1st Amendment Victory: FCC Rejects Redskins Objections


If the left wing of this country had their choice of a thousand issues to which to devote all of their efforts and resources – but they could only choose one – I’m not sure they could resist choosing “eliminate offensive speech” as their sole cause.

Nothing gets liberals (and their subset, feminists) more riled up than speech they’ve deemed offensive. And it wouldn’t even be the worst choice, because you can accomplish a lot when you are able to dictate the terms of conversation. When you trot out “trigger warnings,” “rape culture,” “dog whistle racism,” and all the rest, you get to decide exactly what every word means, even if that definition can’t be found in any reputable dictionary. And if you’re steering the conversation, chances are you’ll win the argument.

Legal Slapdown

Thankfully, as of December 2014, we still have freedom of speech in our Constitution. Given enough liberal justices in the Supreme Court, I’m sure the left can eventually get a whole lot of offensive speech stricken from protection, but for now it seems our First Amendment is alive and kicking. The Federal Communications Commission decided Thursday that “Redskins” does not qualify as profane or obscene speech, and therefore they will not pull D.C. radio station WWXX-FM off the air. It may be a small victory in the grand scheme of things, but it is a satisfying one nonetheless.

For the last couple of years, teary-eyed liberals have called on Washington D.C., the NFL, and hard-hearted football fans everywhere to reject the Redskins. Manufacturing offense where none can be found, these liberals have decided that the team name is a mockery of Native Americans, most of whom don’t really give a damn themselves. But speaking for apathetic minorities has become the greatest of all liberal pastimes, and they have taken to this one with vigor.

In their latest attack on freedom – headed up by George Washington University professor John Banzhaf – they asked the FCC not to renew the radio station’s license because they used the team name excessively. The station is owned by Dan Snyder, who also owns the controversial team in question. The FCC wisely rejected the petition, claiming that “if there is to be free speech, it must be free for speech that be abhor and hate as well as for speech that we find tolerable and congenial.”

The Evolving Left

There was a time not that long ago when liberals would have been the last people to challenge speech in this way. Holding the First Amendment to the highest standards was one of their greatest calling cards. Somewhere along the line, though, they’ve realized how much power they can wield if they simply eliminate words and phrases they don’t like. In doing so, they’ve become the kind of fascists they always claimed to hate.

If liberals want to force the Redskins to change their name through boycotts, persuasive arguments, and protests, have at it. That’s the way it should be done. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the name, but they are certainly free to disagree. What they’re not free to do – not yet, anyway – is to change the First Amendment when it suits them. God help America if that ever happens.


  1. Brenda Harrell says

    I agree with everything in this article. Keep the Redskins name, and if anyone doesn’t like it, just turn the channel!

    1. Tedski says

      It really is that simple a solution, especially for the simple minded liberal morons. The biggest problem I see is they have their head buried so deep up their own or someone else’s arse even rose colored glasses would not be any help.

      1. Poppo says

        No light at the end of that tunnel!

        1. Bobbi Martin says

          too TOO funny…..still TRUE, but FUNNY!!!! Thanks, I needed this this morning. LOL

    2. Vic Mariano Sr. says

      Just as I do whenever the “Rams” come on TV since they decided to show their loyalty with the hands up foolishness.

      1. Aristophanes1 says

        I have totally stopped watching nfl football since the players have gotten involved in politics. These idiots are paid to play football, not make statements on the field or sidelines. I might make an exception to my boycott for the Redskins!

        1. WhiteFalcon says

          We should quit going to movies for the same reason. Movie stars don’t have enough brains to pound sand into a rat hole much less to try to force their opinions on us. People’s politics is none of their damd business.

        2. fulredy says

          Every American, that’s every American has a right to their opinions on any any subject whatsoever. Being a professional football players does not preempt that right. Where were you born? In Russia or China?

    3. Helen says

      You are absolutely right. I believe the Red Skins feel this is an honor and the Red Skin team has been around for more years than I can remember. Leave them alone, change channel, turn the TV off and make an effort to learn something productive but let them alone!!! This is a free Country as long as you LIBTARDS do ot interfere!!!

      1. Brenda Harrell says

        Amen to that!

      2. William Burke says

        There is no team named the “Red Skins”, and the FCC ruling was about the name “Redskins”, not “Red Skins”. Are you obtuse or just trying to piss people off?

        1. RM says

          man, you better call the “extra space” police on Helen. what a major mistake not calling them “Redskins!” and just how would this “piss people off?” are you obtuse??!?

          1. William Burke says

            Chicago White Sox, as opposed to “Whitesocks”. Same principle. One is correct, the other is incorrect. Or do you not get this correct and incorrect stuff?

          2. RM says

            oh, i get what is correct, but wasting it on this drivel about a team name is stupidity at its worst. i know what’s important on this planet, but quibbling over the spelling of sports teams’ names is so unimportant and shows what an amazing hair-splitter you are. you must be a libtard to be so insulted by her misspellings. you never did address what she has to say (minus the horrific boo-boos). anything to deflect from the topic, oh holy demtard. what else do you do??

        2. Ron Warren says

          Burke climb back down into your hole. Helen’s error is common because of quirks in the English language. Frankly bud, it’s your attitude that really stinks here. Good day!

          1. William Burke says

            “Because of quirks in the English language”? Which quirks are those? It has nothing to do with “quirks”, SHE JUST PLAIN WROTE IT WRONG.

            Show me one press reference that mentions the “Washington Red Skins”, and I actually WILL shut up!

            But you CAN’T. Because it’s W-R-O-N-G.

          2. Robert Early says

            Mr. Burke,
            Do you understand the word “satire”?
            Lighten up !

    4. Peter Pan says

      Could be worse. Could be Washington Nig ger’s.

      1. Brenda Harrell says

        Yeah you are right. Sports used to be a role model for kids. Now the black thugs are playing and breaking the law, not all, but a lot. I used to watch football with my husband, but not now. I don’t care for their actions, on or off the field.

        1. fulredy says

          Get over your prejudice and move on with your life.

          1. Brenda Harrell says

            It’s not racism or prejudice, it’s the truth. But I guess someone like you can’t handle the truth. You tell me there are not mostly thugs playing football and there are not anymore role models in that sport for our children. Maybe a Payton Manning. You have Ray Rice that knocked out his then girl friend and dragged her out of an elevator. So don’t you preach your prejudice to me. I know the truth.

          2. Jim says

            so as life goes one or two bad apples means that all football players are thugs?what am I saying go ahead don’t watch football cause of a few people,wait a minute this upsets you?but no gripes about ANY of the other total GARBAGE that can be seen on our tv sets.

          3. Ron Warren says

            She has a right to her views. YOU seem to be getting bent out of shape. You are not qualified to preach to her.

          4. Jim says

            hey guess what ron I too have my right and her views is sadly based on garbage.yes there are some bad apples in football but what about the other GREAT role models that we are so fortunate see on a daily basis,like let’s see oh yeah the slut Miley Cyrus you know that teen model who at concerts is showing herself masterbating or how about Justin Bieber yet another role model for our young ones yeah he’s real great oh yeah almost forgot this one Oprah Winfrey,she’s such an inspiration she lies and we’ll make this the last,any talk show like Jerry Springer.so yeah she has her right to her view but it’s really time for people to start having some COMMON SENSE

          5. Ron Warren says

            No prejudice on Brenda’s part. She spoke her opinion for which she has a Constitutional right under freedom of speech. But a Constitutional “right” is not needed. She is a person who has rights to her views. You, fulredy, need to get on with a life and stay out of others’ business.

          6. fulredy says

            You mean like you?

      2. William Burke says

        Your racism is not cute or funny. It’s embarrassing.

        1. Peter Pan says

          Lighten up Coon.

          1. William Burke says

            That’s not how your mother says it.

          2. Peter Pan says

            My mother actually said black lives matter but Nig ger lives do not. In that latter group she includes Obama, Holder, Sharpton, Jessee Jackson, Sheila Jackson Lee, Maxine Waters and the like.

      3. Tedski says

        Love it

      4. Bobbi Martin says

        With the Head Cockroach as coach… GOOD FIT!!! and being around all that testosterone would be right up Barry’s and Michael’s……uhhhh….. backside.

  2. 1American1st says


    Take that, Hairy Reid, you lousy Liberal Socialist AGITATOR!

    1. Seldena says

      Agree 100% !!!!

    2. William Burke says

      I’m pretty sure Harry Reid is just a gangster, and not a “Liberal Socialist Agitator”.

    3. b glad says

      Unfortunately, we don’t get to restart the score just because we scored a win, when we finally started to wake up. Our apathy has given the socialists a fifty year head start, with only a very few small victories for our side

  3. rog363 says

    Political correctness is out to destroy everything we, over the years, have taken for granted. Free speech is a wonderful thing but not if it will be used to injure someone. I do not think that calling a football team the Washington Redskins is causing anyone bodily harm as the yelling of FIRE in a crowded theater would if, in fact, there is no fire.

    1. ward says

      Opinions are free speech even when libtards take it as intrusion on their wannabe dictator regime ..!

    2. William Burke says

      How about yelling “RACISM!” in a crowded theater?

      1. Brenda Harrell says

        You just yelled it on these forms, what’s the difference?

        1. William Burke says

          In what way, stupid woman?

  4. Mark Tallman says

    LMAO! I love this. You KNOW what will happen next. Barack HUSSEIN Obama will issue an executive order banning the name from the Team.

    1. Michael Bristol says

      right on man

      1. scubamass says

        Bristol , Ct , ? You look familiar bud ?

  5. Vic Mariano Sr. says

    AND now the world is a much safer place.

    1. ward says

      One sure thing is U.S Citizens Freedom & Rights still reign in the U.S.A. contrary to bo’s whims and ways of his oath & U.S. Law violations .. !

  6. Valor says

    How is this for offensive speech? You idiot liberals can kiss my A**!!

    1. john robel says

      Mine too!, French it sissies.

  7. farrightwing says

    Yea, Redskins!

    1. ward says

      Wonder how the wannabe dictator & his cronies are handling this kick in their nuts … ?

  8. Peatro Giorgio says

    No ware in the Constitution is anyone granted the right not to be offended ! Yes Liberals ,progressives,socialist truly are stupid an suck on the kool aid of ignorance each an every moment of their worthless little lives.

    1. Seldena says

      You have that right!!

  9. ALBERTJ says


  10. James Maxwell says

    Personally I am not a Redskin fan, but I fail to see why the assholes on the left are so dammed upset
    about a team named to honor one of the coaches. To attempt to force them to change their team
    name is to dishonor the Native Americans and their heritage. If the team failed to maintain that
    respect then I might agree to changing their name. As a Football team they have, to my knowledge,
    always played and fought showing the Native American spirit. As a TEXAN fan I still want to kick
    their butt when we play them though.

    1. ward says

      Libtards lives consist of making other people miserable if they can create lying B.S. …!

      1. Ron Warren says

        Ward here is the essence of liberalism. It is a mental disorder. Its proponents gripe about nonsensical ideas. They are essentially unhappy people who cannot adjust. They want the world to change to THEIR ways and points of view. They cannot adjust to realities. The political agenda that best fits theirs is socialism and the next step is communism. Both support the equal distribution of misery. Liberals detest the idea that somebody, somewhere is successful, happy and having a good life.

    2. William Burke says

      It’s actually in all probability untrue about “Lone Star” Dietz being an American Indian, and the team wasn’t named “Redskins” to honor him.

      1. Brenda Harrell says

        Obviously you area a liberal troll and if you don’t like the name Redskins, why don’t you go to another site. Now who is the racist or being prejudice.

        1. Rye Cooter says

          Obviously you, Brenda.

          1. Brenda Harrell says

            lying witch.

          2. Rye Cooter says

            Snappy, tool. or is it snap on tools, like the dildos the lesbians use?

          3. Brenda Harrell says

            You are nothing but trash.

          4. Ron Warren says

            Rye Cooter your mind has reverse polarity. That’s why you comprehend things backward. Brenda H. has it correct.

  11. bjreg3 says

    Banzhaf certainly has shown how big of an intolerant, pansy waisted libtard he really is. The problem is, it also shows anyone can become a “professor” as intelligence certainly isn’t needed.

  12. Buster Gipson says

    If we could get the 1st amendment supporters and the 2nd amendment supporters together we might have both Freedom and Democracy in the Future, instead of the cesspool of the Liberal Socialist Society

    1. Seldena says

      That is a great idea!! Liberals pick some of the most ignorant things to create problems on purpose to distort our freedoms! Our Constituion is going to stay whether they like it or not!!

      1. ward says

        Anything to distort the truth or destroy reality to avoid the facts of real integrity …!

      2. Landshark says

        Don’t forget to emphasize MERRY CHRISTMAS TO EVERY LIBERAL YOU MEET.

    2. sandraleesmith46 says

      A lot of both groups already ARE the same folks, and many of those have proven their support of both amendments too. See people like Oath Keepers, Veteran Defenders of America, and so on.

  13. Landshark says

    One of the most apt team name changes was the Washington Senators to the Nationals. the former, in the form of Democrat. Senators, having become totally offensive to the American way of life. Perhaps another appropriate name change would be George Washington University to Josef Stalin University, as the activities of many of it’s students and faculty are reminiscent of Communism rather the the free exchange of ideas.

    1. john robel says

      Not to mention “The Mosque House” at 1600 Pen Ave.

      1. Brenda Harrell says

        You are so right John.

      2. Landshark says

        a manifestation of the Communist infestation of our nation and Congress.

  14. Seldena says

    This article is great! out Freedom of Speech is here to stay! Redskins name is one of respect to the Native Indians. A Native Indian named the team as I understand the history.There is so much to be done in this country. More to worry about than an NFL Football’s team name!!!

  15. JULIEN III says


    1. ward says

      Fascist or Nazi gestapo black booted thugs from hell with a lot of commie muslim crap thrown in.. !

    2. William Burke says

      Glad someone gets it!

  16. Michael Oxenrider says

    Lot’s of groupthink going on in this comment thread. Has anyone actually talked to a native indian about this?

    1. ward says

      Yes ; and the majority take the redskins name as a tough tribute to their culture & tenacity ..!

      1. Michael Oxenrider says

        I’ve read that. You’re referring to the Annenberg poll ten years ago? It seems like a good poll. It has an overwhelming majority say they weren’t offended. There have been other polls done as well that show the complete opposite.

        I think the issue is still out. There are enough people that are offended in recent polls to consider a name change. It’s not a liberal language police conspiracy. When you blame it on all the “liberals” you sidestep the real real issue and close your mind to the real people. It’s an actual issue with real people affected. I don’t really think it’s for you or anyone else to say. It would be for them to say.

        I don’t know exactly how I feel about it, but anytime I see a large group of people all believing the EXACT same thing and feeding off one another, it scares me. There’s a bit of groupthink/hivemind going on in this thread.

        1. john robel says

          http://www.foxnews.com/…/navajo-code-talker-says-redskin, You have a problem with like minded people? Are you scared of the NRA or the Tea Party? I guess you don’t believe in elections either.

          1. Michael Oxenrider says

            Lol. No I have a problem with people who see only one side of the story, then when that side is even slightly questioned or criticized they jump to conclusions, use ad hominem and slippery slope fallicious arguments. You shouldn’t be afraid of critical thought. I said I actually didn’t know where I stand on the argument. You’re fiery rhetoric isn’t going to win anyone over.

          2. john robel says

            If you don’t know where you stand, get a compass and you won’t be flapping in the breeze.

          3. Michael Oxenrider says

            If you have to insult people to get your point across, then maybe your logic isn’t so strong to being with.

          4. Brenda Harrell says

            Since you don’t like what anyone is saying in this post, try leaving.

          5. Michael Oxenrider says

            Done and done. 🙂 Have a Merry Xmas.

          6. Brenda Harrell says

            Thank you and you have a Merry Christmas as well.

        2. rathole9 says

          okay then let’s not sidestep the issue let’s have a poll right here and now and see if the Washington Redskins should change their name or if you should change your post name too liberal butt wipe. and there’s quite a bit of liberal group thinking/hive minded thinking going on in your head, and I know exactly how it makes me feel that is every time I hear a whiny little sissy liberal like you speak it makes me want to laugh and then vomit

          1. Michael Oxenrider says

            If critical thinking makes me a liberal…

          2. Brenda Harrell says

            The heck with critical thinking, you have to have common sense. Something liberals seem to lack.

          3. Michael Oxenrider says

            Ah the “common sense” canard – essentially a substitute for “I think you’re wrong but I can’t form a coherent argument as to why.” I’ll stick to facts and reason, not “I think it’s right, so therefore it must be right.”

          4. Brenda Harrell says

            Well common sense is what you need. Not the I must be right liberaltard term. And you have no facts just liberal spin BS.

          5. john robel says

            “Critical thinking” = “I don’t know where I stand and am not sure if I like it or not”! Right

          6. Brenda Harrell says


          7. rathole9 says

            I just read your second post you sent to me also and as far as what you call critical thinking all you are doing is siding with the Liberals wanting to take away anybody’s freedom of speech and you’re doing it in a roundabout way as far as me being upset about anything I laugh at people like you just like I posted, you are a joke and again it’s my right to to say anything I want just as it’s your right to say anything you want but you are the one not me who are siding with people who want to take away free speech, you are the one who claims to be doing critical thinking but you are backing people who are one sided and want to take away freedom of speech so yes that makes you a liberal but wipe and thank you for the grammar lesson you’re so smart. oh no there I go again acting like a 12 year old oh no are your feelings hurt are you going to cry I bet you cried a lot in school didn’t you I bet you cry a lot in life don’t you again people like you make me laugh and then make me want to vomit that’s how you people like you make me feel 🙂 🙂

          8. Michael Oxenrider says

            Slow down, catch a breath. I think we’re done.
            Have a Merry Xmas and all that.

          9. rathole9 says

            how dare you how dare you Merry Christmas that’s offensive to people the same people that are offended by Washington Redskins, I on the other hand will never say anything but merry Christmas to everybody so merry Christmas to you too

          10. Michael Oxenrider says


          11. john robel says

            Don’t think so? Ask a liberal whether he supports Harry Reid’s plan to repeal part of the First Amendment. He does.

            Liberals hate the way the Citizens United decision recognizes that people still have the right to speak freely when they speak together. The feds, defending the law Citizens United overturned, told the Supreme Court that the law could allow the government to ban a book critical of a politician.

            Yeah. Liberals think the First Amendment is bad because it protects people from being jailed for writing books. Unbelievable? Don’t believe me. Believe right-wing stalwart Jeffrey Toobin of the ultra-conservative New Yorker.

            How about the whole religious freedom thing? Well, 20 years ago even Ted Kennedy thought it was okay to protect people’s right of religious conscience when he led the enactment of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that underlay the Hobby Lobby decision. Today, for liberals, the right to religious liberty pales against their “right” to boss you around.

            So much for the First Amendment. How about the Second. Seriously? The idea of free Americans armed to protect themselves, their communities and their Constitution terrifies liberals. That freedom-loving Americans are able to defend themselves from the left’s most secret fascist fantasies fills them with fussiness.

            On the Bill of Rights, so far liberals are zero for two.

            What about the Third Amendment, the one about quartering soldiers in private homes? This is a toss-up. Liberals want to harass soldiers, who they see as hillbilly knuckledraggers useful only as photo op backdrops, but they also can’t resist intruding on private property. Call it a wash.

            There’s the Fourth Amendment, but since the Obama administration probably read this column the minute I emailed it off, you can safely put this one down in the “Against” column.

            Liberals are loving the Fifth Amendment more and more these days, as every Obama administration flunky seems to be taking it. We’ll call that one “For,” at least until it stops being useful to them.

            Sixth Amendment due process rights? This whole “fair trial” thing is a huge hassle. They want the bureaucrats to handle that, not courts. For example, now the EPA apparently wants to garnish people’s wages without due process for bothering elk.

            Liberals love the Seventh Amendment! It guarantees a Democrat-donor trial lawyer the right to have his crappy product liability lawsuit involving a plaintiff who is suing because his hammer was defective because it hurt when he hit himself in the head with it is heard by a jury composed of people who were unable to figure out how to get out of jury duty.

            The Eighth Amendment against excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment? The liberals loved the idea of fining into oblivion companies that didn’t want to pay for abortifacients. As for cruel and unusual punishment, they’ll be for that once the trials for political heresy get underway.

            The Ninth Amendment? Liberalism is literally built on denying and disparaging rights retained by the people.

            How about the Tenth Amendment, the one that reserves unenumerated rights to the states or to the people? Unenumerated rights? Liberals don’t even like the enumerated ones.

            In sum, of ten amendments, liberals are against seven, in favor of one because it makes Democrat ambulance chasers rich, in favor of another as long as it keeps them out of jail, and torn about one because it’s too hard to choose between shafting our warriors or shafting property owners.

            So, what do the liberals really think of civil rights? Not much. To liberals, the Constitution doesn’t have a Bill of Rights. It has a List of Suggestions.

            Harvard Law Professor: EPA Climate Rule Is Unconstitutional

            According to a noted liberal Harvard law professor, the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed rule to cut carbon dioxide emissions from power plants is unconstitutional because it violates the Tenth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment. Constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe, who is on retainer for the coal company Peabody Energy, wrote in his comments to the EPA, “The EPA’s rule demonstrates the risk of allowing an unaccountable administrative agency to ‘make’ law and attempt to impose the burden of global climate change on an unlucky and unfortunate few. EPA’s singling out of a mere handful of emitters and limiting their property is exactly the type of overreaching the Fifth Amendment seeks to prevent.”??

            Daily Caller

            Harvard Law Professor: EPA Climate Rule Is Unconstitutional

            According to a noted liberal Harvard law professor, the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed rule to cut carbon dioxide emissions from power plants is unconstitutional because it violates the Tenth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment. Constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe, who is on retainer for the coal company Peabody Energy, wrote in his comments to the EPA, “The EPA’s rule demonstrates the risk of allowing an unaccountable administrative agency to ‘make’ law and attempt to impose the burden of global climate change on an unlucky and unfortunate few. EPA’s singling out of a mere handful of emitters and limiting their property is exactly the type of overreaching the Fifth Amendment seeks to prevent.”??

            Daily Caller

          12. Michael Oxenrider says

            I’m sure personal insults have worked for you in the past. You seem extremely angry and embittered about things, I’m just having a dialog. I said I don’t know exactly how I feel about it. You jumped on with rhetorical firebombs and insults – essentially reactions of a 12 year old. “Whiny” is not questioning or using critical thought. Democracy includes people that don’t agree with you. Free speech involves people disagreeing. You may think that liberals want to squelch free speech, but the moment someone questioned your point of view you blew into a rage. I’m fine with discussion and debate. Convince me of your point of view. Say it don’t spray it.

            and the word is “to” not “too.”

          13. john robel says

            Free Speech Zones. Free speech zones have repeatedly been struck down at the public university level. Nonetheless, the Foundation for Individual Rights states that approximately sixty percent of colleges across the country have restrictions on speech on campus, and one in six have “free speech zones.”

            Speech Codes. Most campuses have policies about the kinds of speech they prefer on campus. Over time, prohibitions have moved away from basic sexual harassment and bullying and toward any language that might make people on campus feel unwelcome or uncomfortable. Such restrictions would be struck down in the public sphere under the First Amendment. Unfortunately, they’re extremely common across the country, and serve to intimidate students who wish to express unpopular viewpoints – which used to be the supposed purpose of all that “diversity” campaigning. As the ACLU states: “Many universities, under pressure to respond to the concerns of those who are the objects of hate, have adopted codes or policies prohibiting speech that offends any group based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation. That’s the wrong response, well-meaning or not.”

            Commencement Censorship. In the last few weeks, Rutgers University faculty and students forced the withdrawal of former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice from speaking at commencement. The basis for their complaint: Condoleezza Rice served in the Bush Administration and was therefore responsible for war crimes. The week before, Brandeis University uninvited human rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali thanks to her gall in suggesting that Islam is not a religion of peace – that suggestion coming on the heels of her genital mutilation and forced child marriage at the hands of Muslims. Even International Monetary Fund managing director Christine Lagarde is too right-wing for this crowd – Smith College students and faculty forced her withdrawal thanks to her association with the IMF, which they said contributed to violence against women and based on race.

            The PhD System. There is no greater way to ensure that universities remain a hotbed of leftist thought than to guarantee that professors knight their own successors. But that’s basically how the Ph.D. system works, with sitting professors approving the work of would-be professors. With studies showing that virtually all Ivy League professors swing left, that’s a great way to keep the professoriate biased against conservatism.

            Tenure. By giving professors jobs for life, universities create a feeling of unanswerable power among too many. Tenured professors who are uninterested in serving the student body are less likely to respond favorably to criticism, and are more likely to feel the freedom to intimidate or harass those with opposing viewpoints. Historically, professors have defended tenure as a way to protect their individualistic thought. But tenure can also be used as a club to wield against the powerless.

            America’s universities have become increasingly shuttered in their worldviews. The impact of political correctness grows each and every day thanks to entrenched interests seeking to further entrench their views of politics and values

          14. Michael Oxenrider says

            That’s a discussion worth having. Well written. I agree with it all (except one paragraph where I only slightly disagree*). Poor Ms. Lagarde, she’s considered a left-wing liberal by the Right and a Conservative by the Left. I’d be honored to watch her speak any day. Smith College made a huge mistake and deprived those kids of an amazing opportunity. All of what you listed are big problems. IMO, You said it well, so I don’t need to say anymore.

            *My only disagreement is in your PhD System paragraph. Yes, the committees discourage innovative thought and encourage assimilation, but I think your complaint that its propagating a cycle of Liberal ideology should be scrutinized. I don’t think it’s as black and white as you make it out to be and you may be confusing cause and effect. Compare someone getting a PhD in a Liberal Arts field with someone in an Engineering field. I think what you’ll see is the type of person who is more likely to be conservative or liberal will end up in a program where that ideology is more dominant. A notable exception would probably in the scientific fields. In the past scientists ran the gamut on ideology. Now, they’re most likely liberal. I think this change has to do with the religious part of the right wing. I think it’d be very challenging to be a devout Christian and climate change denier in a top ranked physics program. Since most scientists are liberal now, I could totally see it being a unsaid requirement. However, you’ll probably find this at Booth school on the other side.

        3. sandraleesmith46 says

          In that case, Congress should absolutely terrify you! “Group-think” is a “progressive” leftist practice. Believe it or not, it IS possible for strangers to arrive independently at the same or very similar conclusions, and share them without “feeding off” each other.

    2. john robel says

      YEAH, MY WIFE,

    3. sandraleesmith46 says

      Do Navajo and Apache count?

  17. ward says

    The libtard morons would outlaw all Freedom & Rights if they could as long as they were not affected or have to live with their own misery that they create for everyone else … !

  18. paulnordin@aol.com says

    I agree with everything in this article but do not like the style of writing (innuendo, sarcastic, accusatory, etc.). And every person is different, they are not all either Liberal or Conservative. The message is, be tolerant of all things except those things which kill or endanger human life.

    1. john robel says

      “Except those things which kill or endanger human life”. Now we are at the abortion, 2nd amendment arguments. Who makes these determinations? If Row v Wade has determined that women have “absolute dominion” over their bodies, then who is anyone to tell me I have to wear a seatbelt, helmet, have an airbag in my car , or how I chose to defend myself? I don’t give a damn what these liberals mandate, I will not comply. The expansion of the police state and the revenue generated to expand it , brokered by the power mad, is alarming.

      1. paulnordin@aol.com says

        I think you, john robel, are making unwarranted extrapolations of happenings and other people’s opinions. We will still have our freedoms after Mr, Obama is removed from office on January 23, 2017. Freedom of speech, 2nd amendment rights, income tax, etc., will still be in force!

        1. john robel says


  19. Frank W Brown says

    It’s easy to see how we got to here…

    A Country Founded by Geniuses but Run by Idiots!

    If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but

    not for entering and remaining in the country illegally — you might

    live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

    If you have to get your parents’ permission to go on a field trip or

    to take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion — you might

    live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

    If you MUST show your identification to board an airplane, cash a

    check, buy liquor, or check out a library book and rent a video, but not

    to vote for who runs the government — you might live in a nation that

    was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

    If the government wants to prevent stable, law-abiding citizens from

    owning gun magazines that hold more than ten rounds, but gives twenty

    F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt — you might live in a

    nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

    If, in the nation’s largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but

    not one 24-ounce soda, because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make

    you fat — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is

    run by idiots.

    If an 80-year-old woman or a three-year-old girl who is confined to a

    wheelchair can be strip-searched by the TSA at the airport, but a woman

    in a burka or a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head

    searched — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but

    is run by idiots.

    If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions

    of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more — you might live in a

    nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

    If a seven-year-old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his

    teacher is “cute,” but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class

    in grade school is perfectly acceptable — you might live in a nation

    that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

    If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more

    government regulation and intrusion, while not working is rewarded with

    Food Stamps, WIC checks, Medicaid benefits, subsidized housing, and free

    cell phones — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses

    but is run by idiots.

    If the government’s plan for getting people back to work is to

    provide incentives for not working, by granting 99 weeks of unemployment

    checks, without any requirement to prove that gainful employment was

    diligently sought, but couldn’t be found — you might live in a nation

    that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

    If you pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest

    big-screen TV, while your neighbor buys iPhones, time shares, a

    wall-sized do-it-all plasma screen TV and new cars, and the government

    forgives his debt when he defaults on his mortgage — you might live in a

    nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

    If being stripped of your Constitutional right to defend yourself

    makes you more “safe” according to the government — you might live in a

    nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

    If the media panders to your openly socialist leader while the IRS targets groups with dissenting views— you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

    If your government ‘cracks down’ on legal gun sales to law abiding citizens while secretly supplying illegal guns to Mexican drug cartels— you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

    If your local government (Chicago) outlawed gun ownership for ‘the safety of its citizens’ and now boasts the worst murder rate in the country — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

    What a country!

    How about we give God a reason to continue blessing America?

    This was borrowed from another blog, author unknown, please spread it far and wide!

    1. Brenda Harrell says

      Amen to that and a great post!

      1. William Burke says

        Said a stupid woman with no critical thinking…

  20. MarcJ says

    Let everybody read Jonah Goldberg’s book titled :Liberal Fascism”.

  21. kjcottonwood says

    Something we can all agree on, nice for a change….

  22. greyfox says

    Ridiculous to even have been an issue.

  23. rathole9 says

    Washington Redskins, Washington Redskins, Washington Redskins, Washington Redskins, Washington Redskins, Washington Redskins, Washington Redskins, Washington Redskins, Washington Redskins, Washington Redskins, Washington Redskins, Washington Redskins, Washington Redskins, Washington Redskins, Washington Redskins, Washington Redskins, I’m actually a Colts fan though I hope PETA or the WWF never want to protest teams that discriminate against animals, Lions, Bengals and Bears oh my!!!

  24. Barbara Ervin says

    I have Native American blood in my ancestry and I’m not offended. But then I’m just a redneck hillbilly from WV. LOL!

  25. vrahnos says

    Good article.If one doesn’t like the name redskins then don’t have any thing to do with them and try to get your friends to do the same.If enough people don’t watch the games and but their shirts an other junk with that team logo an name on it.That will bring about any change you want.But then one just flat can’t fix stupid.Seems that there is all that is left so we get crap like this going on instead.

  26. Jarhead says

    Keep Redskins….forget Foreskins.

  27. Lori Walsh Jacobs says

    If the Redskins owner were liberal, they wouldn’t care about the name! But- since he supports the Republican party, mentally and financially, they hate it!

  28. Lori Walsh Jacobs says

    By the way, the owner of the Redskins helps and gives to Native Americans! As I said before my husband is native american, and he and his buddies he grew up with don’t find it offensive! My husband thinks it’s an honor!

  29. F15TSGT says

    Once again this is all about white guilty riddled liberals who are offended at anything that does not agree with their twisted world views.

  30. QuisPercusit says

    Boy I’m sure glad I live in a Constitutional Republic and not a socialist Democracy. But that could change overnight couldn’t it, just one more insane liberal turd burper on the supreme court and our republic is toast, and the longer Obamafraud stays in office the quicker that it could happen.

  31. armydadtexas says

    The far, left wing, radical, commie, extremist, thin skinned cry babies, just like the far, left wing, radical, commie, extremist, gun grabbers; have lost another, in a string of battles THEY have with the United States Constitution. The 1st amendment/The 2nd Amendment “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” You left wing pukes can stick that in your crack pipes and smoke it.

  32. Anne Bradley says

    I liked being called an Indian when I went to high school. That was our name. I was proud of it. I would feel the same way if our name had been Redskins. They are our Native Americans. They love our soil, love our nature, and challenge the culture in the US. All good things.

  33. sandraleesmith46 says

    If the people’s most often depicted as “red skinnies” don’t find that team’s name offensive, and they’re not noted for keeping silent when they are offended, WHY should anyone else’ opinion even be considered? When the adult children of the left actually grow up, and LEARN proper English, including the definitions of the words they toss about, utterly misused, perhaps we can have an intelligent dialogue, but trying to talk children out of temper tantrums NEVER succeeds, because they’re unwilling to reason.

  34. TOM P O'DONNELL says


    1. headonstraight says

      Did they teach you to scream IN ALL CAPS?

  35. Poppo says

    I agree. There are so many things that are REALLY wrong in this world. Why would anyone pick something with as little significance as the name of a football team to wage a war against. Has Harry Reid and the Senate nothing better to do for their country than ban a team’s name?

  36. Mi Li says

    Redundant “Nothing gets liberals (and their subset, feminists) – liberals both women and especialy males are fems.

  37. joe joe says

    don’t buy a t-shirt get over it people!!!!!

  38. william couch says

    RED SKINS!! RED SKINS!! My mother dated for a time Sonny Gurgensen the 1/4 back in the mid ’60’s.

  39. DogWithoutSlippers says

    Great name for a fighting football team……….only by the weirdest
    and the most ridiculous reasoning can ill be found in this name!

  40. eddyjames says

    If anything should be banned from the airwaves it is the term “Progressives” regressives is closer to their actual behavior. They should be henceforth referred to as “Them Commie basterds”

    1. headonstraight says

      Well now, ain’t YOU the model of tolerance and freedom that shines forth from the Constitution you and other warped right wing wackadoodles pretend to cherish?!

  41. Ron Tate says

    Even more than what has been said thus far, the overwhelming majority of the protesters cannot tell you one member of the team. Football and this country are going to h*ll. FYI RGIII

    1. headonstraight says

      Football is already there, Ron. Hell is having your brain battered so much and so often you can barely remember who you are.

  42. fulredy says

    Of course it doesn’t! Redskins is a term absent any racist connotations whatsoever. The liberal elite should start looking inward for causes to champion. Like moral decay, they should have that one covered in spades.

  43. Stan Hoffman says

    The liberals claim to be the people who are so tolerant. Yet they can say anything offensive they want and its okay, while at the same time trying to control all the things that others say. And anything others say is always racist and hate speech. Talk about being Reprobate. God help us.

  44. Jim says

    How about getting the Supreme Courts to reject the left and Liberalism TOTALLY ?

    1. headonstraight says

      How about you shelve that silly BIGOTED notion, Jim–TOTALLY?

      1. Jim says

        I will practice what I preach……………..CLICK !!!!

  45. DouglasDauntless says

    screw the FCC, we’re still partly a free country Obama Demo-rtas and rhino Republicans haven’t destroyed us yet

  46. jim marcum says

    I think if you own something you should be able to do with it what you please as long as the government is not paying for half of it for you. GO REDSKINS. I think if you want to build a restaurant and only have waitress’ with nice, half exposed tits you should be able to. I think if you paid tens of thousands of dollars to belong to a country club and golf club you as a member should be able to vote on who else should be a member and you should be able to have who you wanted, it’s your damn club.

  47. daledor says

    The title “FCC rejects Redskins Objections” sounds like the Redskins did wrong while the writeup shows how the Left got shot down from their attack on the Redskins. Just a communication que. Good article!

    FCC Rejects Redskins Objections

  48. Mark Bigger says

    I don’t care what the supreme court say. The Constitution is the law of the land and it will stay that way, uninfringed

  49. Randy G. says

    About time we start to turn the liberal B.S. around. I find it ironic that during REDSKINS prime time television games the main Chief of the D.C. area suits next to the REDSKINS owner in his box. Polls show over whelming support for the REDSKINS name.

  50. adrianvance says

    As a legal “Indian” I would be flattered if someone wanted to name his NFL team after my tribe or culture.

    Google “Two Minute Conservative” for facts, ideas and more.



  52. Janice Hamilton says

    Redskins is nothing more than recognition of warpaint the warriors painted on prior to going on the warpath in honorable battle. It is the name of the football team no matter where they may be located. Remember the Baltimore Colts who are now the Indianapolis Colts? The Cowboys, the Steelers, the 49’ers, the Raiders don’t need their city name. I hope our Redskins always stay in Washington.

  53. TOM P O'DONNELL says


    Listen to my new episode IF WE REALLY WON THE COLD WAR WHY DO WE HAVE A COMMUNIST GOVERNMENT? at http://tobtr.com/s/7424327. #BlogTalkRadio

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.