United States Patent & Trademark Office Cancels the Washington Redskins Trademark Registration … Says Football Team’s Name “Disparaging to Native Americans”
JUST CURIOUS, HOW WAS THE NAME “REDSKINS” CONSIDERED OK FOR 82 YEARS?
Don’t ask for things, you might just open Pandora’s box … The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office canceled the Washington Redskins’ trademark stating that Federal trademark law does not permit registration of trademarks that “may disparage” individuals or groups. However, the action does not prevent the NFL’s Washington Redskins from using the name, with no patent protection, the team could lose revenue from preventing others to produce and sell merchandise using the same name.
But of course it is only a coincidence that this issue has grown with the presence of a community agitator as president.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office canceled the Washington Redskins’ trademark registration on Wednesday, a move that won’t force the NFL team to change its name but fuels the intense fight by opponents to eliminate what they view as a racial slur against Native Americans.
The 99-page decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board said the team’s name and logo are disparaging. It dilutes the Redskins’ legal protection against infringement and hinders the team’s ability to block counterfeit merchandise from entering the country.
But its effect is largely symbolic. The ruling cannot stop the team from selling T-shirts, beer glasses and license-plate holders with the moniker or keep the team from trying to defend itself against others who try to profit from the logo.
From Eugene Volokh at the WAPO: 2-to-1 decision, Blackhorse v. Pro Football, Inc. (USPTO TTAB June 18, 2014). A quick excerpt:
[T]hese registrations must be cancelled because they were disparaging to Native Americans at the respective times they were registered, in violation of Section 2(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a) [which bars, in relevant part, registrations of marks that "may disparage ... persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute"]. This decision concerns only the statutory right to registration under Section 2(a). We lack statutory authority to issue rulings concerning the right to use trademarks.
Hmm, so who is next, the Cleveland Indians? And those of you at Atlanta Brave games doing the “tomahawk chop” will be arrested and cited for a hate crime.
Legal Insurrection opines, if the “Redskins” trademark is cancelled by USPTO as “disparaging,” are “Negro” and “Colored” next? So does that mean the United Negro College Fund and National Association for the Advancement of Colored People should have their trademarks revoked?
Other names up for consideration, the Washington Scandals, Washington Tyranny, Washington PC’s, or my personal favorite the Washington Waste.
- Would more available information on the mental capacity of people trying to purchase guns help stop some of the violence?
Daily Commentary – Friday, June 13, 2014 Download
- When will the next one be? Where do these people get their ideas? What are we to do to stop it?
Daily Commentary – Wednesday, June 11, 2014 Download
Jonathan Turley Says Barack Obama is the President That Richard Nixon Always Wanted To Be … Constitutional Tipping Point
THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENT …
Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley went on the Hannity Show and said the unthinkable, or should we say the unmentionable when it comes to Barack Obama, he compared him to Richard Nixon. Jonathan Turley, who mostly supports the policies of Obama, stated that we are at a tipping point constitutionally. Turley went on to call the Obama presidency an “imperial presidency, an uber presidency” and one “where the president can act unilaterally.” Folks, this is coming from a liberal. Then came the money line … “Barack Obama is really the president Richard Nixon always wanted to be.”
People don’t seem to understand that the separation of powers is not about the power of these branches, it’s there to protect individual liberty, it’s there to protect us from the concentration of power. That’s what is occurring here. You know, I’ve said it before, Barack Obama is really the president Richard Nixon always wanted to be. You know, he’s been allowed to act unilaterally in a way that we’ve fought for decades.
SEAN HANNITY: We do have co-equal branches of government, separation of powers. You teach this regularly. You agree with the president politically. For you to say we are at a tipping point constitutionally — now, I agree with you. What does that mean considering our constitution is our rule of law and they are ignoring it?
JONATHAN TURLEY: Well, unfortunately our system is changing, and it’s changing without a debate. Or even a discussion about what we’re going to do in the future when we have a three branch system, a tripartite system but one branch is so dominant. What’s emerging is an imperial presidency, an uber presidency as I’ve called it, where the president can act unilaterally. This is only the latest example of that.
What’s troubling is that we have a system that has been stable precisely because these are limited and shared powers. This president has indicated that he’s just not willing to comply with some of those aspects. He told Congress he would go it alone and in our system you’re not allowed to go it alone.
SEAN HANNITY: If I broke the law, why do I think they would be the first people to hand kickoff me, perp walk me and send me off to jail. This is just my belief system. Paranoia or truth?
JONATHAN TURLEY: Well, I think that the biggest problem we have is that the system itself, if we have a dominant branch, simply begins to shut down in terms of the safeguards. People don’t seem to understand that the separation of powers is not about the power of these branches, it’s there to protect individual liberty, it’s there to protect us from the concentration of power. That’s what is occurring here. You know, I’ve said it before, Barack Obama is really the president Richard Nixon always wanted to be. You know, he’s been allowed to act unilaterally in a way that we’ve fought for decades.
Sen. John McCain Questions Swap “Highest High-Risk” Terrorists as White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice Defends United States Negotiating with Terrorists over Exchange of GITMO 5 for U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl
A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT THAT THE US WILL RUE THE DAY …
White House national security adviser Susan Rice went on CNN’s ‘State of the Union’ with Candy Crowley to defend the Obama administration’s decision to exchange five GITMO “high risk” Taliban detainees for U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. Rice also spun the fact that the Obama administration broke the law in not notifying Congress 30 days prior that there was a negotiation in process. But of course, what difference does it make with this administration, all they do is break the law, thumb their nose at separations of power and The US Constitution. Let alone negotiating with terrorists. How and why would something like this be deemed so sensitive that Congress was not notified? ” Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) said on ABC’s ‘This Week,’ “What does this tell the terrorists? That if you capture a U.S. soldier, you can trade that soldier for five terrorists Cruz called the prisoner swap “very disturbing.”
White House national security adviser Susan Rice defended the Obama administration’s decision to exchange Guantanamo detainees for U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, amid criticism that the United States negotiated with terrorists in the process.
She also said the “acute urgency” of Bergdahl’s health condition justified President Obama’s not notifying Congress beforehand that Bergdahl was being swapped for five Taliban detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
“What we did was ensure that, as always, the United States doesn’t leave a man or a woman on the battlefield,” Rice said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
Susan Rice went on to parrot President Obama in saying, “What we did was ensure that, as always, the United States doesn’t leave a man or a woman on the battlefield.” However, there appears to be just one little problem with that statement … Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was not left on the battlefield, by all accounts he left his
From The Daily Caller: CNN’s Candy Crowley Grills Susan Rice: ‘Point Blank, Did The US Negotiate With Terrorists?’
Once again the Obama administration is playing games with words. Newsflash to Susan Rice by the associative property, if a=b and b=c then a=c, you negotiated with terrorists.
CNN host Candy Crowley pressed White House national security adviser Susan Rice on the Taliban prisoner swap conducted Saturday, asking “point blank, did the US negotiate with terrorists” in violation of its long-held policy?
Crowley spoke with Rice on Sunday about the exchange of five high-ranking Taliban detainees — two of which are accused of the mass murder of religious minorities in Afghanistan — for Army Sgt. Bowe Berghdahl, whom many claim was captured after deserting his post and walking into the Afghan wilderness in 2009.
Berghdahl was captured by the Haqqani network, a close ally of the Taliban and an acknowledged terrorist organization according to the State Department.
“Point blank, did the US negotiate with terrorists for his release?” Crowley asked.
“Candy, what we did was ensure that, as always, the United States doesn’t leave a man or woman on the battlefield,” Rice replied. “It’s very important for folks to understand, if we got into a situation where we said because of who has captured an American soldier on the battlefield, we will leave that person behind.”
John McCain went on CBS’s ‘Face the Nation’ and questioned the swap of “highest high-risk people” for U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. McCain called the GITMO detainees, “These are the hardest of the hard core” and added that he was disturbed the Taliban named the prisoners they wanted in exchange for Bergdahl’s freedom.
Current and former U.S. officials welcomed the return of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the only American soldier held prisoner in Afghanistan, but voiced concern about the release of five members of the Taliban who had been held at the Guantanamo Bay as part of a negotiated prisoner swap.
“These are the hardest of the hard core. These are the highest high-risk people, and others that we have released have gone back into the fight,” said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in an interview on “Face the Nation,” adding that he was disturbed the Taliban named the prisoners they wanted in exchange for Bergdahl’s freedom.
Texas Senator Ted Cruz Wins 2016 Presidential Straw Poll at a Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, Louisiana
If Ted Cruz is Constitutionally allowed to run for President … He will be a real threat to Democrats and establishment Republicans …
Texas Senator Ted Cruz won the 2016 Presidential straw poll at a Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, Louisiana. Cruz finished first with 30.33%, Dr. Ben Carson second with 29.38% and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul finished third with 10.43%. They were followed by former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and Texas Governor Rick Perry rounded out the top five, at 5.06% and 4.90%, respectively. Moderate RINO’s Florida’s former Governor Jeb Bush came in 7th with 4.42% and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie came in dead last with 1.11%. During his speech Cruz said that Republicans would take back the Senate, they will retire Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and remove Harry Reid as Majority Leader.
Cruz finished in first place in the annual conference’s presidential straw poll at 30.33%. Dr. Ben Carson, a Fox News commentator and conservative activist, finished in second with 29.38% while Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, was third with 10.43%.
Fox News host and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Texas Governor Rick Perry rounded out the top five, at 5.06% and 4.90%, respectively.
Neither Carson nor Paul spoke at the conference, but their support was a show of confidence by the traditionally more conservative crowd. The annual meeting of activists features of who’s who of big-name Republican politicians. It is an important appearance for potential presidential candidates to make.
More moderate Republicans also skipped the conference, but many fared much worse in the straw poll. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie came in dead last with 1.11% while Florida’s former Gov. Jeb Bush and current Sen. Marco Rubio and came in seventh and eighth at 4.42% and 3.32 %, respectively.
Nobody Cares what any politicians in Washington says. Power in politics, sovereignty in America is with We the People!
MUST WATCH VIDEO
Ted Cruz, an ardent defender of The Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment said during his speech, “In Texas, we define gun control real simple. That’s hittin’ what you aim at.” Cruz Also went on to say, “that following the tragic shooting in Newtown, CT the president didn’t do what she should have done. What he should have done is he should have stood up and said we are going to go after violent criminals and we are going to come down on violent criminals like a ton of bricks. instead he used it as an excuse to come after the rights of law abiding citizens.”
Cruz consistently pointed out that Democrats and establishment gray-beard Republicans both says that things can’t get done. Yet time after time in examples of drone strikes against Americans, Second Amendment gun control, foreign affairs and provisions in the International monetary fund. All won by conservatives.
Too often the establishment GOP says it can’t be done because they are afraid to take a position. In order for there to be change, not only must Democrats go, so must the establishment Republicans who have long forgot what they were sent to Washington, DC to do.
THE CONSERVATIVE BATTLE AGAINST OBAMACARE: HOW DO YOU WIN ELECTIONS … YOU DON’T WIN IT BY STANDING FOR NOTHING …
Cruz went on to blast the establishment same old-same old way of doing things within the GOP of trying to win elections. There is a cluster of political consultants who keep running losing campaigns, making the same mistakes and keep coming back to donors to make the same failed mistakes that did not win the previous times. He stressed that the way you win elections is you stand for principle and you empower the people.
- The 2001 attack was carried out in the same Isla Vista community also on a Friday night
Daily Commentary – Wednesday, May 28, 2014 Download
Sarah Palin Defends the 2nd Amendment at the NRA’s ‘Stand and Fight Rally’ … “But If You Control Arms, You Control the People and That is What They’re Trying.’
Former Alaska Governor and GOP Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin reminded the folks at the NRA’s ‘Stand and Fight Rally’ what “They’re” trying to do. Palin went on to say, “Let us learn from out Founders … remember back in the day the colonists stood in line to register their muskets. Me either, because they didn’t”. Palin also went on to hammer the Obama administration and Democrats their lack of understanding of terrorism by saying, “THEY don’t know what is right. Not when that evil Muslim terrorist Maj. Hasan massacres his fellow US military soldiers at Fort Hood. His Allahu Akbar praising jihad … THEY call that workplace violence. What calling that Devil a disgruntled employee and THEY call us the terrorists?”
Maybe one of her best lines of the night was when she mocked VP Biden when he told women before an assault fire a warning shot in the air. Palin said, “that may be fine if your rapist is a bird.” But then came the money line … “Gals you know that now a days ammo is expensive, don’t wast a bullet on a warming shot.”
Palin was a speaker at the group’s ‘Stand and Fight Rally,’ held at Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis.
The Republican former Alaska governor and 2008 vice presidential nominee’s remarks followed her criticism of of policies she said were coddling to ‘enemies that would annihilate America – they who’d obviously have information on plots to say, carry out jihad.
Palin also criticized an ‘intellectual elite in a far-distant capital’ that she said wanted Americans to abandon Revolutionary War ideals.
She also implied that the government is trying to control the people.
‘Look, if you control oil, you control an economy,’ she said. ‘If you control money, you control commerce. But if you control arms, you control the people and that is what they’re trying.’
Elsewhere in her speech, she called the idea of gun-free zones as ‘stupid on steroids’ and dismissed the idea of gun stores being linked to crime.
Milwaukee County, WI Sheriff David A Clarke Jr. Had His Own 7 Words for Former SCOTUS Justice John Paul Stevens at the NRA-ILA Leadership Conference … “Keep Your Hands Off Our Guns, Dammit.”
THIS IS A MUST WATCH VIDEO FROM A PRO-2ND AMENDMENT SHERIFF WHO IS A DEMOCRAT AND LIKES MARK LEVIN …
Sheriff David A Clarke Jr. brought down the house at the 2014 NRA – ILA last week when he had his own 7 words for former Supreme Court Justice. Sheriff Clark responded to Justice Stevens comments where he would change the Second Amendment by adding five words in the middle: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed,” by saying to an ovation, “Just what part of ‘shall not be infringed’ does Justice Stevens not understand?” Sheriff Clark then said … I would add these seven words to the Second Amendment: “Keep your hands off our guns, dammit!”
Clarke would also say during his must see speech the following:
- “I am tired of seeing the 2nd Amendment treated like the bastard child of the Bill of Rights.”
- “The armed citizen made America free and the armed citizen will keep America free!”
- “This group of tyrants want to disarm us.”
- “I call the law-abiding, armed citizen the great equalizer.”
- “Firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens saved people’s lives.”
Clarke, the outspoken gun proponent who heads the sheriff’s office in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, was easily one of the most popular speakers during the convention’s leadership forum. His comments about amending the Constitution were aimed at former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who said in his recent book that he would change the Second Amendment by adding five words in the middle: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed.”
Rasmussen Poll Shows Many Americans Have No Concept of Free Speech … 55% Favor Government Oversight of Political Ads & Candidates’ Comments
ARE YOU INSANE … DID ANYONE TAKING THIS POLL UNDERSTAND WHAT FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS? DO YOU WANT TYRANNY?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
An alarming 55% if likely voters in a recent Rasmussen poll stated, “they believe the government should be allowed to review political ads and candidates’ campaign comments for their accuracy.” It gets better, they also wanted to punish those that it decides are making false statements about other candidates. OK FOLKS … HAVE YOU COMPLETELY LOST YOUR MINDS!!! You do realize that “Freedom of Speech” is intended to prevent a tyrannical government from trampling the speech, opinions and comments of ab individuals right? I could care less what party was in power, I would never want a government to control campaign speech. It is up to the voter to inform yourself as to whether some one is fabricating the truth. If that is too difficult, don’t vote.
So 55% of clueless voters would want whatever political party was in power to review and determine whether a political ad was truthful or not? Who could see anything going wrong with that because of course political parties are not partisan of course. The American Spectator has an idea, just create more government bureaucracy and a new agency, call it the Ministry of Political Truth, to oversee this brave new government power. Oh wait, you don’t want the government agency to do it, how about the media?
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments this week in a case aimed at overturning an Ohio law that makes it a crime to make false statements in a political campaign. But most voters favor government policing of the truthfulness of campaign ads and statements.
Fifty-five percent (55%) of Likely U.S. Voters believe the government should be allowed to review political ads and candidates’ campaign comments for their accuracy and punish those that it decides are making false statements about other candidates. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 31% oppose such government oversight. Fourteen percent (14%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Presently we have a president in Barack Obama who thumbs his nose at the US Constitution, you would actually give him the power to control political speech for campaign speech, REALLY? WAKE UP AMERICA, many brave souls fought and died to bring freedoms and independence to the colonies and form a United States. Act like it!