“Colored People” OK; “Redskins” Not So Much

Photo credit: j valas images (Creative Commons)

So the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has revoked the Washington Redskins’ trademark as being “disparaging.”

I could write all the usual stuff about how silly the ruling is, how it will no doubt be appealed and reversed (as was a similar ruling in 2003), and what a moron the alleged Senator from Nevada is for taking to the Senate floor to demand a change in the name of a football team.

But I have a better one for you.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

That’s right, the NAACP.

It seems that the word “Colored”—which is undeniably more offensive than Redskins—is part of the NAACP acronym that was trademarked in 1979 and has been renewed continuously, most recently in 2011.

Let me give you a slice of the fine print from their website:

Trademarks and Service Marks
There may be a number of proprietary logos, service marks, trademarks, slogans and product designations found on this SITE, including but not limited to: The NAACP name and seal. Other trademarks displayed on this SITE through links to other sites are the property of the respective trademark owners. By making these marks available on this SITE, the NAACP does not confer upon you any of the NAACP’s or any third party’s intellectual property rights. No NAACP trademark may be used as a hyperlink without the NAACP’s prior written permission.
Copyright Trademark Notices
All content of the NAACP’s SITE is: Copyright © 2010 The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. All Rights Reserved.

In other words, you can register the acronym containing an offensive name if you are a left-leaning organization that represents the proper political philosophy; but if you run a football team that has had a name for the past 81 years, Harry Reid and Barack Obama can tell you what to do. Or, more correctly, they can let their lackeys in government service tell you what to do.

I’ve never heard Obama say that the NAACP should change its name to the National Association for the Advancement of African Americans, or the NAAAA.

But Harry Reid did say from the floor of the Senate that he wouldn’t be attending Redskins games until they changed their name (which is certainly a great reason not to change the name).

If a significant percentage of the 77,220 fans who attended each Redskins game stopped buying tickets or merchandise in protest, how long do you think they would be named “the Redskins”? The problem is that if every one of those fans decided to not buy a ticket, there are reportedly 150,000 waiting in the wings to take up the slack.

The market speaks very loudly in cases like this.

And I’d be willing to bet that some portion of those names, both those in the stadium each Sunday and those on the waiting list, belong to people of Native American heritage.

How much more of this nonsense are we obligated to put up with?

The fact is that a government panel granting a trademark to a private institution does not imply any imprimatur at all. It’s merely a registration that allows the organization to keep others from using your trademark. From a practical standpoint, the reason we allow the government to make these decisions is precisely to keep this sort of nonsense from happening in the first place. It is, theoretically, a completely disinterested party.

Pages: 1 2

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

NAACP President To Resign At End Of The Year

NAACP SC NAACP President to Resign at End of the Year

WASHINGTON — The president of the NAACP, Benjamin Jealous, will resign as president at the end of 2013, reports said.

Reuters reported that Jealous said he wanted to spend more time with his young children and considered changing careers to teaching.

He tweeted that he was proud of his accomplishments as the president for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) for five years.

No successor has been named yet.

 

Photo credit: j valas images (Creative Commons)

 

Republished with permission from Accuracy in Media.

 

KKK And NAACP Secret Meeting Ends With Membership Ties

NAACP SC KKK and NAACP secret meeting ends with membership ties

In what’s being billed as a historical first, the president of the Casper, Wyo., NAACP met recently behind closed doors with an organizer of the KKK chapter from Great Falls, Mont. — and the meeting actually ended with a crossover membership.

The Ku Klux Klan organizer actually paid $50 to join the NAACP, in order to learn more about the civil rights group’s views, The Associated Press reported.

The Southern Poverty Law Center and the United Klans of America said on Tuesday that the meeting — between Jimmy Simmons of the NAACP with John Abarr of the KKK — was the first of its kind in history.

Mr. Abarr said to the AP that he actually filled out a membership card to the NAACP and paid the $30 enrollment fee — and tacked on a $20 donation.

Mr. Simmons said the meeting was called because his group had heard that KKK literature was being sent out in Gillette, a community about 130 miles from Casper, and he wanted to discuss the state of race relations. He said in the AP report that he also wanted to talk about reports of black men being beaten — but he declined to give additional details.

Read more at The Washington Times. By Cheryl K. Chumley.

Photo credit: j valas images (Creative Commons)

Hypocrisy And Discrimination At MLK Commemoration

Martin Luther King Jr. SC Hypocrisy and Discrimination at MLK Commemoration

The dream that Martin Luther King, Jr. envisioned for America 50 years ago this week has mostly been achieved. But regrettably, those who attempted to honor him on the anniversary of his iconic “I Have A Dream” speech, rather than honoring him, tarnished his memory with a new kind of segregation and discrimination, based on ideology.

Dr. King declared, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” With a black president, and several black congressmen and civic leaders in attendance, clearly the racial glass ceiling is shattered. And while there may be still a few pockets of actual racism around the country, electoral evidence on its own clearly signals the demise of racial discrimination in any systemic form.

But what was in evidence this week in Washington was a new version of discrimination, based on ideology. Where were the only black U.S. Senator, and the only black Supreme Court Justice? They were unceremoniously not invited. It clearly is not based on race, but based on ideology. Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina is a Republican and is the only black senator, and he is one of only eight in history. Clarence Thomas is a conservative jurist, was appointed by a Republican president, and is only the second in history to hold that position. The only conceivable explanation for their exclusion is based on ideological alignment.

So lets see if we understand this correctly. It’s not enough to be a minority and stand as evidence, based on station in life, that skin color no longer has relevance in today’s society. Rather, what’s most important is that one subscribes to liberalism, pay homage to their Party, and then skin color no longer matters. In other words, what the organizers of this week’s event honoring Rev. King did was engage in exactly the kind of conduct King himself denounced. They discriminated.

In fact, of the three dozen speakers at the event, not one was a Republican, a conservative, or anything but a died-in-the-wool Democrat. Clearly, we witnessed a gross and blatant example of discrimination. Why would they intentionally discriminate against the party of Lincoln, the party and ideology that pushed through the 13th and 14th Amendments ending slavery, and the party that pushed through the Civil Rights Acts of 1866, 1871, 1875, 1957, 1960, and 1964? None of those would’ve been possible without Republican support, and in most cases, ardently advocating for them.

It would appear that issues regarding race in the 21st century are not about race at all, but about using race as a political tool for liberalism and advancing the cause of their party. How else could one possibly justify that the party of Strom Thurmond, Robert Byrd, and Jim Crow Laws would be the arbiters of all arguments alleging racism? The hypocrisy and duplicity are unsurpassed! Especially when we realize that the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. was himself a Republican.

Confirming this observation, King’s speech 50 years ago cited the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the Amendments to the Constitution referring to our individual liberties as citizens. Yet the administration of the first black president, proving in part by his position that King’s dream has been realized, officially classifies the types of persons who quote those documents as terrorists, potential terrorists, or right-wing extremists. Based on that alone, Obama would’ve had to recognize in King a threat to national security. How’s that for an ideological conundrum?

It becomes painfully more clear all the time that the left’s concept of diversity, in a racial context, really has nothing to do with ethnicity, but everything to do with an ideological homogeneity, exclusivity, and purity. The line of demarcation is purely ideological. If you’re a conservative or a Republican, expect no tolerance, no inclusion, no attempts at understanding, and no seat at the table of acceptable political speech. Such should be rather segregated from the mainstream of societal discourse, branded as possible terrorists, and classified as extremists.

Some of the idiocy that passed for lofty elocution at the rally this week confirms this observation further. Martin Luther King III claimed that some still use race as a “license to profile, to arrest and even to murder,” obviously referencing the Trayvon Martin case. Julian Bond, former chairman of the NAACP, claimed the Supreme Court had “eviscerated” the voting Rights Act by making it possible for states to pass voter ID laws. Melanie Campbell, president of the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, apparently referencing the same Supreme Court decision, claimed that even though Klansmen in white sheets are no longer a menace, judges in black robes pose as great a threat.

And then President Obama, in his inexorable role as salesman for his unpopular Obamacare, made a failed attempt at convincing us that MLK would’ve approved of it. Apparently, the President has not read anything that MLK wrote or spoke of, since everything he said was based on the principle of freedom, which is sacrificed at the altar of the Affordable Care Act.

The Party that sponsored this week’s rally is ideologically and politically the least qualified to heap accolades on Rev. King. They have, after all, replaced their Jim Crow laws, forced segregation, and slavery with government handouts and party loyalty that have made minorities slaves to new masters: the government, and the Party that controls it.

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board.  He can be reached at rlarsenen@cableone.net

Obama Can’t Trust ANYBODY To Lie For Him

King Obama SC Obama can’t trust ANYBODY to lie for him

Pity poor King Barack.

All he wants to do is strip us of our guns, like any other dictator would; but he can’t get his most loyal subjects in academia and his own government to fabricate his argument. Instead, they keep telling the truth!

The King’s media is doing its best to help him lie. The King’s Democrats are doing their best – they look directly into cameras and lie. Even the King’s shock troops like the NAACP and the “Justice Brothers” Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson do their bit at every opportunity, but he can’t get the right subjects to go along with the program!

Since January, the results of two major “show” studies on private ownership of guns in America have surfaced in spite of determined indifference from the King’s media. The studies were delivered by Harvard University and the Centers for Disease Control. Both should have “proved the danger” of private ownership of guns in the King’s realm. Nevertheless, neither did. In fact, they not only failed to support the Ministry of Truth and Justice Department’s war on guns in private hands; they actually provided tangible facts to defeat the King’s gun confiscation efforts while America still has a semblance of democratic government.

Because the King has such direct control over its funding, the CDC’s report (launched immediately after the terrible school shootings in Sandy Hook, Connecticut) should have been filled with emotion and useful lies. But alas, it wasn’t. Instead, it was filled with facts like: between 2000 and 2010, more than 6 in 10 gun related deaths were suicides; accidental deaths from firearms has fallen to less than 1% of firearms deaths in 2010; and perhaps worst of all, firearms “turn-in” programs “are ineffective” in reducing crime.

The Harvard study may have been still worse for the King. It reported: while gun ownership has soared since 1991, firearms-related crimes have dropped by 69%; on average, each year, 200,000 American women save themselves from sexual assaults by use of a gun; by an 80:1 ratio, Americans use guns to stop crimes rather than commit crimes; and Kennesaw, Georgia (right under the nose of CDC headquarters), which REQUIRES its home owners to have a gun, has seen an 89% drop in burglaries since passing its ordinance.

If poor King Barack can’t get a college faculty or a government-funded agency to lie for him, what is he to do in his quest to take our guns?

Photo credit: terrellaftermath