Yes, I designed the parody logo.   Hail to the Redskins!

UV NEWS NETWORK EXCLUSIVE REPORT

Dateline:   Washington, D.C.


Race extortionists have long wanted to remove the Washington Redskins from the face of the NFL - a league filled with three times as many black young men as their overall population percentage.    Racism is a one way street and having a first squatter on the helmet of a losing football franchise just won't do.

Daniel "Little Napoleon" Snyder, owner of the Washington football team, has been faced with racial extortion that has now reached ridiculous levels.   Fed Ex, the delivery company that sometimes gets your package to your door on time but almost never does, has announced that they are commanding Napoleon to change the name of the franchise.

In order to promote a fact-based football representative of the Washington franchise, Napoleon Snyder has announced a terrifying visage change for the franchise - a face that can sink a thousand ships in a minute and whose vagina quick chills beers at tailgating parties.    And with Washington quickly being overrun with ugly, fat, and stupid women in Congress and the Senate, what better icon to have for a sports franchise than one that represents its own ethics and pathetic winning record!

Those who actually read what I post here know that I have absolute contempt for athletes who leverage their sexuality for profit.    With the circus that surrounded one of the most over-hyped NFL prospects in history, Michael Sam, who exploited his sexual orientation to try to elevate his draft prospects and to exploit it for wealth and profit by nearly pulling off a television series and forcing the NFL to put him on the field when he didn't deserve it, I have zero tolerance for players who I call "gay for pay" - players who choose to out themselves to gain what they couldn't through their own natural ability by exploiting their sexual orientation.

Sometimes I sense there is a disconnect between me as a 50 plus year old gay man and those readers who are just over the age of majority or slightly older.    I don't pretend that what happens today is a first or novel - and one of the advantages of greying hair is that I desire to read what others have done before I exited the womb.    This craving for what happened in the past cements my notion that much of what gets reported today in the news is pure bullshit.    There is precious little that is new in our lives that hasn't already been done by those who walked this planet before we exited our father's peen as sperm.

And so we have the exploited notion of homosexuality in this modern era - that gays can bastardize a religious institution like marriage and only redefine it to the narrowest terms to suit their own selfish agenda while not opening marriage to all consenting adult coupling in an honest and truly tolerant action.    Having gay athletes on teams is not new.    While this generation might think they are brave coming out of the closet here in the 21st century, there is truly nothing brave being done here at all.    Those who battled homosexual oppression - true oppression - in history up through the Stonewall Riots in the late 1960's, were the brave ones.    Today's gays are merely stomping on the corpses of those who braved true tyranny against gays and are stealing credit that they haven't earned.    Being gay today is not like being gay even into the late 1970's and early 1980's.     What is different is that there are a bunch of media leftists who are perfectly willing to exploit society to over inflate the importance of gays coming out in 2015.    You are not brave coming out today - you are merely attention getting whores!

My historical curiosity has me looking into gay athletes in history and to recognize them here on this blogazine.    I want to find those athletes who were athletes first and played their hearts out and then were gay people second.   Some have come out after their careers have been over - some have come out during their careers - but each have a story to tell, and I want to recognize them here.    What you won't find are Michael Sam's of the world - or that NBA fraud who leveraged his homosexuality to milk a final year he would not have gotten - bastards like that don't deserve praise and they won't make it here.

In doing research tonight to update my masthead, I was actually looking into another Washington Redskin player who I had known was gay - David Kopay.    And I will showcase him next.   But what I found out - something new to me as a lifelong Redskin fan, was that the Redskins had a handful of gay players on their roster and their stories have not been told to the level of Michael Sam's.    And so it was in this research that I came across the Washington Redskins tight end, Jerry Smith.    I had known of him growing up and knew he was something special, but I didn't know the backstory about him.

 NFL.com Professional Story About Jerry Smith and Gay Acceptance with the Washington Redskins

And the next video is rather touching - talking about Jerry's private life and his fight with AIDS.   

NFL.com Life Story Video About Jerry Smith

It is interesting that the one professional football team that the leftist pigs want to attack because they falsely claim that the team name is racist could now possibly be one of the most gay accepting teams in NFL history.   I think leftists should keep their traps shut when they don't know what the hell they are talking about - and that would mean they would be silent 99.9% of the time!

Forty years before Michael Sam came out for monetary profit, Jerry Smith (TE) of the Washington REDSKINS was a gay NFL player - 1972.     So now you know why I'm not impressed with gay for play players - there have been gay NFL players for decades that didn't use their sexuality for profit.

I'm a fan of the Washington Redskins. Save for the acquisition of the least talented Quarterback prospect in the NFL draft in several decades to garner a first round pick (and a three year draft mortgage of picks to go with it), I fully support this team in most aspects and have done so since 1970. In today's world, we have people who think they have a constitutional right not to be offended.   I swear, we have grown adults with so little integrity that they think that they can dictate what is acceptable to say or to print based upon how they are offended; and make no mistake, these same schmucks think that their level of being offended is the only level that matters, and to hell with the rest of us who might be offended by what they do. Origins of the Washington Redskins' Name I understand that those who whine the loudest in today's world aren't the ones who are the most informed, so it is surprising that those who claim the "Redskins" is a racist term are actually showing their own racism by not only knowing this, but repeating it over and over.   In short, if something is racist, why do you continue to bring that to the forefront of the news where the damage of invoking the name is perpetuated? Before the Washington Redskins there was the Boston Braves - and in the early years of professional football teams got their names from the local pro baseball team - the Chicago Bears were the Cubs and the Boston Braves were named after the baseball team there. Teams tend to relocate and the Boston Braves baseball team moved to Atlanta and the Boston Braves (Redskins)  football team moved to Washington after having changed their names when they no longer played in the Boston Braves' stadium. From the Boston Globe published on July 6th, 1933: FOOTBALL BRAVES BECOME REDSKINS "It will be the Boston Redskins, and not the Boston Braves when the National Football League season gets under way next Fall. When Pres George Marshall entered an eleven from Boston in the professional football league last year the team was naturally christened the Boston Braves, but yesterday, just before starting for Chicago to attend the League’s annual meeting, he announced the change in name. This new name is rather appropriate in more than one sense. The head and since the close of the 1932 season Pres Marshall and Coach Dietz have signed up a number of Indian players.1 Not only that, but the Boston National League ball park has long been called the Wigwam." It is interesting that what now passes itself as the enlightened ones, the leftist, neo-communist, progressive North was where all this controversy started! The origins of the name "Redskins" is certainly not predicated on inferring or offering any racial slur - it is thus in the minds of the outsider that has natural racist tendencies to associate "Redskins" with anything racial - it is those who whine the most that are the racists in this discussion - they infer and then they pass off their own racial bias onto other innocent people and symbols.   It should be noted that the Redskins' logo is nothing more than a colorized version of what was once an official coin of the United States. There are discussions in various sources that the Redskins name was also supported by indian players on the team and used to recognize them.  Oddly enough none of them felt the name was racist. Is This Really About The Owner's Politics? Knowing how today's leftist, progressive, neo-communist Democrat is a petty and vindictive and mightily uninformed blivethead, it does not take much of an imagination to think that given how the IRS was used against the enemies of Progressives and Leftists, that the Patent Office would be used to punish someone who supported Mitt Romney in the last election - and that Daniel Snyder tends to back Republicans over their dogs, the Democrats. We know that today's leftist is a spiteful lil bitch - they claim to want negotiations, but that only means that those who oppose them give up their ideals and to accept the leftists' ideals; when confronted and challenged, the left will whine like  a stuck pig and launch vendettas that are nasty and vicious and never based on facts.   So it goes that Snyder is both unpopular as an owner and having been on the wrong side of the political tracks from the Messiah Obama. It used to be that true Democrats - those who practiced their craft up to the JFK era were learned and responsible, but slowly over the next five decades Democrats were replaced with Socials, Neo-Communists, and Progressives who are not Democrat at all - they have narrow viewpoints and don't care about the people they advocate for - they just use those people as political pawns while enriching themselves in the process - so Daniel Snyder is a public enemy - and an easy one since he is brash and arrogant himself - and he happens to have a team name that can be fashioned into a racial slur - and the more that the racial slur angle is repeated, the more true it becomes supplanting the reality of the history. Yet, we have to ask ourselves, when was the last time that any Indian has been called "Redskin" to his or her face?    We know that the Black Americans (they are no more African than I am) call themselves the N word but find indignation when someone else does it - thus offering a racist perspective in a situation where they want to resolve racism.     So, if Redskin is truly racist, let's get those who have been called that name and put into Fed Ex Field that can hold 80,000 and see how significant the filled seats looks like! To me, however, as a fan, I have grown up with the beautiful logo (and the spear) and the nauseating "hail to the redskins" which makes every Dallas Cowpie fan cringe - all of that disappears with a new name - and don't tell me you would buy a Honda if it were renamed something else or if your beloved Apple were renamed - something is lost in the process - a love and respect. I could understand indians being upset with the Redskins when they sucked, but you can't tell me that these same racist asswipes were offended when Redskins were winning the Big Game (can't use the real name lest the NFL sue me!). Meanwhile over in Cleveland, a hot bed of leftist union asslicking, the Indians have a logo that is so stereotypical that it is tantamount of black face on a white person.   And since that team is based in a leftist enclave it will never be touched. So when you hear the uproar over the Redskins understand this haters, "Go Fock Yourselves!" - Redskins fans love their team, name, logo, and players.   We have no intention of changing our love over your own prejudices that  you exhibit.   At no time do we sing "hail to the redskins" to insult anyone other than the opposing team.   And wearing a Redskins' logo is about respecting the traditions and legacy of the team, not about insulting people who walked across a land bridge and proceeded to make many mammals extinct while hiding behind multicultural circle jerkoffs.

My Solution to Washington Redskins

Click to enlarge

I am a Washington Redskin fan and love their helmet, logo, and name.

But it has become apparent that assholes want to make something racist and they will now stop

at nothing to insult a great football legacy.    This logo invokes the Redskins while also honoring

the very football history and reason for the team's name.   Since the left are never the most informed

people in the room on any subject and are lack any common sense, you might want to research!

It doesn't take much balls to be a leftist and Bob Costas has proved to be testicularly challenged.   At best, Costas in his insults toward the Washington Redskins has proved he is a weak and spineless rat bastard who cannot stand on his own two feet and to distance himself from the mindless racist drivel that is gaining traction in this country.    At worst, Costas is a closet racist - transferring his own racial tendencies upon the rest of us and has found an easy way to assuage his white guilt by slamming others for doing exactly what he lives. Costas' analysis (posted in the video above) is contradictory and blatantly misguided.   On the one hand he freely admits that a majority of indians (I do not accept the politically correct blather of "native americans since they aren't native and came from somewhere else) don't have any issue with the Washington Redskins.    This is important since the group that would be most "offended" is not offended.     The discussion should end there.   But Costas then does what is the trick of day and tries to equate this to calling black people the "n" word. It should be noted immediately that there is no Constitutional right for you to be free from being offended.    You don't have the right to demand never to be offended nor do you have any grounds to tell someone to stop saying or doing things that offend you.    You simply have no right to live offense free.   And as such your nose out of joint on any occasion is meaningless and should never cause any action to result against another citizen or entity. I wondered how "Redskins" is really offensive to indians.    If I walked up to Joe Q Indian and say "Hey, Mr Redskin" how is that an insult to that indian?     Considering the lengths that the gay community has taken to hijack the word "gay" and to shift the meaning from "happy" to "homosexual" how is it that we cannot give the latitude to the word "Redskin" that now shifts from a supposed derogatory word for indian to a sports team?    In common usage, the use of "redskin" to utter a racial slur like the "n" word is so miniscule that I bet it never happens but once or twice per year in the entire country!    And since we can redefine words at a whim in the world of this leftist infection in our nation where we bastardize "marriage" to suit our narrow and bigoted view, then how can we stick with the 1880's interpretation of "redskin" in 2013?    It seems that the left wants to be able to redefine words on their own terms and then to hold narrow interpretations when it suits their narrow and illogical perspective! This is not the first time that Bob Costas has opened his trap to spill out the leftist progressive ideology.   Back in December last year he jumped on the anti-gun bandwagon that was all the rage with American hating leftists.    It should not come as a surprise that Costas would then exploit another cause of the leftists, racial division and punishment over unsubstantiated prior crimes, in this instance with the Redskins. Costas appears to logically set up his angst for the Redskins with a skill that most knuckle dragging leftists are unable to do, but when Costa then makes the leap that if a sports team were named using a known racial slur against blacks and other racially protected subclasses, this really was a jump to far in logic. We all know that blacks routinely call themselves the "n" word.    This is not even up for debate - they seem to find that the use of the word is perfectly acceptable in their street language and even permeates rap music.    And while the use of the "n" word by non-blacks does showcase the ignorance of those using it, I fail to grasp the concept that blacks are victims of a word that is offensive.    When one is offended by a word or phrase, you  don't use it.   When you use it, you own it, and you throw out any claim to the offensiveness of the word.    What has happened, as a result, is that blacks use the "n" word as a wedge issue - when someone else uses it, they use that as a weapon against others - not to protest the offensiveness, but to justify their black status of victimhood.    It is quite a game these days where the use of race as a power wedge is exploited for political reasons all the way up to the White House.   And it is quite common for members of the black community when they are playing on teams to call each other the "n" word - so let's not kid ourselves - this parochial ownership of the "n" word is laughable.    The Washington Redskins' background is extensive with the respect of the Indian culture and even the current logo pictured above is far less "racially offensive" than the Cleveland Indians which is stereotypical and blatantly offensive to even me.   The Redskins make no such attempt to offend with their logo yet this escapes those whites who have nothing better to do than to transfer their own internal battle with bigotry onto the rest of us.   And this is where Bob Costas emerges as a prick of a magnitude few ever achieve.   Not only is his position illogical, it is misguided and uninformed.   And with his history of being a puppet for the Progressive cause of the day, we can dismiss him as a political hack.