The New Broadcast Profanity: ‘Redskins'?

Conservatives begin by revering tradition; liberals often by trashing it. In fact, it doesn't bother liberals that something they found acceptable one day is declared — by them — repugnant the next. It's taken only a few days of liberal media agitation for MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell to announce that Washington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder is "the George Wallace of the NFL."

Snyder saying he'll never change his team's name has somehow become historically comparable to George Wallace's "segregation forever." It's suddenly so offensive, apparently, that the leftists who have gone to court to make the airwaves safe for every profanity imaginable, in the name of free speech and tolerance, are now petitioning the Federal Communications Commission to ban "the R-word" from television.

They're urging the broadcasters to "self-regulate" the team name out of existence. But why would you petition the FCC to urge the media to self-regulate? It's nonsensical — unless self-regulation is merely a first step.

The word "Redskins" is so apparently offensive they've made the team sound like a porn film. Here is the insanity: They'd be less offended — and in some circles of the libertine community, openly supportive — if Snyder renamed the team the "Foreskins."

These liberals are not reflecting a nation's outrage. They are attempting to create it.  Only 11 percent of Americans (and 10 percent of Native-Americans) are offended by "Redskins,"

Source