Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

Donald Trump vs. NFL: A story of unnecessary roughness

Donald Trump is saying people should be fired for exercising their freedom of speech. Hillary Clinton supporters used to say the same thing about conservatives.

Published

on

1,538 Views

The fact that Donald Trump has broken most of his campaign promises to lead a non-interventionist foreign policy is not as surprising as it is disappointing. Many if not most western politicians break their promises, but what’s still odd about Trump is that he broke promises he never needed to make in the first place. 2016, like most US elections was largely won and lost on domestic rather than foreign policy issues, disheartening as this might seem for those who realise there can be no liberty and the pursuit of happiness without life itself.

While spectator sports in the US have had a long history of occasional radicalism, specifically from black American athletes, Donald Trump’s intervention into the “Take A Knee” phenomenon in the NFL, is something new, as it represents Trump attacking an entire popular sport which is popular with many conservatives, while at the same time attacking the First Amendment to the US Constitution, that so many of his supporters rallied behind when the Democrats attempted to censor their freedom of speech during the 2016 campaign.

When it comes to black athletes making history in the US, one can point first to Jack Johnson breaking the race divide in Boxing and later to Jackie Robinson who became America’s first black professional baseball star in 1947. Even more importantly from the wider international perspective, in 1966, Muhammad Ali lost his professional boxing licence and was sentenced to five years in prison for refusing to fight in the Vietnam War.

Ali became a genuine political spokesman as well as the world’s most famous boxer, in the aftermath of his opposition to the US war on Vietnam. But far from intervening in Ali’s statements, the White House stayed clear of Ali until 1977 when he was invited by newly elected President Jimmy Carter. In other words, not until Ali’s stance against the war was vindicated by history, would mainstream Washington go near a man often called the greatest modern sportsman and the greatest boxer of all time.

A few years after Ali’s opposition to the war in Vietnam, during the 1968 Olympic Games, US track stars Tommie Smith and John Carlos famously raised their fists during the playing of the US national anthem at the medal ceremony. The move was largely panned by the media at the time as un-patriotic and even ‘communist’, even though subsequently, Carlos and Smith have become iconic figures in many parts of the United States.

Throughout this period, the NFL stayed largely apolitical. Ironically, one of the most controversial things in professional American football during the 1960s was New York Jets quarterback Joe Namath’s rock and roll hairstyle and fur coats.

Times however, have changed and it is rather surreal.

At the turn of the millennium, the NFL was the most popular professional sport in the US and its appeal while apolitical was generally culturally conservative. The jokes about ‘only stupid Republican voting men’ liking sports and football in particular, were mainstays of liberal US comedians, especially those who sought to undermine masculinity and conservatism more widely.

It was during the Presidency of Barack Obama that the US Defense Department allocated millions of Dollars to promote ultra-patriotic NFL pre-game displays featuring field-sized flags, military flyovers and fireworks. This story got little attention at the time, in spite of many libertarian groups finding the displays to be a waste of money.

But in September of 2016, this changed. Colin Kaepernick of the San Francisco 49ers, a radical city, but also one with a storied NFL history, decided to kneel during the playing of the national anthem prior the the start of the game. Thus, an official tug-of-war between pro-military factions and free speech activists started to take shape on the gridiron.

While Barack Obama carefully dodged the issue when asked about it in September of 2016, Donald Trump has delved into the issue stating that he would tell those who allow kneeling for the anthem: “Get that son of a bitch off the field”. It has not stopped there. A quick look at Donald Trump’s recent Tweets and it would be difficult to tell whether he is more concerned with North Korea or NFL players and owners.

While the sporting establishment in the 1960s generally turned against Muhammad Ali, Tommie Smith and John Carlos, today the NFL, including many team owners, have expressed their outrage at Trump’s statements, including many who supported him in the 2016 election.

The reasons for this vary although it might be fair to say that with Trump telling people to boycott the NFL while objectively tarnishing the NFL brand, many owners are incensed that the head of state in the US, is using his office to essentially try to run their product and brand into the ground.

But Trump is doing more than ruining the NFL brand which had already faced competition from other sporting events like MMA which tends to attract a younger audience. Trump is actually tarnishing the brand of conservatism in the United States.

The US conservative movement is often united in a love for both the military and free speech during Democratic administrations, which are seen as being poor defenders of both the military and free speech.

But when a Republican and self-defined conservative is in charge, the conservative movement in America almost always divides itself between libertarians who value free speech and are often anti-war, versus pro-military conservatives who are happy to make flag burning a criminal offence.

When Donald Trump ran, he picked up on many libertarian themes including an anti-war message and a war on so-called ‘political correctness’ which is a war on censorship. Now though, he has chosen sides and it is not the libertarian side.

If Trump were a businessman, his statements about the NFL would be perfectly legitimate. He might even want to start a rival TFL (Trump Football League) where flags would wave high and mightily throughout the stadium during every game. This would be his right and people could vote with their pockets.

But as the President, he has used his shrewd marketing techniques to divide the country and also to divide his own conservative base. The NFL which was once as American as apple pie but without the politics, now stands for being ‘anti-military’ according to many non-libertarian Trump supporters.

Trump is in danger of forcing people to decide on their favourite sport plus free speech on one side and Trump plus the military on the other. The only caveat is that the NFL isn’t threatening the US military and nor are NFL players who take a knee. The US military is doing just fine, it is free speech that is in trouble.

In the longer term, many might realise that they cherish their free speech and their favourite game and don’t want to be lumped into a box by the President who is frankly acting like a good businessman, but a totally off the wall leader on the subject.

The Democrats and the terrorists of Antifa have attacked free speech from one side, now Trump is attacking it from another. The difference is that while Antifa and the Democrats offer nothing to conservative America, the NFL does and has done for decades. The First Amendment has offered a great deal to conservative America for far longer and in a much more meaningful way.

Voices of consistency are important and thus far, Ron Paul is once again consistently on the side of free speech whether it promotes the so-called left or the so-called right.

Before dismissing this, one has to remember that Ron Paul made being an anti-war conservative great again, something which helped pave the way for the popularity of Trump among conservatives long alienated by the big-war/big-government Republican party.

The fact is that, no one should be fired for using their peaceful right to free speech. This is true for those posting anti-Hillary memes and it is true for football players who take a knee.

Today, libertarians like Paul may well be paving the way for an anti-Trump backlash of conservatives who realise that if free speech shouldn’t get people “fired” for posting anti-Hillary memes, then it also shouldn’t get people fired for kneeling during the national anthem.

In attacking something as quintessentially American as football as well as attacking free speech, Donald Trump is of course exercising his own free speech, but much like no football game is complete without a penalty flag, Trump is guilty of unnecessary roughness, which is not a crime, but which is certainly a blunder.

When it comes to the First Amendment, every team needs a good defense.

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

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Luc Hellen
Guest
Luc Hellen

?What do we think? That’s easy. You’re out to lunch … and factually mistaken*. “Violating the constitution?” Heheh. Let’s understand one thing right off the bat. Unlike ‘regular’ private businesses, the NFL has been receiving tax reprieve (I.e a free ride on the tax payer’s back) since the 40s, and getting taxpayers to pay for their football stadiums since the 90s. We’re talking about billions in taxpayer-funded corporate welfare for the NFL, which is why we’ve seen the Senate get involved in NFL business many times over the decades That said, Trump did not call for oversight or any other… Read more »

Le Ruse
Guest
Le Ruse

Humm.. Luc.. It’s very simple ?? Any proud white American boycott the NFL & it would be enough to put them really on their knees ??
No more money or shekels going to the piece of shit ??. Let them play NFL in the little shitty..country & the BLM put their asses on the seats in the stadium ??

bluewater
Guest
bluewater

MANCOTT THE NFL! http://tomatobubble.com/nfl_mancott.html As for the libtarded whining about Trumpstein’s “divisiveness,” it is important to note that these childishly provocative anthem-protests began in 2016 as a direct consequence of the relentless,multi-year incitement against innocent police officers by Mr. & Mr. Obongo and the rest of the usual suspects above and below them. The meaning of the circus has since morphed into a protest of “racism” ™ in general. A bit of essential chronology is called for here: One can only imagine how many fatherless Black kids these notoriously promiscuous multi-millionaire morons have sired and abandoned. They are also notorious… Read more »

ColinNZ
Guest
ColinNZ

I think it’s a well balanced article, raising and analysing some fundamental points. I think some of the other comments here are distracted by the detail (eg NFL works), rather than the higher level principle.

seby
Guest
seby

The dotard emperor is giving his thumbs down, while the people give theirs.

This is no different from the “bread and circuses” of a dying empire. A engineered distraction from the rot and corruption.

PhoebeDHarry
Guest
PhoebeDHarry

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
!sz105d:
➽➽
➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleNewHealthyNetJobsOpportunity/simple/work ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::!sz105l..,..

Seán Murphy
Guest
Seán Murphy

Why call it football, when the ball is rarely actually kicked?

Constantine
Guest
Constantine

A very reasonable question.

bluewater
Guest
bluewater

comment image

Don’t Feel Sorry For American Blacks

To destroy Western society, the Illuminati (Communist) strategy is to identify fissures and then to widen them. This is what “victimhood” and championing “minorities” is all about. But as Lanny Goodman points out, American blacks are among the most privileged and organized minorities in America and don’t require special consideration.

https://www.henrymakow.com/

bluewater
Guest
bluewater

ALL PLANNED

This NFL dispute is bringing the Masonic Jewish war against America out in the open

https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2017/09/27/black-man-agrees-with-president-trump-on-sob-nfl-players/

Black man agrees with Trump
RAY LEWIS A THUG
OJ SIMPSON A THUG
Many THUGS work in the NFL and if it was not for the MASONIC OWNERS and LAWYERS..they would be in JAIL!!!!..but THEY EXPLOIT THEM and they have no IDEA of this

comment image

Latest

Fake news media FREAK OUT over Trump and NATO (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 172.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the media meltdown over remarks that U.S. President Trump may have made with regard to NATO, and how neo-liberal war hawks championing the alliance as some sort of foreign policy projection of peace and democracy, are really just supporting aggression, war, and the eventual weakening of the United States.

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

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Top 10 Reasons Not to Love NATO, Authored by David Swanson:


The New York Times loves NATO, but should you?

Judging by comments in social media and the real world, millions of people in the United States have gone from having little or no opinion on NATO, or from opposing NATO as the world’s biggest military force responsible for disastrous wars in places like Afghanistan (for Democrats) or Libya (for Republicans), to believing NATO to be a tremendous force for good in the world.

I believe this notion to be propped up by a series of misconceptions that stand in dire need of correction.

1. NATO is not a war-legalizing body, quite the opposite. NATO, like the United Nations, is an international institution that has something or other to do with war, but transferring the UN’s claimed authority to legalize a war to NATO has no support whatsoever in reality. The crime of attacking another nation maintains an absolutely unaltered legal status whether or not NATO is involved. Yet NATO is used within the U.S. and by other NATO members as cover to wage wars under the pretense that they are somehow more legal or acceptable. This misconception is not the only way in which NATO works against the rule of law. Placing a primarily-U.S. war under the banner of NATO also helps to prevent Congressional oversight of that war. Placing nuclear weapons in “non-nuclear” nations, in violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty, is also excused with the claim that the nations are NATO members (so what?). And NATO, of course, assigns nations the responsibility to go to war if other nations go to war — a responsibility that requires them to be prepared for war, with all the damage such preparation does.

2. NATO is not a defensive institution. According to the New York Times, NATO has “deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years.” This is an article of faith, based on the unsubstantiated belief that Soviet and Russian aggression toward NATO members has existed for 70 years and that NATO has deterred it rather than provoked it. In violation of a promise made, NATO has expanded eastward, right up to the border of Russia, and installed missiles there. Russia has not done the reverse. The Soviet Union has, of course, ended. NATO has waged aggressive wars far from the North Atlantic, bombing Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Serbia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Libya. NATO has added a partnership with Colombia, abandoning all pretense of its purpose being in the North Atlantic. No NATO member has been attacked or credibly threatened with attack, apart from small-scale non-state blowback from NATO’s wars of aggression.

3. Trump is not trying to destroy NATO. Donald Trump, as a candidate and as U.S. President, has wondered aloud and even promised all kinds of things and, in many cases, the exact opposite as well. When it comes to actions, Trump has not taken any actions to limit or end or withdraw from NATO. He has demanded that NATO members buy more weapons, which is of course a horrible idea. Even in the realm of rhetoric, when European officials have discussed creating a European military, independent of the United States, Trump has replied by demanding that they instead support NATO.

4. If Trump were trying to destroy NATO, that would tell us nothing about NATO. Trump has claimed to want to destroy lots of things, good and bad. Should I support NAFTA or corporate media or the Cold War or the F35 or anything at all, simply because some negative comment about it escapes Trump’s mouth? Should I cheer for every abuse ever committed by the CIA or the FBI because they investigate Trump? Should I long for hostility between nuclear-armed governments because Democrats claim Trump is a Russian agent? When Trump defies Russia to expand NATO, or to withdraw from a disarmament treaty or from an agreement with Iran, or to ship weapons to Ukraine, or to try to block Russian energy deals in Europe, or to oppose Russian initiatives on banning cyber-war or weapons in space, should I cheer for such consistent defiance of Trump’s Russian master, and do so simply because Russia is, so implausibly, his so-inept master? Or should I form my own opinion of things, including of NATO?

5. Trump is not working for, and was not elected by, Russia.According to the New York Times, “Russia’s meddling in American elections and its efforts to prevent former satellite states from joining the alliance have aimed to weaken what it views as an enemy next door, the American officials said.” But are anonymous “American officials” really needed to acquire Russia’s openly expressed opinion that NATO is a threatening military alliance that has moved weapons and troops to states on Russia’s border? And has anyone produced the slightest documentation of the Russian government’s aims in an activity it has never admitted to, namely “meddling in American elections,” — an activity the United States has of course openly admitted to in regard to Russian elections? We have yet to see any evidence that Russia stole or otherwise acquired any of the Democratic Party emails that documented that party’s rigging of its primary elections in favor of Clinton over Sanders, or even any claim that the tiny amount of weird Facebook ads purchased by Russians could possibly have influenced the outcome of anything. Supposedly Trump is even serving Russia by demanding that Turkey not attack Kurds. But is using non-military means to discourage Turkish war-making necessarily the worst thing? Would it be if your favorite party or politician did it? If Trump encouraged a Turkish war, would that also be a bad thing because Trump did it, or would it be a bad thing for substantive reasons?

6. If Trump were elected by and working for Russia, that would tell us nothing about NATO. Imagine if Boris Yeltsin were indebted to the United States and ended the Soviet Union. Would that tell us whether ending the Soviet Union was a good thing, or whether the Soviet Union was obsolete for serious reasons? If Trump were a Russian pawn and began reversing all of his policies on Russia to match that status, including restoring his support for the INF Treaty and engaging in major disarmament negotiations, and we ended up with a world of dramatically reduced military spending and nuclear armaments, with the possibility of all dying in a nuclear apocalypse significantly lowered, would that too simply be a bad thing because Trump?

7. Russia is not a military threat to the world. That Russia would cheer NATO’s demise tells us nothing about whether we should cheer too. Numerous individuals and entities who indisputably helped to put Trump in the White House would dramatically oppose and others support NATO’s demise. We can’t go by their opinions either, since they don’t all agree. We really are obliged to think for ourselves. Russia is a heavily armed militarized nation that commits the crime of war not infrequently. Russia is a top weapons supplier to the world. All of that should be denounced for what it is, not because of who Russia is or who Trump is. But Russia spends a tiny fraction of what the United States does on militarism. Russia has been reducing its military spending each year, while the United States has been increasing its military spending. U.S. annual increases have sometimes exceeded Russia’s entire military budget. The United States has bombed nine nations in the past year, Russia one. The United States has troops in 175 nations, Russia in 3. Gallup and Pew find populations around the world viewing the United States, not Russia, as the top threat to peace in the world. Russia has asked to join NATO and the EU and been rejected, NATO members placing more value on Russia as an enemy. Anonymous U.S. military officials describe the current cold war as driven by weapons profits. Those profits are massive, and NATO now accounts for about three-quarters of military spending and weapons dealing on the globe.

8. Crimea has not been seized. According to the New York Times, “American national security officials believe that Russia has largely focused on undermining solidarity between the United States and Europe after it annexed Crimea in 2014. Its goal was to upend NATO, which Moscow views as a threat.” Again we have an anonymous claim as to a goal of a government in committing an action that never occurred. We can be fairly certain such things are simply made up. The vote by the people of Crimea to re-join Russia is commonly called the Seizure of Crimea. This infamous seizure is hard to grasp. It involved a grand total of zero casualties. The vote itself has never been re-done. In fact, to my knowledge, not a single believer in the Seizure of Crimea has ever advocated for re-doing the vote. Coincidentally, polling has repeatedly found the people of Crimea to be happy with their vote. I’ve not seen any written or oral statement from Russia threatening war or violence in Crimea. If the threat was implicit, there remains the problem of being unable to find Crimeans who say they felt threatened. (Although I have seen reports of discrimination against Tartars during the past 4 years.) If the vote was influenced by the implicit threat, there remains the problem that polls consistently get the same result. Of course, a U.S.-backed coup had just occurred in Kiev, meaning that Crimea — just like a Honduran immigrant — was voting to secede from a coup government, by no means an action consistently frowned upon by the United States.

9. NATO is not an engaged alternative to isolationism. The notion that supporting NATO is a way to cooperate with the world ignores superior non-deadly ways to cooperate with the world. A nonviolent, cooperative, treaty-joining, law-enforcing alternative to the imperialism-or-isolationism trap is no more difficult to think of or to act on than treating drug addiction or crime or poverty as reason to help people rather than to punish them. The opposite of bombing people is not ignoring them. The opposite of bombing people is embracing them. By the standards of the U.S. communications corporations Switzerland must be the most isolationist land because it doesn’t join in bombing anyone. The fact that it supports the rule of law and global cooperation, and hosts gatherings of nations seeking to work together is simply not relevant.

10. April 4 belongs to Martin Luther King, Jr., not militarism. War is a leading contributor to the growing global refugee and climate crises, the basis for the militarization of the police, a top cause of the erosion of civil liberties, and a catalyst for racism and bigotry. A growing coalition is calling for the abolition of NATO, the promotion of peace, the redirection of resources to human and environmental needs, and the demilitarization of our cultures. Instead of celebrating NATO’s 70thanniversary, we’re celebrating peace on April 4, in commemoration of Martin Luther King Jr.’s speech against war on April 4, 1967, as well as his assassination on April 4, 1968.

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

Latest

Turkey prepared to take Syria’s Manbij, won’t let it turn into ‘swamp’ like N. Iraq

Turkey sees the US-backed Kurdish YPG militias as an extension of the PKK and considers them terrorists as well.

RT

Published

on

By

Via RT


Ankara has “almost completed” preparations for another military operation in Syria and will launch it if “promises” made by other parties about the protection of its borders are not kept, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said.

Turkey still hopes that talks with the US, Russia and “other parties” will allow it to ensure its security without resorting to force but it is still ready to proceed with a military option and will not “wait forever,” Erdogan said. He was referring to Ankara’s plans for the northern Syrian territories east of the Euphrates River, which it seeks to turn into a “security zone”free of any Kurdish militias.

“We are on our border with our forces and following developments closely. If promises made to us are kept and the process goes on, that’s fine. Otherwise, we inform that we have almost completed our preparations and will take steps in line with our own strategy,” the president said, addressing a group of businessmen in Ankara on Monday.

He did not elaborate on the promises made. However, they are apparently linked to the withdrawal of the Kurdish YPG militia from the Manbij area and the regions along the border with Turkey. “We will never allow a safe zone to turn into a new swamp,” Erdogan said, referring to the northern Syrian territories and comparing them to the northern Iraq, where the militants from the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) – an organization that Ankara considers a terrorist group – have been entrenched for decades.

Turkey sees the US-backed Kurdish YPG militias, which form the backbone of the so-called Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), as an extension of the PKK and considers them terrorists as well. “Our proposal for a security zone under Turkey’s control aims to keep terror organizations away from our borders,” the Turkish president said.

He went on to explain that Ankara does not seek any territorial gains in its military campaigns in Syria but merely seeks to restore order in the war-ravaged country. “We will provide security for Manbij and then we will hand over the city to its real owners,” Erdogan said. “Syria belongs to Syrians.”

Turkey also seeks to establish a “security zone 20 miles [32 kilometers] deep” into Syria, Erdogan said, adding that he already discussed this issue with the US President Donald Trump. “Those who insistently want to keep us away from these regions are seeking to strengthen terror organizations,” he added.

Ankara has been long planning to push YPG units out of the area east of the Euphrates River. Its operation was delayed by the US withdrawal from Syria. However, Erdogan repeatedly hinted that his patience is wearing thin and he is not ready to wait much longer. He warned Trump against backtracking on his pledge to withdraw some 2,000 US forces out of Syria following a suicide attack in Manbij that killed four Americans. If the US president halted the withdrawal, it would mean that Islamic State (formerly ISIS/ISIL) had won, Erdogan argued.

He has also reiterated that Turkey is ready to take over Manbij “without delay.” The US military is currently working on security arrangements with the Turkish forces to create a buffer zone between Turkey and the Kurdish fighters. The Kurds, meanwhile, invited the Syrian government to take over the city and have reportedly begun to leave the area. Turkey has dismissed the reports saying its a “psyop”.

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

Latest

Political Knives Dull Themselves on the Rock of Brexit Article 50

The invocation of Article 50 was undertaken by an act of Parliament. And it will take another act of Parliament to undo it.

Strategic Culture Foundation

Published

on

Authored Tom Luongo via Strategic Culture Foundation:


Theresa “The Gypsum Lady” May went through an extraordinary twenty-four hours. First, seeing her truly horrific Brexit deal go down in historic defeat and then, somehow, surviving a ‘No-Confidence’ vote which left her in a stronger position than before it.

It looks like May rightly calculated that the twenty or so Tory Remainers would put party before the European Union as their personal political positions would be terminally weakened if they voted her out of office.

While there is little stomach in the British Parliament for a ‘no-deal’ Brexit, there is less for allowing Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn to become Prime Minister. And that is the crux of why the incessant calls to delay Brexit, call for a ‘people’s vote’ or, in Corbyn’s case, “take a no-deal Brexit off the table,’ ultimately lead to a whole lot of political knife-fighting and very little substantive action.

The day-to-day headline spam is designed to wear down people’s resistance and make it feel like Brexit getting betrayed is inevitable. That has been the British Deep State’s and EU’s game plan all along and they hoped they could arm-twist enough people in parliament to succeed.

But the problem for them now, since the clock has nearly run out, is the invocation of Article 50 was undertaken by an act of Parliament. And it will take another act of Parliament to undo it.

And I don’t see anyone on the Remainer side working towards that end. That should be your clue as to what happens next.

Why? Because they know they don’t have the time to get that act past Parliament. So, the rest of this is simply a PR campaign to push public opinion far enough to allow for an illegal canceling or postponing of Brexit.

But it’s not working.

According to the latest polls, Brits overwhelmingly want the original Brexit vote respectedLeave even has a 5-6 point lead over Remain.

And, I think Theresa May now realizes this. It is why she invited the no-confidence vote against her. She knew she had the votes and it would give her the ammunition to ignore Corbyn’s hysterical ranting about taking a no-deal Brexit off the table.

Whether she realizes that the only negotiating tool she has with the EU is the threat of a No-Deal Brexit, exactly like Nigel Farage and those committed to Brexit have been telling her for two years is still, however, up in the air.

It looks like she’s finally starting to get it.

The net result is we are seeing a similar outing of the nefarious, behind-the-scenes, power brokers in the public eye similar to what’s been happening in the US with Donald Trump and Russiagate.

May has been singularly unimpressive in her handling of Brexit. I’ve been convinced from the beginning that betraying Brexit was always her goal. Negotiating a deal unacceptable to anyone was meant to exhaust everyone into the position to just throwing up their hands and canceling the whole thing.

The EU has been in the driver’s seat the entire time because most of the British establishment has been on their side and it was only the people who needed to be disrespected.

So, after all of these shananigans we are back to where we were last week. May has cut off all avenues of discussion. She won’t commit to taking ‘no-deal’ off the table to tweak Corbyn. She won’t substantively move on any other issue. This is likely to push her deal through as a last-minute panic move.

Corbyn is still hoping to get new elections to take power, and the majority of MP’s who don’t want to leave the EU keep fighting among themselves to cock up the entire works.

All they are doing is expending pound after pound of political capital beating themselves against their own act of Parliament which goes into effect on March 29th.

By the time that date comes around the frustration, shame and humiliation of how Parliament has mishandled Brexit will make it difficult for a lot of Remainers to hold together their majority as public opinion has decidedly turned against them.

In the past the EU has had that façade of democratic support undermining any change at the political level. With Brexit (and with budget talks in Italy) that is not the case. The people are angry.

The peak moment for Remainers to stage a bipartisan political coup against May should have been the most recent no-confidence vote.

With May surviving that it implies that Remainers are not willing to die politically for their cause.

This should begin to see defectors over the next couple of weeks as they realize they don’t have a hand to play either.

And by May refusing to rule out a ‘no-deal’ Brexit it has finally brought the EU around to throw a bone towards the British. Their admitting they would extend Article 50 is just that. But they know that’s a non-starter as that is the one thing May has been steadfast in holding to.

On March 29th with or without a deal the U.K. is out of the EU. Because despite the European Court of Justice’s decision, Britain’s parliament can only cancel Article 50 at this point by acting illegally.

Not that I would put that past these people, but then that opens up a can of worms that most British MP’s will not go along with. The personal stakes are simply too high.

When dealing with politicians, never bet against their vanity or their pocketbook. In May’s case she may finally have realized she could have the legacy of getting Britain out of the EU just before it collapses.

And all she has to do between now and the end of March is, precisely, nothing.

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