Redskins Name Supported By The First Amendment But Opposed By Civil Rights Bullies Who Oppose Freedom to Offend Unless THEY Are The Offenders.

Terrorists opposed to Freedom of Speech was one of the reasons they assassinated the Charlie Hebdo people. Civil Rights “Terrorists” have a different target, viz., The name of the Washington Redskins football team. Hiding behind the idea of objectionable speech a so-called Civil Rights Group has joined the battle to force the Redskins football team owners to suppress the word “Redskins”. They probably want the owners to suppress the logo, a profile of an American Indian complete with a historically correct set of feathers.

The so-called Civil Rights group, so called because being against Free Speech is being against a basic and massively important civil right. The Redskin issue is distracting Americans from the Constitutional Right To Expression; to the Right To Speak one’s mind and it’s been turned into a phony civil rights “struggle”.

“Struggle” is a Marx-based red-herring idea that the lower classes must struggle against the upper classes. It’s a debate-stopping power-word used to divide people just as the so-called name controversy is meant to divide Americans and to prove the Constitution was and is wrong. The redskin word issue is, -at bottom, falsely portrayed as a race-based issue when it’s anti-American and purposely but sneakily about the showing how wrong the American Constitution really is.

Ironically, there may not be a separate race called Redskins or American Indians or Native Americans as the name has evolved.

Would the so-called Civil Rights protestors accept changing the name to “The Washington Native Americans”? Probably not. They are obsessed only with eliminating more free speech by banning the use of the word “Redskins” as they have successfully banned hundreds of words in America’s textbooks, newspapers, T.V. shows and commercials.

Banning and eliminating words is a favorite Left-wing tactic and it’s been extremely successful as Presidential advisor Diane Ravitch showed in: “The Language Police”. Editors are frightened into banning words as innocuous as “cabin boy”. Read her book and other books on banned words like: “Losing Our Language: How Multiculturalism Undermines Our Children’s Ability to Read, Write and Reason” a 2002 book by Sandra Stotsky about banning words from children’s textbooks. Oh, wait. The idea of banning words has been scrubbed from the internet by The Language Police. See also: Liberals End Racism (Here).

Supposedly the “Banners” are joined by President Obama who no one would accuse of supporting the U.S. Constitution. Obama spoke against the word and is proudly quoted on the internet. “If I were the owner of the team and I knew that there was a name of my team –even if it had a storied history — that was offending a sizable group of people, I’d think about changing it.” Barack Obama as quoted by The Washington Post. Instead of supporting, defending and protecting the minority, the owners against the mob, Obama sides with the Left-Wing Word Police. Obama supports minorities only if he’s one of them. That’s what comes from living on the Left Side of the American culture. Not supporting a minority is not something American’s do and it’s not something to celebrate on Martin Luther King Jr.’s holiday.

The freedom to use “Redskins” has been under attack by the so-called Politically Correct Left just as the freedom to publish drawings has been under attack for years.

Soft Terrorism is a tactic discovered by Saul Alinsky; used by President Obama to rub raw the sores of discontent; a tactic used by Al Sharpton to disrespect the police and a successful maneuver against people who lack the ability to grasp how powerful the Freedom to Speak has been in American history.

Supposedly the massive demonstrations in Europe, demonstrations which Obama didn’t support, were based in part on support for the Rights of Charlie to publish what they wanted.

The Supreme Court has weighed in on the issue. They said people who are offended by a word don’t have to use it. They can also avert their eyes if a word offends them.

The protestors don’t have a right to suppress speech. The protestors cannot support their own offensive ideas if they simultaneously oppose the right of the Redskins to support their own ideas too.

The so called Civil Rights Protestors do themselves in when they voluntarily use the word Redskin then claim they are offended by the word they just used.

Views: 3