developments enhancing Western security—the Soviet military retreat, the territorial reversal, the Soviet demise—the West turned NATO into a territorial aggressor of its own, absorbing nations that had been part of the Soviet sphere of control and pushing right up to the Russian border. Now Leningrad (renamed St. Petersburg after the obliteration of the menace of Soviet communism) resides within a hundred miles of NATO military forces, while Moscow is merely 200 miles from Western troops.

Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has absorbed 13 nations, some on the Russian border, others bordering lands that had been part of Russia’s sphere of interest for centuries. This constitutes a policy of encirclement, which no nation can accept without protest or pushback. And if NATO were to absorb those lands of traditional Russian influence—particularly Ukraine and Georgia—that would constitute a major threat to Russian security, as Russian President Vladimir Putin has sought to emphasize to Western leaders for years.

So, no, NATO has not deterred Russian aggression for 70 years. It did so for 40 and has maintained a destabilizing posture toward Russia ever since. The problem here is the West’s inability to perceive how changed geopolitical circumstances might require a changed geopolitical strategy. The encirclement strategy has had plenty of critics—George Kennan before he died; academics John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, and Robert David English; former diplomat Jack Matlock; the editors of The Nation. But their voices have tended to get drowned out by the nostrum diplomacy and the nostrum journalism that supports it at every turn.

You can’t drown out Donald Trump because he’s president of the United States. And so he has to be traduced, ridiculed, dismissed, and marginalized. That’s what the Times story, by Julian Barnes and Helene Cooper, sought to do. Consider the lead, designed to emphasize just how outlandish Trump’s musings are before the reader even has a chance to absorb what he may have been thinking: “There are few things that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia desires more than the weakening of NATO, the military alliance among the United States, Europe and Canada that has deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years.” Translation: “Take that, Mr. President! You’re an idiot.”

Henry Kissinger had something interesting to say about Trump in a recent interview with the Financial Times. “I think Trump may be one of those figures in history,” said the former secretary of state, “who appears from time to time to mark the end of an era and to force it to give up its old pretenses.” One Western pretense about Russia, so ardently enforced by the likes of Julian Barnes and Helene Cooper (who, it may be safe to say, know less about world affairs and their history than Henry Kissinger), is that nothing really changed with the Soviet collapse and NATO had to turn aggressive in order to keep that menacing nation in its place.

Trump clearly doesn’t buy that pretense. He said during the campaign that NATO was obsolete. Then he backtracked, saying he only wanted other NATO members to pay their fair share of the cost of deterrence. He even confessed, after Hillary Clinton identified NATO as “the strongest military alliance in the history of the world,” that he only said NATO was obsolete because he didn’t know much about it. But he was learning—enough, it appears, to support as president Montenegro’s entry into NATO in 2017. Is Montenegro, with 5,332 square miles and some 620,000 citizens, really a crucial element in Europe’s desperate project to protect itself against Putin’s Russia?

We all know that Trump is a crude figure—not just in his disgusting discourse but in his fumbling efforts to execute political decisions. As a politician, he often seems like a doctor attempting to perform open-heart surgery while wearing mittens. His idle musings about leaving NATO are a case in point—an example of a politician who lacks the skill and finesse to nudge the country in necessary new directions.

But Kissinger has a point about the man. America and the world have changed, while the old ways of thinking have not kept pace. The pretenses of the old have blinded the status quo defenders into thinking nothing has changed. Trump, almost alone among contemporary American politicians, is asking questions to which the world needs new answers. NATO, in its current configuration and outlook, is a danger to peace, not a guarantor of it.


Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington journalist and publishing executive, is the author most recently of President McKinley: Architect of the American Century

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Nigel Farage To Back Another “Vote Leave” Campaign If UK Holds Second Brexit Referendum

Nigel Farage said Friday that he would be willing to wage another “Vote Leave” campaign, even if he needed to use another party as the “vehicle” for his opposition.

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


Pro-European MPs from various political parties are pushing back against claims made by Prime Minister Theresa May’s government that a second Brexit referendum – which supporters have branded as a “People’s Vote” on May’s deal – would take roughly 14 months to organize, according to RT.

But while support for a second vote grows, one of the most notorious proponents of the original “Vote Leave” campaign is hinting at a possible return to politics to try and fight the effort.

After abandoning UKIP, the party he helped create, late last year, Nigel Farage said Friday that he would be willing to wage another “Vote Leave” campaign, even if he needed to use another party as the “vehicle” for his opposition. Farage also pointed out that a delay of Brexit Day would likely put it after the European Parliament elections in May.

“I think, I fear that the House of Commons is going to effectively overturn that Brexit. To me, the most likely outcome of all of this is an extension of Article 50. There could be another referendum,” he told Sky News.

According to official government guidance shown to lawmakers on Wednesday, which was subsequently leaked to the Telegraph, as May tries to head off a push by ministers who see a second referendum as the best viable alternative to May’s deal – a position that’s becoming increasingly popular with Labour Party MPs.

“In order to inform the discussions, a very short paper set out in factual detail the number of months that would be required, this was illustrative only and our position of course is that there will be no second referendum,,” May said. The statement comes as May has been meeting with ministers and leaders from all parties to try to find a consensus deal that could potentially pass in the House of Commons.

The 14 month estimate is how long May and her government expect it would take to pass the primary legislation calling for the referendum (seven months), conduct the question testing with the election committee (12 weeks), pass secondary legislation (six weeks) and conduct the campaigns (16 weeks).

May has repeatedly insisted that a second referendum wouldn’t be feasible because it would require a lengthy delay of Brexit Day, and because it would set a dangerous precedent that wouldn’t offer any more clarity (if some MPs are unhappy with the outcome, couldn’t they just push for a third referendum?). A spokesperson for No. 10 Downing Street said the guidance was produced purely for the purpose of “illustrative discussion” and that the government continued to oppose another vote.

Meanwhile, a vote on May’s “Plan B”, expected to include a few minor alterations from the deal’s previous iteration, has been called for Jan. 29, prompting some MPs to accuse May of trying to run out the clock. May is expected to present the new deal on Monday.

Former Tory Attorney General and pro-remainer MP Dominic Grieve blasted May’s timetable as wrong and said that the government “must be aware of it themselves,” while former Justice Minister Dr Phillip Lee, who resigned his cabinet seat in June over May’s Brexit policy, denounced her warning as “nonsense.”

As May pieces together her revised deal, more MPs are urging her to drop her infamous “red lines” (Labour in particular would like to see the UK remain part of the Customs Union), but with no clear alternative to May’s plan emerging, a delay of Brexit Day is looking like a virtual certainty.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

The National Security Agency Is A Criminal Organization

The National Security Agency values being able to blackmail citizens and members of government at home and abroad more than preventing terrorist attacks.

Paul Craig Roberts

Published

on

Via Paul Craig Roberts…


Years before Edward Snowden provided documented proof that the National Security Agency was really a national insecurity agency as it was violating law and the US Constitution and spying indiscriminately on American citizens, William Binney, who designed and developed the NSA spy program revealed the illegal and unconstitutional spying. Binney turned whistleblower, because NSA was using the program to spy on Americans. As Binney was well known to the US Congress, he did not think he needed any NSA document to make his case. But what he found out was “Congress would never hear me because then they’d lose plausible deniability. That was really their key. They needed to have plausible deniability so they can continue this massive spying program because it gave them power over everybody in the world. Even the members of Congress had power against others [in Congress]; they had power on judges on the Supreme Court, the federal judges, all of them. That’s why they’re so afraid. Everybody’s afraid because all this data that’s about them, the central agencies — the intelligence agencies — they have it. And that’s why Senator Schumer warned President Trump earlier, a few months ago, that he shouldn’t attack the intelligence community because they’ve got six ways to Sunday to come at you. That’s because it’s like J. Edgar Hoover on super steroids. . . . it’s leverage against every member of parliament and every government in the world.”

To prevent whistle-blowing, NSA has “a program now called ‘see something, say something’ about your fellow workers. That’s what the Stasi did. That’s why I call [NSA] the new New Stasi Agency. They’re picking up all the techniques from the Stasi and the KGB and the Gestapo and the SS. They just aren’t getting violent yet that we know of — internally in the US, outside is another story.”

As Binney had no documents to give to the media, blowing the whistle had no consequence for NSA. This is the reason that Snowden released the documents that proved NSA to be violating both law and the Constitution, but the corrupt US media focused blame on Snowden as a “traitor” and not on NSA for its violations.

Whistleblowers are protected by federal law. Regardless, the corrupt US government tried to prosecute Binney for speaking out, but as he had taken no classified document, a case could not be fabricated against him.

Binney blames the NSA’s law-breaking on Dick “Darth” Cheney. He says NSA’s violations of law and Constitution are so extreme that they would have to have been cleared at the top of the government.

Binney describes the spy network, explains that it was supposed to operate only against foreign enemies, and that using it for universal spying so overloads the system with data that the system fails to discover many terrorist activities. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/50932.htm

Apparently, the National Security Agency values being able to blackmail citizens and members of government at home and abroad more than preventing terrorist attacks.

Unfortunately for Americans, there are many Americans who blindly trust the government and provide the means, the misuse of which is used to enslave us. A large percentage of the work in science and technology serves not to free people but to enslave them. By now there is no excuse for scientists and engineers not to know this. Yet they persist in their construction of the means to destroy liberty.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending