Having Nothing Better To Do, Democrat Senator Threaten NFL Over Tax Status For Redskins Name

Democrats have spent lots of time dealing with populist and other issues that really do not help the US citizenry, all in an attempt to keep the Senate Democrat. They write bills that include poison pills to make sure that Republicans will not vote for it. They do things like pushing the so-called “equal pay” bill for a second time this year, a bill that will primarily benefit lawyers and give even more private and personal data to the Federal government. They refuse to even consider the hundreds of economic bills passed by the House. Nor have they taken up the defense authorization bill. And now

(AP) A U.S. senator threatened the NFL with legislation over Washington’s nickname, a letter was dispatched to the other 31 team owners, and the issue was linked to the league’s others recent troubles Tuesday as the anti-“Redskins” movement took its cause to Capitol Hill.

In a news conference that featured Native American, civil rights and religious leaders, Sen. Maria Cantwell took aim at the NFL’s pocketbook by announcing she will introduce a bill to strip the league’s tax-exempt status because it has not taken action over the Redskins name. While prospects for such a bill becoming law would be tenuous, the inevitable hearings before lawmakers would enhance the spotlight on a movement that has gained substantial momentum over the last two years.

“The NFL needs to join the rest of America in the 21st Century,” said Cantwell, D-Wash., the former chairwoman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. “We can no longer tolerate this attitude toward Native Americans. This is not about team tradition. This is about right and wrong.”

Awesome. Government extortion. The Godfather would be very proud. I love the “21st Century” talking point. Democrats love trotting that out, in regards to ISIS and Russia. We keep being told they’re “living in the past”. Yet, they keep going.

71% of Americans still support the Redskins name. The numbers have dropped from back in 1992, mostly due to Democrats toeing the line in Believing In What A Good Progressive Should Believe Because They’ve Been Told To Believe That Way.

Halbritter had harsh words for the league as a whole, referencing the NFL’s handling of health problems suffered by former players, as well as the recent Ray Rice domestic violence saga and the child abuse charge levied against Adrian Peterson.

“The NFL is currently facing an integrity crisis. … While these are different issues, they are joined by a common thread of showing commercial and moral arrogance and a blatant lack of respect for those being negatively impacted,” Halbritter said.

Good grief. It’s absurd to conflate serious, real issues with a ginned up controversy in which most people do not see any disrespect towards Indians. But, this is yet another attempt at populism, avoidence of dealing with serious issues, and federally elected Democrats using their position to bully private citizens and entities.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

15 Responses to “Having Nothing Better To Do, Democrat Senator Threaten NFL Over Tax Status For Redskins Name”

  1. Jeffery says:

    Money. Billions of dollars.

    If major sponsors such as Anheuser-Busch, PepsiCo, Campbell Soup, FEDEX, Bridgestone, McDonalds, Coors and Visa start to balk at the NFLs handling of players’ health concerns, Redskins’ name, domestic violence and child abuse the NFL will change.

    The NFL organization (NOT the individual teams) is a 501(c)(6) non-profit. In 2010 the League offices had revenues of $184 million from team dues and licensing arrangements and expenses in excess of revenues (they pay their execs many millions each). They pay no income tax on their revenues, even if they had made a “profit”.

    from the 1966 IRS rule crafted with considerable input from then NFL Commissioner Pete Rozelle:

    (b) (1) Section 1 of the Act of September 30, 1961 (75 Stat. 732;
    15 U.S.C. 1291), is amended by adding at the end thereof: “In addition, such laws shall not apply to a joint agreement by which the
    member clubs of two or more professional football leagues, which are
    exempt from income tax under section 501(c)(6) of the Internal
    Revenue Code of 1954, combine their operations in expanded single
    league so exempt from income tax, if such agreement increases rather
    than decreases the number of professional football clubs so operating, and the provisions of which are directly relevant thereto.”

  2. Jeffery says:

    They could easily change their team name to the Washington Teabaggers or Rednecks or Conservatives.

    http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/18035794/2/stock-illustration-18035794-billy-bob-the-redneck.jpg

    Any problems with that?

  3. Nighthawk says:

    Someone needs to tell the staff and the nearly 100% Navajo student body at Red Mesa High School that their nickname is offensive to Native Americans.

  4. gitarcarver says:

    Don’t you just love it when those freedom loving liberals want to punish people for legal speech?

  5. david7134 says:

    Guitar,
    I was listening to a lecture series on the supreme court and they were going over the litany of invasive police procedures and other aspects of our government that were extremely intrusive. Guess which faction on the court voted that the procedures were constitutional, you got it, the liberals.

  6. […] Having Nothing Better To Do, Democrat Senator Threaten NFL Over Tax Status For Redskins Name. […]

  7. jl says:

    J- Call the PC thought police at once! Haven’t you heard (no, you’re a liberal)that mentioning the state “Oklahoma” is causing certain people to feel bad? That’s unconstitutional, isn’t it? Of course you know that the state’s name is derived from the Choctaw words “okla” and “humma”, which means “red people”. This cannot stand!

  8. Jeffery says:

    j,

    Making someone feel bad is not unconstitutional. Can you tell us who is upset by the name ‘Oklahoma’? (other than all the unlucky people who live there)

    I realize that conservatives don’t ‘do’ nuance, but…

    You do understand that ‘Redskin’ is a slur, but ‘Red People’ is not?

    ‘Honky’ is a slur, ‘White person’, is not.

    ‘Nigger’ is a slur, ‘African-American’ is not.

    Similarly, ‘Teabagger’ is a slur, while ‘Tea Partier’ is not, even though both words are referring to the same people.

    ‘Warmist’ is a slur, ‘someone who understands science’ is not.

    ‘Denier’ is a slur, ‘someone who claims to be a climate skeptic’ is not.

  9. gitarcarver says:

    Making someone feel bad is not unconstitutional.

    That’s certainly good to know.

    But of course, even “slurs” as you describe them are still protected speech in this country despite the fact that liberals like you hate it.

    So while you rail about the term, the real issue is that the government cannot penalize people for legal speech. It appears that you support the government doing that, but that simply confirms your long standing position that you and other liberals hate freedoms and hate the Constitution.

  10. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    You do know that a redskin was the one who gave the team the name Redskin? So if a native American did such a thing, isn’t that acceptable? After all, blacks use the term nigger, but whites can’t? No it does not work that way and we need to stop listening to the perpetually offended.

  11. Jeffery says:

    gc makes a valid point. Should the US government stop (potentially) subsidizing the NFL offices because the gov’t doesn’t like that a member team, Washington, persists in using an ethnic slur as a team nickname?

    I say no.

    Public opinion and sponsor desires will win the day.

    I still vote for the Washington Rednecks and a mascot of a pot-bellied white guy wearing a John Deere ballcap, Confederate flag wifebeater, cut-offs and cowboy boots, shooting a revolver into the air and swigging Ten High bourbon from the bottle.

  12. gitarcarver says:

    Should the US government stop (potentially) subsidizing the NFL offices because the gov’t doesn’t like that a member team, Washington, persists in using an ethnic slur as a team nickname?

    Wow.

    So many misconceptions in one question that it is impossible to even address them.

  13. jl says:

    “You understand redskin is a slur, but red people is not?” I understand more than you do. A slur would be in the eye of the beholder, correct. Or is there some liberal playbook we don’t know about.

  14. Jeffery says:

    gc,

    I know it’s hard. Let me help.

    Tax exemptions are subsidies since someone has to the pay the bills. If someone or some group is exempted, someone else must pay more. I inserted ‘potentially’ since the NFL office expenses currently exceed their revenues.

    ‘Redskins’ is an ethnic slur.

    And then I agreed with you that we shouldn’t bother with their tax status.

    In addition, taxpayers get to help the billionaires build their workplaces, for the privilege of paying the billionaires even more to be entertained by their product – which more and more seems to be wife-beaters and child abusers slamming into one another.

    You probably prefer “Redskins” because you’re offended by “Rednecks”. I’m not saying that all southern men are mouth-breathing abusers.

  15. Jeffery says:

    Or a new team, the Tuscaloosa Teabaggers. An overweight 60 something white guy in a tri-corner hat with dangling Liptons, a Battle Flag t-shirt, Social Security check hanging out of his pocket, waving a Gadsden Flag with one hand and a GO BACK to KEYNA sign in the other.

    All to honor our Tea Party brethren!

Pirate's Cove