Sunday, September 24, 2017

American football stars drop to their knees during national anthem at Wembley! (American WHORES)

 Daily Mail ^ | 9-24-17 | Thomas Burrows 

BREAKING NEWS: American football stars drop to their knees during national anthem at Wembley in protest defying Donald Trump after he said sportsman who 'disrespect America' should be SACKED
Players from Jacksonville Jaguars and the Baltimore Ravens dropped to their knees as national anthem played
No players were kneeling during the playing of 'God Save The Queen', which followed the US national anthem
President Trump had stoked tensions by saying NFL players who protested should be sacked by their team
American football stars took a knee in defiance of Donald Trump at Wembley Stadium today after he said sportsmen who 'disrespect America' should be 'fired'.
Players from both Jacksonville Jaguars and the Baltimore Ravens dropped to their knees as the national anthem was played prior to the match in London.
No players were kneeling during the playing of 'God Save The Queen', which followed the Star Spangled Banner.
They did so after President Trump had stoked tensions by saying NFL players who protested during the national anthem should be sacked by their team.
At a rally on Friday night the president said: 'Wouldn't you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, 'Get that son of a bi*ch off the field right now... he is fired.'
He was referring to a controversial string of protests started by player Colin Kaepernick last year when he sat or kneeled during the anthem to highlight the treatment of black Americans.
Players on both teams and Jaguars owner Shad Khan, who were not kneeling, remained locked arm-in-arm throughout the playing of the national anthem and 'God Save The Queen'. Khan donated $1million to Trump's inaugural committee last year.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...

The Democrats' Dolchstosslegende

Sultan Knish ^ | 9/24/17 | Greenfield 

'Fraud': Mainstream polls use 29% more Democrats than Republicans

Washington Examiner ^ | 09/22/2017 | Paul Bedard 

Most of the top political polls that got the 2016 presidential race dead wrong are continuing to use a flawed methodology in rating President Trump's approval ratings that favors Democrats, women and younger voters, according to a new analysis.
The report shows that the mainstream polls oversample an average of 29 percent more Democrats than Republicans and the results skew anti-Trump. The result is that it robs Trump of about 8 points in his approval ratings, from 46 percent to 38 percent, it said.
And, said the report from Bombthrowers.com, one outfit, the Economist, used 58 percent more Democrats than Republicans in a recent poll on Trump's approval ratings.
"In every poll, Democrat respondents outnumbered Republicans by significant amounts. The Economist poll was the worst. Only 24 percent of respondents (360) were Republicans compared to 38 percent (570) Democrats – which means that 58 percent more Democrats were polled than Republicans, as shown in the %D/R column. On average, in these seven widely recognized national polls, only 29 percent (409 people) of the total 1,383 polled were Republicans, while 37 percent (518) were Democrats. Another way of saying it is that, on average, 29 percent more Democrats than Republicans were polled," wrote James Simpson, an economist, businessman and journalist.
Simpson called the practice "fraud."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...

The media take North Korea's side!

The Washington Examiner ^ | September 23, 2017 | Eddie Scarry 

Many members of the national media hate President Trump so much that they'll even defend North Korea if it keeps them consistent in their opposition to everything he does.

After Trump said at the United Nations General Assembly this week that the U.S. would crush the little Asian country should Kim Jong Un attack the U.S. or our allies, reporters and commentators reacted as if he had just threatened Switzerland on a whimsy.

Trump had simply said that the U.S. "has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea," a relatively measured response to years of hostilities from Kim's regime.

"There were gasps in the hall...

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...

Study: Unfunded Debt 12 Times Higher in Democratic-Run States!

LifeZette ^ | 09/19/2017 | Brendan Kirby 

States with liberal one-party control have average liability of $22,214 per taxpayer vs. $1,814 in red states!
The nation’s Democratic-controlled states have unfunded debt that is 12 times greater than the burden on taxpayers in states under total Republican control, according to a study released Tuesday.
The nonprofit group Truth in Accounting published “Financial State of the States,” which analyzes the public finances of all 50 states. The group found that state governments have accumulated $1.5 trillion in long-term debt nationwide, mostly due to unfunded employee pension and retiree health benefits.
In general, the fiscal picture is far worse in blue states. The average unfunded debt per taxpayer is $22,214 in the states that have Democratic governors and Democratic majorities in both legislative houses. That compares with an average taxpayer burden of $1,814 in states with a so-called Republican "trifecta."
States with divided power are in the middle, with an average taxpayer burden of $14,350.
{..snip..}
(Excerpt) Read more at lifezette.com ...

Chicago’s Awesome New Soda Tax Produces Predicted Results: Lower Sales, Lost Jobs, Angry People!

Hotair ^ | 09/23/2017 | Jazz Shaw 


Last month we looked at the state of the Cook County, Illinois soda tax, passed into law in December of last year. They had barely gotten the sin tax (which affects Chicago primarily) into motion before realizing that it probably violates the state constitution. They have a workaround in progress which seems dodgy enough as it is, and for the time being they are collecting it. The county executives insisted that it would work out for the best, improving everyone’s health and raising tons of money.
Long before it went to effect we were warning the county that this experiment has been tried in cities around the nation and it’s almost uniformly failed in spectacular fashion. So it would be a real shocker to see it be a big success in the Windy City, right? Fear not. Local retailers are already screaming because their sales are down by nearly fifty percent and they’re predicting that they’ll need to cut back on workers. (CBS Chicago)
In the latest salvo over Cook County’s controversial sweetened beverage tax, retailers trotted out numbers to back up their demand to repeal the tax.
Joseph Butera, owner of the supermarket chain bearing his family’s name, said ever since the soft drink tax went into effect, beverage sales have dropped.
“At our store in Norridge, for example, our beverage sales are down 47 percent,” he said.
Illinois Food Retailers Association President Brian Jordan said stores like Leamington Foods in the Lawndale neighborhood have seen customers leave to shop elsewhere, because of the tax.
The local retailers report that more than 4 in 10 local stores have seen a drop in beverage sales of at least 30%. And it’s affecting overall sales traffic as well. The common sense explanation as expressed by some of the owners is that nobody is going to go all the way out of the county just for soda and then return to buy the rest of their groceries from them. If you’re making the trip anyway you’ll buy almost all your groceries in a place where the taxes on everything are lower. And with gas prices way down from a couple of years ago, it’s more practical to do so.
This has been tried more times than I can count now. They’ve passed these massive sin taxes on soda and other sweetened beverages in New York City, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Berkeley and beyond. And the result is pretty much uniform. People don’t drink appreciably less soda. They just drive a bit further to buy it. And back home, stores begin bleeding revenue and jobs are lost. The predicted windfall for the city or county coffers never comes anywhere near the amounts being promised and consumers are given one more reason to distrust and dislike their local government.
There is a proposal to repeal the tax currently under consideration by the county board. Unfortunately, they would need eleven votes to override the predicted veto by Board President Toni Preckwinkle and there are simply too many Democrats running the show.
Well played, Cook County. You’ve really latched into a winner here. If only someone had warned you…

Farewell to the National Football League: Take a knee, then take a hike!

PJ Media ^ | 09/23/2017 | Michael Walsh 


For my health, sanity and productivity, I quit watching the NFL regularly on television about the time Clint Longley single-handedly beat the Washington Redskins on Thanksgiving Day, 1974.  I tuned in periodically in the early '80s, but gave it up entirely by the end of the decade -- in part because I was then living abroad. When I returned to the States nearly a decade later, I found I no longer cared, and eventually even gave up on the Super Bowl.
There was never the slightest chance I would go back, but even if I wanted to, I couldn't, as I cut the cable long ago and learned I can live quite happily and more cheaply without it -- no sports, no CNN, no Fox News. But even if I hook up the old satellite dish again here in my rural New England community, I still wouldn't watch pro football now that the NFL and some of its players have injected racial politics into a sport that, more than any other, pioneered on-field integration and got white America cheering for black athletes.
So I found the president's remarks in Alabama rather refreshing.

President Donald Trump has ratcheted up the national controversy over black National Football League players who refuse to stand while the U.S. National Anthem is played before games. During a Friday night political rally in Alabama, Trump called on fans to boycott teams that allow players to engage in that particular form of protest.

The league's TV ratings have slid since quarterback Colin Kaepernick, then the leader of the San Francisco 49ers, began the trend in September 2016.

'Wouldn't you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, "Get that son of a b***h off the field right now! He is fired. He's fired!"' Trump boomed. His crowd applauded and chanted 'USA! USA!'


There's no question that the has-been Kaepernick exacerbated the league's slide in the ratings, but he alone is not responsible for it. The games have lengthened from three hours to four, while providing the same minuscule amount of "action" -- eleven minutes. The players have grown ever more interchangeable; the teams might just as well field squads of tattooed robots. To illustrate just how far off the rails the league has gone, Los Angeles -- a city that has no use for pro football and proved it could live without the Rams for years -- now has two teams,
And the injuries -- always the game's dirty little secret -- have become ever more damaging, even as the rules are constantly tinkered with, and the refs throw more flags. The players have simply become too big, too fast, and too heavily armored. Even though it's unlikely to succeed, the recently announced lawsuit by the family of the late Aaron Hernandez will surely focus national attention on the issue of brain damage:
On Thursday, former New England Patriots tight end Aaron Hernandez, who committed suicide in April while serving a life sentence for murder, was posthumously diagnosed with a "severe" case of chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a degenerative brain disease linked to head trauma. The New York Times reported that diagnosis, as well as the fact that Hernandez's lawyer, Jose Baez, plans to sue the NFL and the Patriots for $20 million on behalf of Hernandez's 4-year-old daughter.

"Aaron Hernandez succumbed to the symptoms of CTE," the suit states, in part. "As a result of the defendants' conduct and the injury experienced by Aaron, Avielle Hernandez was deprived of the love, affect, society and companionship of her father while he was alive." 

The NFL responded to news of the suit Friday, telling reporters on a conference call, "We intend to contest the claims vigorously," according to USA Today. The report noted that the suit could face a potential issue that could derail the claim that the Patriots and/or the NFL should be held financially responsible: 

The lawsuit could face one major league hurdle: Hernandez was not listed among the players who opted out of a concussion settlement with the league.

Yes, yes, Hernandez was also a murdering thug, one of many thugs in a league that seems to court them. And, no, the NFL and football did not cause his murderousness, as the Times notes: 

It’s a natural presumption to make, given the tragic suicides of Junior Seau, Dave Duerson and other former football players diagnosed post-mortem with C.T.E. And it’s a question that the courts will have to wrestle with.

On Friday, the National Football League vowed to defend itself against a lawsuit filed on behalf of Mr. Hernandez’s daughter and fiancée, who claims that his injuries and death were a direct result of his participation in football.

The science itself — like most attempts to link brain biology to behavior — is murkier. In recent decades, researchers have made extraordinary strides in understanding the workings of brain cells, neural circuits and anatomy. Yet drawing a direct line from those basic findings to what people do out in the world is dicey, given the ineffable interplay between circumstance, relationships and personality.

“There’s no serious argument about whether violence comes from the brain,” said Owen Jones, director of the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience at Vanderbilt University. “It’s just hard to make a credible claim that a particular brain injury has caused a particular act of violence.”


Players like Kaepernick and Hernandez give the league a bad name, so it's hardly surprising that the NFL's ratings are down again this season. Explanations and excuses offered include the weather (hurricanes!), low quality of play and shortening attention spans -- although who actually watches an NFL broadcast intently between trips to the fridge and visits to the john? 

CBS has suffered early. Per Anthony Crupi of Ad Age, through the first two weeks of the season, CBS's Sunday NFL windows had averaged 13.9 million viewers, down 10% versus 15.2 million last year. Sports Media Watch said CBS’s 8.4 rating for its Week 2 single header lineup was the lowest for a Week 2 single-header since at least 1998. NBC had a particularly ugly night with the Packers-Falcons. The game drew 20.2 million, well down from last year’s Week 2 game (Packers-Vikings, 22.8 million) and the Seahawks-Packers in 2015 (26.4 million). It was the least-watched Week 2 Sunday Night Football game since 2008. Crupi reported NBC’s three primetime games so far had averaged 22.1 million viewers, down 7% from 2016. 

But if you ask this former fan, the rot runs deeper. Football, which is practically the state religion in Texas and across the South, used to be closely tied up with patriotism and love of country. The militaristic component of the sport, which was presented as akin to war, appealed especially to red-state dwellers. But sportscasters and sportswriters are overwhelmingly leftist in their outlook, and their eagerness to turn Kaepernick into a civil-rights icon has repelled a sizable section of football's core audience -- and one that, by the current evidence is growing. 

Naturally, the NFL commissioner played right into Trump's hands: 

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell fired back at President Trump on Saturday for encouraging league owners to remove players who take a knee during the national anthem, saying Trump’s “divisive comments” show “an unfortunate lack of respect for the NFL.”

“The NFL and our players are at our best when we help create a sense of unity in our country and our culture,” Goodell said in a statement. “There is no better example than the amazing response from our clubs and players to the terrible natural disasters we've experienced over the last month.”

“Divisive comments like these demonstrate an unfortunate lack of respect for the NFL, our great game and all of our players, and a failure to understand the overwhelming force for good our clubs and players represent in our communities.”


The NFL chief's comments came the morning after Trump told a crowd at a rally for Alabama Senate candidate Luther Strange (R) that NFL players will stop kneeling if fans left games. "When people like yourselves turn on television and you see those people taking the knee when they are playing our great national anthem – the only thing you could do better is if you see it, even if it's one player, leave the stadium," Trump said. "I guarantee things will stop." 

The divisiveness didn't start with Trump, however, it started with the NFL itself, which appears to emulating Hollywood in its attempt to drive away half of its potential audience. But in the NFL's case, it's even worse, considering that Real Americans are their audience. Unless the league radically reforms, it's headed for the last roundup. 

Let's give the last word to that great Cowboy, Dandy Don Meredith:

CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE VIDEO


CALIFORNIA POISED TO PROVIDE “SANCTUARY” TO ALIEN CRIMINALS AND TERRORISTS

Frontpage Mag ^ | 09/23/2017 | Michael Cutler 


On September 18, 2017, roughly one week after the 16th anniversary of the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, the LA Times reported on California's "sanctuary state" bill-SB 54 that would ostensibly “expand protections for immigrants” by preventing officers from questioning and holding people on immigration violations.
 
To understand the ominousness of this measure, we must look back to the 9/11 Commission's official “9/11 and  Terrorist Travel” report, which focused on the multiple failures of the immigration system that enabled the 9/11 terrorists and other international terrorists to enter the United States and embed themselves as they went about their deadly preparations.  
 
This explicit paragraph explains how sanctuary policies that confound DHS efforts to enforce immigration laws undermines America’s counterterrorism operations:
Thus, abuse of the immigration system and a lack of interior immigration enforcement were unwittingly working together to support terrorist activity. It would remain largely unknown, since no agency of the United States government analyzed terrorist travel patterns until after 9/11. This lack of attention meant that critical opportunities to disrupt terrorist travel and, therefore, deadly terrorist operations were missed.
This is why each and every illegal alien, irrespective of whether or not he/she has a criminal record, must not be shielded from detection by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
 
However, commonsense regarding the need for proper immigration law enforcement is being overshadowed by the manipulations of proponents of immigration anarchy. The LA Times article’s very headline -- referring to "immigrants" -- highlights the insidious manipulation of language that has made honest discussions about immigration virtually impossible. The process was initiated long ago by the Carter administration, which demanded that the term “Illegal alien” be stricken from the lexicon of INS employees and replaced with the term “undocumented immigrant.” 
 
The removal of that single word -- alien -- from the vernacular has had a huge impact on the entire immigration debate, causing many decent and otherwise sensible Americans to be deceived into believing "sanctuary cities" exemplify altruism when quite the opposite is true.
 
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the term alien simply means, “any person, not a citizen or national of the United States.”  There is no insult in the term “alien” -- only clarity. In fact, the title of the DREAM Act actually includes the verboten term “alien" (the DREAM Act is an acronym for Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act).
 
​Going back to the LA Times headline, in reality, lawful immigrants have absolutely no need for protection from immigration law enforcement officers. The only aliens who are at risk from adverse actions being taken against them by ICE agents are those aliens who either entered the United States illegally or, following lawful entry through a port of entry, either violated the terms of their admission into the United States or have committed criminal offenses in the United States.
 
Lawful immigrants do, however, have serious need for protection: they need protection from criminal aliens who lurk in their ethnic immigrant communities, plying their criminal trades. These individuals pose the greatest threat to the immigrants among whom they live irrespective of their ethnicities or countries of birth.
 
“Sanctuary cities” and “sanctuary states” such as California, which shield illegal aliens and the criminals and terrorists among them from immigration law enforcement authorities, create a life and death nightmare for the residents of the towns, cities and states that attract aliens who face deportation from the country.
 
During his administration, President George W. Bush attempted, fortunately without success, to create a “guest worker” program for millions of illegal aliens. Bush also played the “name game” and frequently called for “making immigrants legal” while he was, in actuality, calling for a massive amnesty program for unknown millions of illegal aliens.
 
Back then, Senate Bill S. 2611, legislation that would have created such an amnesty program, attracted the ire and concern of House Republicans who understood the dangers that such an ill-conceived program would create for America’s national security.  Consequently, on July 27, 2006 a hearing. called by the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims addressed the dangers inherent in such a program.
 
During my testimony at this hearing, I stated that any member of Congress who would vote to provide lawful status and identity documents to millions of illegal aliens should be given the "MVP Award" by Al-Qaeda.

After Trump's comments on NFL, league sponsors will set the tone!

Yahoo! ^ | 9-23-17 | Daniel Roberts 

In case you wondered whether the National Football League would again find itself at the center of political controversy this season, wonder no more: the answer is yes.
On Friday night at a rally in Alabama, President Trump called NFL players who kneel or sit during the national anthem “sons of bitches,” and said that teams should fire them.
Trump appealed directly to NFL owners by asking the crowd: “Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, ‘Get that son of a bitch off the field right now. Out! He’s fired. He’s fired!'” And he directly encouraged fans to walk out of games when a player protests during the anthem: “If you see it, even if it’s one player, leave the stadium, I guarantee things will stop.”
The first team owners to respond were John Mara and Steve Tisch of the New York Giants: in a statement on Saturday, they called Trump’s comments “inappropriate, offensive and divisive.” More owners have followed. At the league level, the NFL released a statement in which Commissioner Roger Goodell called the comments “divisive” and said they “demonstrate a lack of respect for the NFL, our great game and all of our players.”
But what matters next, for the business of the NFL, is how NFL sponsors react.
Trump discussing the NFL, and player protests, in Huntsville, Alabama, on Sept. 22, 2017.
The NFL is estimated to bring in an all-time-high $14 billion in revenue this year, and more than $1.5 billion of that comes from fees that official league sponsors pay to be associated with football at the highest relationship level.
When there is an NFL scandal — whether it’s a horrifying report about 110 out of 111 deceased players’ brains testing positive for CTE; or a domestic violence case ruling not going the league’s way; or a growing number of players protesting the anthem, potentially offending many fans — all that matters to the business of the league is whether sponsors walk away. And they never walk away. (Even when TV ratings dip, it is for the most part a financial risk to the cable networks that show games, not to the league unless ratings get so bad that advertisers flee.)
Who are the “official sponsors” of the NFL at the league level? Big brands including Anheuser-Busch InBev, Barclays, Bose, Bridgestone, Campbell’s, FedEx, McDonald’s, Microsoft, Nationwide, Nike, PepsiCo, Ticketmaster, Under Armour, and Visa.
Will these brands take a side in this latest battle of words: President Trump vs the NFL?
Chris Lucas and Preston Brust of the band LOCASH performed at a Pepsi NFL Kickoff event on Sept. 9, 2017 in Leesburg, Virginia. (Getty Images for Pepsi)
Some brands may say something, but don’t expect them to say very much. And don’t expect any to shrink in any way from their relationship with the league.
That’s because, in the words of Wasserman managing partner Elizabeth Lindsey, who works with brands like these on their NFL sponsorships, “Football is football… a phenomenon, a juggernaut… It’ll always continue to garner attention from the marketers, primarily because it garners that much attention from the fans.”
(NFL sponsors, and how they react to NFL scandals, was the topic of Episode 2 of our Yahoo Finance Sportsbook podcast on the business of football, with Lindsey as our special guest. You can listen on iTunes or scroll down to the bottom of this post.)
For past examples, look at how league sponsors responded when the NFL was under fire in 2014 for its handling of the domestic violence case against running back Ray Rice. Many issued statements expressing outrage, but none did more than a delicate PR move.
AB InBev said it was, “disappointed and increasingly concerned by the recent incidents that have overshadowed this NFL season” and was, “not yet satisfied with the league’s handling of behaviors that so clearly go against our own company culture and moral code.” PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi said she was, “deeply disturbed” by “the repugnant behavior of a few players and the NFL’s acknowledged mishandling of these issues.”
Three years later, AB InBev and Pepsi are still proud league sponsors.
For a more current example, look at Under Armour, which has already put out a tweet on Trump’s comments about the player protests. (And Under Armour has dealt with Trump-related PR problems all year.)
That tweet perfectly hedges, attempting to please both the people offended by player protests and the people offended by Trump’s criticisms of the player protests. The company “stands by the flag and by our athletes.” The statement appears to take a strong stand, while actually saying nothing.
In the days to come, as news outlets dissect the fallout, and pro athletes send out tweets, look for NFL sponsors to either do nothing or issue a careful, walking-on-eggshells statement.
But as political issues continued to bleed into sports in 2017 (and into all industries, all corners of American business), soon sponsors may be forced to do more than put out a cautious statement.

AHOLES!