Washington Redskins: Enforcement of Genocide?
By now I am sure you are all aware of yesterday’s split decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. This is a continuing symptom of the Barack Hussein Obama/Senator Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi’s tyrannical government.
The trademark attorney for the Washington Redskins issued a press release after the Board’s decision stating,
“We’ve seen this story before (April 3, 1999 and October 2, 2003). And just like last time, today’s ruling will have no effect at all on the team’s ownership of and right to use the Redskins name and logo.
“We are confident we will prevail once again, and that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s divided ruling will be overturned on appeal.”
Senator Harry Reid made this comment: “Daniel Snyder may be the last person in the world to realize this, but it’s just a matter of time until he is forced to do the right thing and change the name.”
On his Facebook page, Dennis Miller said, “Patent Office cancels ‘Redskin’ registrations. H.Reid says Snyder will be ‘forced’ to change name. Dan, you might want to try just ‘Reds.’”
In a May 23, 2014, letter to Senator Harry Reid, the President of the Washington Redskins, Bruce Allen, wrote the following:
“More than a decade ago, one of the foremost scholars of Native American languages, Smithsonian Institute’s senior linguist, Ives Goddard, spent seven months researching the subject and concluded that the word “redskin” originated as a Native American expression of solidarity by multi-tribal delegations that traveled to Washington to negotiate Native American national policies. In his words, “The actual origin of the word (“redskin”) is entirely benign and reflects more positive aspects of relations between Indians and whites. Our use of “redskins” as the name of our football team for more than 81 years has always been respectful of and shown reverence toward the proud legacy and traditions of Native Americans.
In 1971, while my father was head coach, our current logo was designed and approved by Native American leaders. One such leader was Walter “Blackie” Wetzel, a former President of the National Congress of American Indians and Chairman of the Blackfeet Nation. Mr. Wetzel worked closely with President John F. Kennedy in the national movement for civil rights. Mr. Wetzel’s son, Don, wrote just two months ago, “It needs to be said that an Indian from the state of Montana created that (“Redskins”) logo, and did it the right way. It represents the Red Nation, and it’s something to be proud of.”
(See the entire press release and letter to Senator Reid on the Redskins website.)
This latest move by the feds is warfare—warfare on what they think is a politically incorrect use of a name. What is the ultimate goal of warfare? Control.
We could argue that football (Washington Redskins), like chess, is in many ways, a type of warfare on a playing field where there are teams of football players facing each other, like battle lines. There are skirmishes and attempts to penetrate the enemies’ lines to advance to the other end of the field to achieve a victory
It has been said that the Cherokee nation was the finest lite cavalry in the world. Now celebrating the noble attributes of the Redskin warriors seems to be an insult because the federal government deems it politically incorrect under the guise of being respectful of their fellow human beings.
What about Dolphins? They are mammals but more than this, the Dauphin (“Dolphin”) is the title given to the heir apparent of the throne of France—could this be an insult to the French Aristocracy and by extinction an insult to every Frenchman. Why not declare war on the use of the Miami’s football team’s name, the Miami Dolphins then? I could cite more but you get the idea.
It is apparent that what we are witnessing (as with the IRS) is the unlawful abuse of power as the government brings down to bare its full weight upon the little hapless little guy’s First Amendment right to express their views.
Only under this tyrannical government of Barack Hussein Obama are we seeing these types of actions.
Does anyone remember the Supreme Court’s Constitution shredding Kelo decision in June of 2005 when a 5-4 ruling made it legal for local governments to use their eminent domain power to condemn working class neighborhood homes or private development in hopes of boosting tax revenue and improving the local economy? Previously, for the most part, the government only took private land to build roads and/or bridges
And the land grabs continue with the help of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as we recently saw in Nevada with the Bundy ranch.
Beware that the Obama Administration is not just content with controlling free speech and land grabs, but is also making the use of huge swaths of the Pacific Ocean off limits to the public as well.
We are told by the so-called Progressives that our Constitution is a living and evolving organism, allowing popular Socialist agendas to be read into our Constitution the things that are not there. While this may seem academic to some, make no mistake, We the People must now bow to We the Government.
Regarding our Constitution, the Founders understood that times change and while they did not understand technologies as we do today, they did realize technologies develop with time, so they allowed for our Constitution to adapt to the times in which we find ourselves—not through evolution—but through Amendments that a majority must agree upon, not just government elites, least we become a dictatorship.
Hate speech pre-determines what’s in your heart and mind; therefore, the government can make anything become hate speech. In some countries, pastors have been arrested for preaching Romans 1 where it states homosexuality is wrong.
Think about this for a moment—the 1988 Genocide Treaty:
In 1988, the Congress of the United States and President Ronald Reagan, ratified the Genocide Treaty, thereby agreeing with the United Nations’ 1946 treaty that made genocide punishable by international law—and now it’s enshrined as a United States Law! Prior to the ratification, the House had already passed a law that made genocide punishable by life imprisonment and fines up to $1 million as well.
Most of us would agree that genocide in the way we understand it is horribly inhumane, and we probably think of genocide being akin to Hitler killing all of the Jews just because they were Jews, but let’s take a look at the wording of the U.N.’s decision and what they built into it:
According to Encyclopedia Brittanica, genocide is defined as “…any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Re-read “(b)”: Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;”
Did you catch that? Mental harm. Government-defined hate speech is considered genocide! Could this mean making a minority feel badly, thus causing mental harm? This could apply toward speaking against homosexuals or Muslims, even saying offensive things about Mohammad or the Koran.
For causing mental impairment upon a group of people, ethnic or other, the United States has a 20-year prison sentence and up to $1 million in fines.
According to the Christian Science Monitor, every president of the United States fought ratifying the United Nations’ Genocide Treaty except Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan because they were apprehensive about its infringement on U.S. sovereignty.
How odd it is that a greatly admired Conservative like Ronald Reagan stepped on the toes of our First Amendment. Even the American Bar Association was against it saying they feared an imbalance between state’s rights and federal rights would be created as a result. William Korey, director of policy research for B’nai B’rith, when it was ratified by our Congress, said, “The President (Reagan) gets credit for neutralizing the Conservatives.”
Once we ignore the First Amendment’s protection, anyone and everyone can be in violation of stepping on making someone feel bad.
