NFL Considering Keeping Teams in Locker Room Until AFTER National Anthem

A significant number of white fans are angry with the National Football League for not punishing players who “take the knee” during the playing of the National Anthem before every game.

Trying to thread the needle, the NFL’s possible new policy isn’t likely to calm the roiled waters.

Keeping the players off the field during the playing of the National Anthem denies the players the “right” to protest. But it also represents a subtle form of kowtowing to the protesting players.

The fans want their black gladiators on the field and standing while the Anthem is played. Will they settle for less than that? Yes, some will. Football fanatics who live the game only care about their team winning the Superbowl. If a gang of mass murderers could win the big game, those fans would support them.

Football obsession is a form of mental illness.

Washington Post via NOLA

By The Washington Post

Some NFL owners believe there is a strong possibility they will enact an offseason change to the league’s national anthem policy if the players’ protests during the anthem persist through the end of this season, reverting to a previous approach of keeping players in the locker room while the anthem is played, according to several people familiar with the league’s inner workings.

“I think that if players are still kneeling at the end of the year, then it could very well happen,” said one person familiar with the owners’ deliberations on anthem-related issues.

That person said it was “too early to tell” for certain if the change to the anthem policy will be made by owners and the league. The person was “not sure” if a formal vote of the owners would be required to enact such a change but said, “I think most owners would support it, particularly if players continue to kneel this season.”

Those sentiments were echoed by several others with knowledge of the owners’ thinking on the matter. They said they did not know at this point exactly how many owners would favor such an approach, and they cautioned that there have been no detailed discussions yet about leaving teams and players in the locker room for the anthem because owners did not consider it appropriate to make an in-season change to the policy.

But they agreed that if the protests last all season and remain intensely controversial among fans, the issue will be raised during the offseason and a policy change to having players remain in the locker room until the anthem’s conclusion would have the support of a significant number of owners. They said the matter could be addressed at the annual league meeting in March.

“It would certainly have to be considered very strongly,” said an official with an NFL franchise who is familiar with the thinking of that team’s owner on the matter.

The NFL declined to comment.

The change to having players and coaches on the sideline for the anthem was made in 2009. The current league policy says that players must be on the sideline for the anthem. It suggests but does not require that players stand for the anthem.

At various points this season some players, including full teams, have remained off the field during the playing of the anthem. They have not been fined or otherwise disciplined by the NFL.

The league has been under intense pressure from President Donald Trump and some fans to require players to stand during the anthem. In September, Trump said during a campaign speech in Alabama that owners should fire any player who protested during the anthem. His fiery speech included a reference to such a player being a “son of a bitch” and it fueled an intense national controversy over the issue.

The pressure from the White House has not relented. After Oakland Raiders running back Marshawn Lynch refused to stand for the U.S. anthem before Sunday’s game against the New England Patriots in Mexico City, Trump offered critical comments Monday on Twitter.

“Marshawn Lynch of the NFL’s Oakland Raiders stands for the Mexican Anthem and sits down to boos for our national anthem,” Trump wrote. “Great disrespect! Next time NFL should suspend him for remainder of season. Attendance and ratings way down.”

Owners held a series of meetings last month in New York focused on the anthem and related topics. Owners met with representatives of the players, then held their regularly scheduled fall owners’ meeting. Owners emerged from those meetings without enacting a rule requiring players to stand for the anthem. But even without such a requirement, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and owners said they wanted players to stand.

“We believe everyone should stand for the national anthem,” Goodell said at the conclusion of the October owners’ meeting. “That’s an important part of our policy. It’s also an important part of our game that we all take great pride in. And it’s also important for us to honor our flag and our country, and we think our fans expect us to do that.”

Given the high earnings paid to NFL players and the exorbitant ticket prices, it’s not too much to expect the players to stand for a few minutes.

75 Year Old Charlie Rose Flipflops, Now Says No “wrongdoings” involving Women and Sex

CHARLIE ROSE.

Charlie Rose was the sexual harasser du jour yesterday, with the veteran TV newsman taking the big headline on the Drudge Report.

Today the headline will feature some new male or some new accusations about somebody as the moral panic, created by (((feminists))) rolls along.

Mediaite

Veteran broadcaster Charlie Rose, who has been accused of sexually harassing a spate of women, says he didn’t do anything wrong, in so many words.

TMZ reporters tracked down the 75-year-old outside of his NYC apartment and grilled him about the recent accusations that he harassed and groped colleagues so often that his shoulder rubs were known as “the crusty paw” around the office.

The tabloid photographer asked him if he had anything to say to the eight women who have accused him of “wrongdoings.” His response? “It’s not wrongdoings,” Rose muttered before quickly entering his apartment.

This response is in stark contrast to the apologetic tone he struck yesterday in a written statement on the allegations, which accuse him of making lewd phone calls and strutting in front of colleagues naked, among other acts.

“It is essential that these women know I hear them and that I deeply apologize for my inappropriate behavior. I am greatly embarrassed,” he wrote. “I have behaved insensitively at times, and I accept responsibility for that.”

“I have learned a great deal as a result of these events, and I hope others will too. All of us, including me, are coming to a newer and deeper recognition of the pain caused by conduct in the past, and have come to a profound new respect for women and their lives.”

Rose has been suspended by CBS, while PBS and Bloomberg have both announced they will stop distributing his eponymous show, in light of the allegations.

Vox reports on the specifics of the accusations against Charlie.

Eight accusers describe rage, touching, and even nudity (ugh!) by Charlie.

The thing about Charlie is that he’s a liberal of the particularly disgusting type. He always seemed to have a superior air of the “My sh*t doesn’t stink” variety.

That said, Charlie wasn’t too far from being just an ordinary run-of-the-mill womanizer. I wonder how many women that he had sex with are not coming forward because it was consensual sex that took place because they wanted a job, a raise, a promotion, or just to be able to tell their girlfriends that they had sex with somebody famous.

BTW, here’s a photo of Charlie with his wife. Is she (gasp!) Jewish? She looks Jewish. LOL.

Newly surfaced pics show sick degenerate Al Franken grabbing Arianna Huffington’s breasts and butt

Why isn’t the Senate kicking Al Franken out?

Maybe there are more Senators who are about to be nailed on sex accusations. Or maybe they don’t feel any obligation to conform to standards of decency. In any case, there’s no rush to condemn sick freak Al Franken. In fact, Hillary Clinton gave him her stamp of approval in her Rita Cosby interview a couple of days ago.

New York Post

Newly revealed pictures show Sen. Al Franken grabbing self-described feminist Arianna Huffington on her bottom and breasts.

The never-before-published images, taken for a magazine in 2000 and obtained exclusively by The Post, include a number of frames showing the former “Saturday Night Live” star grabbing the media mogul’s buttocks as they pose back to back.

An even more shocking snap shows the pair posing on a bed, with Franken cupping Huffington’s breast with one hand.

“Franken was clowning around, but it really isn’t funny,” said a source from the shoot. “That’s his tactic, pretend like it’s all a big joke. Arianna was pushing his hands away. He was groping her. There was some fun attached to it, but she wasn’t enjoying it. She definitely told him to stop and pushed him away.”

The creepy pol — who on Monday was accused of squeezing a constituent’s butt during a photo op in 2010 and who was caught posing with his mitts over a sleeping ex-Playboy model’s breasts in a 2006 snap — was hardly hiding his hands-on approach, according to the source.

“Franken stood there with his hand on her bottom for a long time, because there are numerous frames, each taken seconds apart, and his hand was there the whole time — his hand wasn’t just there for a quick moment,” the source said.

The pictures were taken by Harry Benson, an award-winning Scottish photographer, who declined to comment.

Huffington, however, denies anything was amiss — saying the touchy-feely photos were a nod to a TV sketch they did together in 1996.

“The notion that there was anything inappropriate in this photo shoot is truly absurd,” she said in a statement to The Post.

And so a feminist gives a pro-abortion Democrat a pass for his stupid, insulting, demeaning, humiliating grabbing.

Hollywood and the media have their morals. Jewish morals, which means no morals when it comes to sex.

Study: Whites Work the Hardest and Longest

Some races are lazy.

Who’d have thought that?

Just our ancestors who observed lazy Indians and blacks first hand.

The lead author on an article studying work effort is highly respected Jewish economist Dan Hammermesh. I recall first reading his work probably 20 years ago or more. His name on a study guarantees it will be taken seriously by economists.

Zerohedge

A trio of labor economists suggest that effort at work is correlated with race…

As The Economist writes, [4] given the long history of making racial slurs about the efforts of some workers, any study casting black and Hispanic men as lazier than whites and Asians is sure to court controversy.

But, a provocative working paper by economists Daniel Hamermesh, Katie Genadek and Michael Burda [5] sticks a tentative toe into these murky waters.

They suggest that America’s well-documented racial wage gap is overstated by 10% because minorities, especially men, spend larger portions of their workdays not actually working.

Uncomfortable though the topic may be, the authors have attempted a rigorous analysis.

The study’s method is straightforward. The data come from nearly 36,000 “daily diaries”, self-reporting on how Americans spent their working hours, collected from 2003 to 2012.

Relying on the assumption that workers are equally honest in admitting sloth, the authors calculate the fraction of time spent not working while on the job – spent relaxing or eating, say – and find that it varies by race to a small but statistically significant degree.

The gap remains, albeit in weaker form, even with the addition of extensive controls for geography, industry and union status, among others. Non-white male workers spend an additional 1.1% of the day not working while on the job, or an extra five minutes per day.

Assuming their controls are adequate, that would still leave 90% of the wage difference between white workers and ethnic minorities, which was recently estimated to be 14%, unexplained.

After rejecting a number of plausible explanations for why this might be, the authors finally attribute the discrepancy to unexplained “cultural differences”.

Acutely aware of the sensitivity of these findings, the professors delayed publication until after the presidential election, releasing their report in January.

“I knew full well that Trump and his minions would use it as a propaganda piece,” says Mr Hamermesh, a colourful and respected labour economist. The paper may yet be seized on by those who are keen to root out “political correctness” and are perennially unhappy with current anti-discrimination laws.

When asked what motivated the study of such a sensitive topic, QZ’s Allison Schrager notes [7] that Hamermesh, typical of economists driven by pure intellectual curiosity, said it hadn’t occurred to him that it might be so controversial.

But, denunciations came quickly, however. Within hours of publication, Mr Hamermesh received vitriolic messages and was labelled a racist in an online forum popular among economists. Mr Hamermesh, an avowed progressive, who refers to Donald Trump only by amusing nicknames and resigned from a post at the University of Texas over a state law permitting the open carrying of firearms, finds this unfair.

He notes that Americans work too much. His preferred solution would not be for some groups to work more, but for others to work less.

If whites are now proven right about the lazy nonwhite worker, then just think how right we are in total about race.

A saboteur would copy the Zerohedge piece at home or at the public library and anonymously leave it on the boss’s desk at work.

It’s not discrimination if the nonwhite really is less productive and is treated that way.

The “racist” comments at Zerohedge are often hilarious. Check them out if you have the time.

Samples:

Its okay to admit coloreds are better athletes than whites, but it is rayciss to point out they are dumber and lazier than whites.

It surveyed blacks WHO HAD A JOB.

The study was self-reporting. Blacks also lie more than Hispanics.

i bet blacks and hispanics did not honestly report their hours so the real numbers would be even worse

Personally I want to know what happened to the asian women in the graph, nail-painting was it, or Facebook? 😀

Vile (((Lena Dunham’s))) Virtue Signaling About Rape Refuted by FACTS

Disgusting, nasty human being Lena Dunham defended one of her writers against a rape accusation last week. When others are accused, she’s ready to pile on.

She admitted in her book to molesting her kid sister.

She’s garbage.

The facts about rape accusations offered in this excerpt reveal at least some truth about FALSE rape accusations.

The Federalist

The recent hysteria over sexual assault has resulted in some delicious comeuppance for some of the most self-righteous among us. The best example of this is Lena Dunham.

In August, Dunham tweeted: “Things women do lie about: what they ate for lunch. Things women don’t lie about: rape.” When someone responded, pointing out that “10 percent of all rape allegations are false,” Dunham modified her claim, writing: “The actual number, while hard to track, is much closer to 3%.”

Dunham’s claim is dangerously misleading, as the number of “false accusations” refer only to reports that have been filed with police and proven to be false. Seeing as it’s nearly impossible to prove a negative, this number is likely lower than it should be.

This percentage (whether you believe it’s 2 percent, 3 percent, or 10 percent) doesn’t apply to accusations that can’t be proven one way or the other. The same studies that found 2 percent (or 7 percent in the example I’m using for the following numbers) or so to be proven false also find that another 8 percent are “unfounded/baseless,” meaning they don’t meet the criminal level of offense or were improperly coded as sexual assault.

Another 18 percent are considered “informational” and don’t meet the definition of a crime. Another 29 percent are labeled “suspended” because there wasn’t enough evidence to say a crime occurred. Another 18 percent involve identifying a perpetrator but something “beyond the control of law enforcement” keeps them from making an arrest, such as a lack of victim cooperation.

A chart linked to the study I cited above breaks down what happens after an arrest is made. One-third of those cases are rejected by the prosecution, another 21 percent are dismissed with all charges dropped, and another 2 percent are dismissed without dropping the charges. Two percent went to trial and were found “not guilty,” a third resulted in a guilty plea, 6 percent went to trial and were found “guilty,” and another 3 percent were classified as “other.”

So using the same logic as Dunham and others who flaunt this statistic, one would only be able to say that a smaller or equal number of accusations turn out to be “true” (as in, someone pled guilty or was found guilty at trial). But Dunham and others imply that the statistics mean 98 percent of accusations are definitely true, thus we should never doubt one.

Those of us who follow the explosion of accusations on college campuses against young men have wondered what would happen if Dunham herself, or someone close to her, were accused of sexual assault. It turns out she’d abandon that “women don’t lie” claim real quick. When her “Girls” writing partner Murray Miller was accused of sexual assault last week, Dunham defended him. She and “Girls” executive producer Jenni Konner wrote that Miller was the victim of a “misreported” accusation.”

After intense backlash (and a reminder of what she once said), Dunham apologized for the timing of her statement. It’s still likely she believes Miller was falsely accused. It’s very easy to take sides when something happens to other people, but when it happens to you or someone close to you, that can change. Dunham learned this the hard way.

Zimbabwe’s Mugabe to Face Impeachment

As of this writing Robert Mugabe has shown no inclination to leave office.

It looks like he will have to be pushed out.

Will Zimbabwe peacefully transition to a different leader. You’ll have to take it day by day to see.

Sky News

Zimbabwe’s ousted vice president has called on Robert Mugabe to quit immediately – paving the way for him to take over.

Emmerson Mnangagwa – known as “the crocodile” – said in a statement on Tuesday that he is not in Zimbabwe and will not return until he is “satisfied of my personal security”.

He added that Mr Mugabe must “heed the call of the people to resign” or face “humiliation”.

Impeachment proceedings to remove the 93-year-old from power are expected to begin later – with the ruling Zanu-PF party backing Mr Mnangagwa to replace him.

Zimbabwe’s leader stunned his country on Sunday when he failed to announce that he was stepping down.

An ultimatum from Zanu-PF to resign by midday on Monday or face impeachment also came and went with no word from Mr Mugabe.

The party will now press ahead with impeachment by tabling a motion, and it believes it can all be done and dusted in a couple of days – contrary to the view of some experts.

“We want to get rid of this animal called Mugabe. We have the numbers, the opposition is also going to support us,” said Zanu-PF MP Vongai Mupereri.

“We are going to impeach – the man has to go,” MP MacKenzie Ncube told the AFP news agency.

Zimbabwe’s military chief said on Monday evening that a road map to hand over power had been agreed with Mr Mugabe.

Constantino Chiwenga said Mr Mnangagwa, whose firing led to the unrest in the country, would return to Zimbabwe “shortly” to meet the President.

Rubbing the noses of his opponents and most of his citizens, Mr Mugabe is also set to host a cabinet meeting on Tuesday at his official residence – although Zanu-PF has told ministers not to attend.

The 93-year-old has ruled Zimbabwe with an iron fist since 1980 and the end of British colonialism, but events last week have brought him to the brink.

The vice president’s sacking put Mugabe’s unpopular wife, Grace, in prime position to succeed him.

The army promptly seized power and put the President under house arrest – but insisted it had not staged a coup.

Despite the impeachment machinery getting moving on Tuesday, lawyers have told Sky News it could take months to prise him from power.

Tarisai Mutangi, a constitutional lawyer, said: “He knows the law is on his side, that the constitution is on his side and that the kingpins of this process want to do it constitutionally, and that means it’s going to take quite some time.”

Under the Zimbabwean constitution, the president can be impeached for four things:

:: Serious misconduct
:: Failure to obey, uphold or defend this constitution
:: Willful violation of this Constitution
:: Inability to perform the functions of the office because of physical or mental incapacity

Here’s some grandfatherly advice from Papa Mugabe:

Apollo moon landing was ‘faked, suggests ‘ new ‘photo’ evidence

The comments on youtube favor the theory that the photo was taken on the moon and that the reflection is another astronaut.

Fox News

Despite insurmountable evidence to the contrary, conspiracy theorists have claimed for years that man did not walk on the moon, that the landings were fake. That theory has surfaced again, thanks to a new “picture” posted to YouTube that alleges the last moon landing, one from Apollo 17, was staged.

The video, which shows a picture that was allegedly taken in December 1972, is named “Reflection in a Visor.” The person who posted it, using the user name Streetcap1, claims that there is a reflection of a stagehand on the helmet of one of the astronauts.

At 21 seconds into the video, Streetcap1 points out what this person believes is someone not wearing a spacesuit. “I thought it looked a bit strange, so I took a picture of it using my software,” Streetcap 1 said in the video.

He added that it appears to be “a figure of a human not wearing a spacesuit, circa early 70s… Apollo 17 photograph.”

Streetcap1 goes on to say that he believes the object in the astronaut’s helmet looks like a man with long hair.

“You can see some sort of, it looks like a man, back in the early 70s, long hair, wearing some sort of waistcoat-type thing… and a shadow of that figure presumably.”

Comments appear split on the video, with many saying the object being pointed out is indeed an astronaut wearing a spacesuit. Others, however, seemed to side with Streetcap1, with one commenter writing: “Omg goodness. Congratulations Street cap1. Making world news. Amazing find xx”

Apollo 17 was the final mission of NASA’s Apollo program and was launched at 12:33 a.m. ET on Dec. 7, 1972 with Commander Eugene Cernan, Command Module Pilot Ronald Evans and Lunar Module Pilot Harrison Schmitt on board.

They spent two weeks in space, returning to Earth on Dec. 19, 1972.

Apollo 17 is notable for a number of reasons, including being the last time mankind has ever gone past Earth’s low-orbit. It is the first mission without a test pilot, it holds the record for longest moon landing, longest total moonwalks, largest lunar sample and the longest time spent in lunar orbit.

Conspiracy theories have continued to pop up since man first walked on the moon on July 20, 1969, when Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin became the first men to ever set foot on the lunar surface.

It’s good to be skeptical of anything the federal government tells you. However, this picture by itself does not prove or disprove anything. It does however get people interested in man on the moon, which is a good thing.