The Denver Broncos have had enough with the national anthem protests and want to take the politics out of football.
The NFL Broncos announced that they will, together as a team, stand on Sunday for the national anthem, instead of dismantling the flag and our historical icon that brings us together as a nation.
They believe in showing respect together, and understand how the anthem brings great honor the country and its veterans deserve.
A message from our players: pic.twitter.com/eQs3z7OcqV
— Denver Broncos (@Broncos) September 28, 2017
The 52-players on the team were extremely passionate about their thoughts and created a joint statement about their actions last week.
Explaining that their actions were “in no way a protest of the military, the flag or those who keep us safe.”
The statement from the NFL players came a few days after Broncos executive John Elway – who led the team to a Superbowl victory as its quarterback in 1997 – said he believes in standing for the anthem.
“Take the politics out of football,” Elway said.
— Denver Broncos (@Broncos) September 26, 2017
The statement created by the team also had some explanation about their demonstrations from the previous week:
“Last week, members of our team joined their brothers around the NFL in a powerful display of unity. As controversial as it appeared, we needed to show our collective strength and resolve,” the Broncos said.
Reported by insiderfoxnews:
The team said its locker room is very diverse, but that being members of the same squad unite them as a team.
“No matter how divisive some comments and issues can be, nothing should get in the way of that,” the team said, appearing to reference President Trump’s comments in Alabama last week.
Outside linebacker Von Miller, who helped lead the team’s demonstrations last week, said after that game that Trump “assaulted” their freedom of speech, and that “we had to do something.”
You Might also like
By Chelsea Betonie — 9 months ago
Mueller is a dirtbag and so is McCabe. Rosenstein is in on it too. Put the Clinton’s in jail. No hope for bail. Two scoops for me and you. Check this out.
Then Rod Rosenstein oversaw the investigation into the Uranium one scandal involving Hillary and the Russians. He is now President Trump’s Deputy Attorney General.
Andrew McCabe was assistant Deputy FBI director during Uranium One Deal and is now assistant FBI Director.
All the roads are leading back to Hillary Clinton. This is absolutely stunning. Before Obama approved the controversial America Uranium deal that gave 20% of our Uranium to Russia, the FBI knew that Russian industry officials were issuing kickbacks, extortion and money laundering to help Vladimir Putin, according to the Hill.
The evidence shows that Mosco compromised American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, admitted the FBI in court documents.
According to eyewitnesses, Russian nuclear officials had sent millions to Bill Clinton’s foundation while Hillary Clinton was working as Secretary of State.
The deal that was initiated by Hillary Clinton gave Putin ownership of 20% of US uranium, according to Senator John Barrasso (R-WY).
This means that Trump was right and that Mueller, Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe are the people driving the case against Donald Trump for so-called “Russian collusion.” Remember what he said?
They previously covered up collusion with Russia and Hillary Clinton. Why would they do anything different now?
Share this immediately so that Trump gets the news ASAP. We need to save our President. The Russian investigation needs to frickin’ stop now.
By Chelsea Betonie — 10 months ago
ROTHSCHILD PUBLICATION PREDICTS SINGLE WORLD CURRENCY WILL BE PUT IN PLACE AS EARLY AS 2018; HELLO NEW WORLD ORDER
The Rothschild-controlled Economist magazine published an article 30 years ago that highlighted the proabability of a world currency by the year 2018.
Thefreethoughtproject.com reports: One must also keep in mind that the controlling interest of The Economist is held by the powerful Rothschild family, who regard themselves as the “custodians of The Economist magazine’s legacy.” In essence, the magazine operates as a quasi-propaganda arm for the Rothschild banking empire and related businesses and, is in many ways, meant to prime the pump of public opinion for the globalist agenda to be implemented.
The excerpt below appeared in the print magazine on January 9, 1988, in Vol. 306, pp 9-10.
Ready for the Phoenix
THIRTY years from now, Americans, Japanese, Europeans, and people in many other rich countries, and some relatively poor ones will probably be paying for their shopping with the same currency. Prices will be quoted not in dollars, yen or D-marks but in, let’s say, the phoenix. The phoenix will be favoured by companies and shoppers because it will be more convenient than today’s national currencies, which by then will seem a quaint cause of much disruption to economic life in the last twentieth century.
At the beginning of 1988 this appears an outlandish prediction. Proposals for eventual monetary union proliferated five and ten years ago, but they hardly envisaged the setbacks of 1987. The governments of the big economies tried to move an inch or two towards a more managed system of exchange rates – a logical preliminary, it might seem, to radical monetary reform. For lack of co-operation in their underlying economic policies they bungled it horribly, and provoked the rise in interest rates that brought on the stock market crash of October. These events have chastened exchange-rate reformers. The market crash taught them that the pretence of policy co-operation can be worse than nothing, and that until real co-operation is feasible (i.e., until governments surrender some economic sovereignty) further attempts to peg currencies will flounder.The New World Economy
The biggest change in the world economy since the early 1970’s is that flows of money have replaced trade in goods as the force that drives exchange rates. as a result of the relentless integration of the world’s financial markets, differences in national economic policies can disturb interest rates (or expectations of future interest rates) only slightly, yet still call forth huge transfers of financial assets from one country to another. These transfers swamp the flow of trade revenues in their effect on the demand and supply for different currencies, and hence in their effect on exchange rates. As telecommunications technology continues to advance, these transactions will be cheaper and faster still. With unco-ordinated economic policies, currencies can get only more volatile.
In all these ways national economic boundaries are slowly dissolving. As the trend continues, the appeal of a currency union across at least the main industrial countries will seem irresistible to everybody except foreign-exchange traders and governments. In the phoenix zone, economic adjustment to shifts in relative prices would happen smoothly and automatically, rather as it does today between different regions within large economies (a brief on pages 74-75 explains how.) The absence of all currency risk would spur trade, investment and employment.
The phoenix zone would impose tight constraints on national governments. There would be no such thing, for instance, as a national monetary policy. The world phoenix supply would be fixed by a new central bank, descended perhaps from the IMF. The world inflation rate – and hence, within narrow margins, each national inflation rate- would be in its charge. Each country could use taxes and public spending to offset temporary falls in demand, but it would have to borrow rather than print money to finance its budget deficit. With no recourse to the inflation tax, governments and their creditors would be forced to judge their borrowing and lending plans more carefully than they do today. This means a big loss of economic sovereignty, but the trends that make the phoenix so appealing are taking that sovereignty away in any case. Even in a world of more-or-less floating exchange rates, individual governments have seen their policy independence checked by an unfriendly outside world.
As the next century approaches, the natural forces that are pushing the world towards economic integration will offer governments a broad choice. They can go with the flow, or they can build barricades. Preparing the way for the phoenix will mean fewer pretended agreements on policy and more real ones. It will mean allowing and then actively promoting the private-sector use of an international money alongside existing national monies. That would let people vote with their wallets for the eventual move to full currency union. The phoenix would probably start as a cocktail of national currencies, just as the Special Drawing Right is today. In time, though, its value against national currencies would cease to matter, because people would choose it for its convenience and the stability of its purchasing power.
The alternative – to preserve policymaking autonomy- would involve a new proliferation of truly draconian controls on trade and capital flows. This course offers governments a splendid time. They could manage exchange-rate movements, deploy monetary and fiscal policy without inhibition, and tackle the resulting bursts of inflation with prices and incomes polices. It is a growth-crippling prospect. Pencil in the phoenix for around 2018, and welcome it when it comes.
Only ten years later, in 1998, The Economist was once again engaging the public in an effort to forward the globalist agenda, with an article entitled “One world, one money.”
Very much in line with the 1988 piece, the publication attempts to explain why a much more centralized and controlled system would be beneficial to the global economy, while wholly ignoring the fact that such a centralized global currency would be a massive coup for the international banking cartel, and the Rothschild banking empire’s financial bottom line.
Additionally, it must be noted that the creation of a global currency would give an inordinate amount of geopolitical capital to unelected international bankers, and subsequently take power away from the citizens of each nation and their respective governmental representatives.
Does anyone really want international bankers to have such a vast amount of political power on top of the massive financial influence and sway they already hold in the halls of power?People want more say in their own lives, not having policy dictated to them by international banksters and bureaucrats.
Control over a nation’s money supply is, for all intents and purposes, the lifeblood of a state’s sovereignty – without this independence, the state only exists in name but is subservient to supranational powers whose interests lie outside of domestic and national political/economic concerns.
“GIVE ME CONTROL OF A NATION’S MONEY SUPPLY, AND I CARE NOT WHO MAKES ITS LAWS,” said Mayer Amschel Rothschild, founder of the Rothschild banking dynasty.
Although the Rothschild family now generally keep a very low public profile, they still have significant business operations across a wide spectrum of sectors. While you may not find any one particular Rothschild on the Forbes’ most rich list, the family is estimated to control $1 trillion dollars in assets across the globe, thus having a strong voice across the geopolitical spectrum that many perceive as a hidden hand manipulating events silently from behind a veil of secrecy and silence.
Are you starting to get the picture?
For Anyone Who Argued Colin Kaepernick’s Protest Was NOT Against the Flag and Country, See His Latest StatementBy Adriana Lucero — 10 months ago
Since the very first time ex-San Francisco 49er’s quarterback, Colin Kaepernick, decided to take a knee for the national anthem, he has insisted he was “in no way” disrespecting the American flag or his country…
Are you sure about that Mr. Kaepernick?
I know there are more than a few people and fans out there who will argue otherwise.
A post shared by colin kaepernick (@kaepernick7) on
His reply to his initial protest display was that he knelt in response to the “systemic oppression against people of color [and] police brutality.”
President Trump’s response on the other hand is on a whole other ball field…
The NFL has all sorts of rules and regulations. The only way out for them is to set a rule that you can’t kneel during our National Anthem!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 26, 2017
Former NFL player, Colin Kaepernick is sticking strong to his beliefs that he is not bashing the flag by kneeling. He honestly didn’t even get much media attention when it first happened he confirmed himself during an interview with the NFL.com:
“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.”
“To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.”
Kaepernick bluntly stated, “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag” in August 2016, after he knelt during a preseason game against the Green Bay Packers.
A post shared by colin kaepernick (@kaepernick7) on
According to IJR:
Kaepernick’s kneeling has sparked a national divide amongst fans all around the US.
The president also commented on a Monday night football game in which players knelt before the national anthem. When the Dallas Cowboys knelt before the national anthem, Trump said, they provoked “great anger” and the “loudest” booing he’s “ever heard”:
Ratings for NFL football are way down except before game starts, when people tune in to see whether or not our country will be disrespected!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 26, 2017
“I think that it’s always appropriate for the president of the United States to defend our flag, to defend the national anthem, and to defend the men and women who fought and died to defend it,” White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said.