Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

NFL Players Coalition Works To Hit Trump At Ballot Box, Gets Immediate BAD News

Published

on

Apparently, some NFL players aren’t happy with Trump. Well, the pro, kneel-during-the-national-anthem ones at least.

The “Players Coalition” is working to get out the vote, and we can bet they aren’t urging people to support Republicans.

There’s a big problem with the messengers, though. The majority of Americans don’t agree with kneeling during the national anthem to make a political point.

CNBC reported that:

Trending: Trump Gives Adam Schiff New Nickname And He Is Fuming

“With the NFL season set to start next week, a majority of voters believes it is inappropriate for players to kneel during the playing of the national anthem before games, according to a new poll from NBC News and the Wall Street Journal.

Fifty-four percent of voters called kneeling during the anthem inappropriate, while 43 percent say that the practice is an appropriate way to bring attention to the problems that NFL players have cited for their protests, the poll said.”

Sorry to say, but if only 43% of Americans support you, that’s not going to be enough to make a dent in the election results.

Besides, look at what happened when celebrities got involved in politics before. Most of Hollywood was vociferously anti-Trump, and he won.

Just recently Taylor Swift endorsed a few Democrats. One of them was Phil Bredesen for Senate. That day she endorsed him, The Tennessean reported a “close race” between Bredesen & Marsha Blackburn. But later that day, after Swift’s endorsement, another story came out that Blackburn surged in the polls over Bredesen by 8 points.

A New York Times poll a few days later had Blackburn at a whopping 14 points ahead of Bredesen. You can’t make this stuff up! Thanks, Swift!

Breitbart reported on the NFL Players Coalition voter drive.

“Can NFL players impact the upcoming mid-term elections? USA Today Sports columnist Nancy Armour thinks they can. She penned a column this week with the headline: “Players Coalition fights back against Trump at the ballot box.”

The Players Coalition is a group of NFL players focused on bringing awareness to what they believe are systematic problems in the United States, like racial inequality.

The coalition formed shortly after former San Francisco 49er QB Colin Kaepernick started the anthem protest movement in the summer of 2016.

“For the past few weeks, members of the Players Coalition have been participating in voter registration drives and doing PSAs to encourage people to vote,” Armour wrote.

“They’ve been lobbying for ballot initiatives that, among other things, would return voting rights to people in Florida convicted of non-violent felonies; reclassify low-level drug possession in Ohio to a misdemeanor; and make it easier to vote in Michigan.”

Eagles safety Malcolm Jenkins, one of the more vocal players in the coalition, believes voting on November 6 is the best way to effect change.

“If we don’t give the public a way to get involved other than point out the problems, we’re not having the greatest impact that we can. The biggest impact we all have is our vote,” Jenkins told USA Today.

The Player’s Coalition is focused like a laser on a ballot initiative called “Florida’s Amendment 4.”

If approved, this would restore voting rights to people convicted of felonies, aside from murder and felony sexual assault, once they served their time.

Former NFL wide receiver Anquan Boldin, who’s the only former player in the Player’s Coalition, is a Florida-native, and is lobbying hard for this amendment to pass.

“It’s something that affects people from different walks of life,” Boldin told USA Today. “It’s not just a black issue, it’s not just a white issue. Speaking to a lot of people (affected), they say they don’t feel like complete or whole citizens again without the right to vote. That says a lot.”

This has been a rough week for Jenkins and The Player’s Coalition. A former member of the coalition, Carolina safety Eric Reid, verbally assaulted Jenkins before last Sunday’s Panthers-Eagles game. Reid called Jenkins “a sellout” and “a neo-colonialist” since the Eagles’ star was with a $90 million agreement with the NFL that would benefit social causes the coalition endorses.

“I believe Malcolm capitalized on the situation,” Reid explained. “He co-opted the movement that was started by Colin to get his organization funded. It’s cowardly. He sold us out.”

Jenkins has chosen to take the high road following Reid’s attack.

“I’m not going to get up here and say anything negative about that man,” Jenkins said of Reid. “I respect him. I’m glad he has a job. I’m glad he’s back in the league. I’ll leave it like that.”

Jenkins has moved on from that tiff, and is now focused on making an impact on election day, with the Player’s Coalition’s get-out-to-vote initiative.

“This is the way to make our voices heard the loudest,” Jenkins said.”

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Trending Now on Right Wing News


WHOA: Trump Admin Reveals BIGGEST Move Again Yet Again Acosta — ‘Permanently’

Published

on

...

* By

As the most reliable and balanced news aggregation service in the world, RWN offers the following information published by: Sara Palin

The drama between the Trump administration and CNN reporter Jim Acosta may not be done anytime soon as it is being reported the White House press staff are looking to have Acosta permanently banned.

The ban comes amid a legal feud between Acosta, CNN, and the White House.

Here’s how everything has gone down:

Acosta initially refused to hand over a microphone to a White House intern, resisting her attempt to retrieve it.

White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders accused Acosta of putting his hand on the intern, called the incident unacceptable, and subsequently banned him.

They took his press credentials and suspended him from covering events at the White House.

CNN and Acosta sued the Trump administration over the incident, claiming Acosta’s First and Fifth Amendment rights were violated.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly said the White House violated Acosta’s right to a due process as they pulled his media pass and denied Acosta an option to repeal his revocation.

The judge ordered the White House to immediately restore Acosta’s press credentials.

So…

The Trump administration is complying with the order and will reinstate Acosta, but they are making a move to have him permanently banned from the White House, the Daily Caller reports.

The White House sent a letter to Acosta notifying him that his pass granting him temporary access to the White House grounds would be suspended after a temporary restraining order runs its course. The letter is the latest in the fight between the White House and the CNN reporter who caused a fracas at a recent presidential press conference when he refused to give up the microphone.

Judge Timothy J. Kelly issued an injunction Friday morning ordering the White House to reinstate Acosta’s credentials, saying his Fifth Amendment right to due process was violated. The judge was clear, however, that he made no ruling on whether the First Amendment right applies for any reporter to be at the White House.

According to the report, President Trump admitted he was not sure whether the administration would ultimately win the CNN lawsuit.

“We’ll see how the court rules,” the president said.

“Is it freedom of the press when somebody comes in and starts screaming questions and won’t sit down?” he added, speaking of Acosta.

Should the administration lose the lawsuit, Trump revealed his administration has a strategy.

During an interview with Fox News, Trump said the White House press team would implement new policies and rules for reporters such as turning off cameras.

“I think one of the things we’ll do is maybe turn the camera off that faces them because then they don’t have any airtime, although I’ll probably be sued for that and maybe, you know, win or lose it, who knows,” Trump said, as the Daily Caller reports.

As the legal feud continues, the Trump administration announced they would be “temporarily” reinstating Acosta’s press pass and would be complying to the order, BUT they are giving him a 14-day pass and will resume their suspension once it expires.

The Hill reports CNN is already responding to the move by requesting an emergency court hearing:

CNN on Monday requested an emergency hearing in the U.S. District Court after the White House threatened to again pull the press credentials of the network’s chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta.

CNN said the letter amounts to an “attempt to provide retroactive due process,” calling for a hearing on a preliminary injunction during “the week of November 26, 2018, or as soon thereafter as possible.”

Note: The author of this article has included commentary that expresses an opinion and analysis of the facts.


Continue Reading

Continue Reading

Democrat-Controlled House Just Changed Major 181-Year Rule For Muslims

Published

on

...

* By

181 years is a long time for a dress code to stay in place… even for Congress. Hats were forbidden in the House of Representatives, but no more. Of course, members are being told to use good judgment but given their track record, this should be interesting to watch. Now, men and women will be allowed to wear ‘hats’ in the chamber.

Change is not always good and this will probably wind up being a circus. Ilhan Omar, a newly elected Democratic congresswoman from Minnesota, is behind this move. She will be the first to wear an Islamic hijab in the chamber. Lawmakers will be allowed to wear religious headwear and coverings for medical reasons – so there are some restrictions on this at least for now.

Chicks on the Right has the scoop on this story:

Ok…so I have a feeling some “traditionalists” are going to have an issue with this. CHANGE IS BAAD.

But honestly, after hearing from Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, I don’t have a problem with this at all. I think (I hope) that Congresspeople will go about this with respect and their best judgment. (That’s… a high hope for Congress.)

So anyway, the U.S. House has changed a 181-year-old dress code rule against hats.

According to Daily Wire:

Back in 1837, the U.S. House of Representatives banned the wearing of hats in the chamber in a move to differentiate itself from the British Parliament.

But in 2018, the elected lawmakers have voted to rescind the rule. Ilhan Omar, a newly elected Democratic congresswoman from Minnesota, will be the first to wear a hijab in the chamber.

“There are those kinds of policies that oftentimes get created because people who have blind spots are in positions of influence and positions of power,” Omar told the New York Post on Thursday. “I think it will be really exciting to see the stuff that we notice within the rules that don’t work for a modern-day America.”

Under the revised rules, lawmakers will be allowed to wear religious headwear and coverings for medical reasons.

I’m not a fan of Ilhan Omar’s, but I am a staunch supporter of religious freedom. I’m not the kind of hypocrite who supports the rights of Christians not to have their religion infringed upon, and will not do the same for others. It’s Omar’s constitutionally-protected RIGHT to wear her hijab. She was elected by her constituents to represent them. She should not have to choose between upholding her religious dress code and that of her congressional position. The END.

And that’s not all. The new rule allows for head covering for religious AND medical reasons. Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman made a compelling point.

The New Jersey Democrat had a tumor successfully removed and has undergone chemotherapy since September to ensure she’s cancer-free.

The treatment caused her hair to fall out. She wears a hat outside, but when she votes on the House floor she takes it off.

“I just have a bald head and I’m somewhat getting used to it hoping that it’s a very temporary thing,” Watson Coleman told The Post. “I don’t think I would start wearing a (hat) now, but I recognize that if someone else has the same issue and wants to, they should be able to.”

So sure… I’m as traditional as the next guy. But I ABSOLUTELY think the “no-hat” rule can be bent for religious and medical reasons.

I’m SURE some of you will disagree with me on this one.

Continue Reading




Latest Articles

Become an insider!

Thank you for your interest in receiving the Right Wing News newsletter. To subscribe, please submit your email address below.

Send this to a friend