Categorized | News

GLAD to see the REDSKINS fighting BACK! SEE THIS SITE!

While I hide under the nearest table at the revelations from the McDonnell trial (Would you buy a used anything from Jonnie Williams?  Let’s pray the jury doesn’t either!) and continue to pray for an acquittal for BOTH Bob and Maureen McDonnell, I sometimes have little time and lots of blogging.  So here it goes!

Here is a website that supports the Redskins name (as I do) and a few highlights!

More than a decade ago, in the authoritative linguistic survey “I Am A Red-Skin: The Adoption of a Native American Expression (1769-1826),” Ives Goddard—the senior linguist and curator at the Smithsonian Institution—concluded that the word “redskins” was created by Native Americans, and that it was first used as an inclusive expression of solidarity by multi-tribal delegations who traveled to Washington, D.C. to negotiate national policy towards Native Americans. “The actual origin of the word (redskin) is entirely benign,” Goddard is quoted as saying.


The Redskins logo in use today was first designed in 1971 in close consultation with Native American leaders. Among those who unanimously approved and voiced praise for the logo was Walter “Blackie” Wetzel, a former President of the National Congress of American Indians and Chairman of the Blackfeet Nation. Years earlier, Mr. Wetzel had been deeply involved with U.S. President John F. Kennedy in the movement for civil liberties, civil rights, and economic freedom for all. In 2014, Mr. Wetzel’s son Don commented, “It needs to be said that an Indian from the State of Montana created that [Redskins] logo, and did it the right way. It represents the Red Nation, and it’s something to be proud of.”

and one more!

  • Between October 2003 and September 2004, the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania (under the direction of a former Chief Washington Correspondent for The New York Times) conducted a national survey of people self-identifying as Native Americans throughout the 48 contiguous U.S. states to gauge responses to the Redskins name. More than 90% of respondents polled said the name was not offensive.

  • Recently, the Navajo Code Talkers—who were instrumental in coding communications during World War II — have publicly announced their support for The Washington Redskins’ use of the Redskins name.

Now let’s make one thing straight:  It’s Saints first, Panthers second and Packers third as far as I’m concerned.  But Dan Snyder and the Washington Redskins must not give in to a vocal minority and change their name.



About Elwood Sanders

Elwood "Sandy" Sanders is a Hanover attorney who is an Appellate Procedure Consultant for Lantagne Legal Printing and has written ten scholarly legal articles. Sandy was also Virginia's first Appellate Defender and also helped bring curling in VA! (None of these titles imply any endorsement of Sanders’ views)

10 Responses to “GLAD to see the REDSKINS fighting BACK! SEE THIS SITE!”

  1. Mik Wilburt says:

    I know many really don’t like Dan Snyder. Yeah, he’s made some real bad calls in his time as owner. Clearly, he is growing into the job. The moves this offseason are evidenced of that.
    But think about his story. Yes, he was born rich, but he worked harder and smarter and got a lot richer.
    He’s been a Redskins fan since he was a little kid. Now he owns the team. How cool is that?

    In today’s ultra PC “you-must-wear-your-sensitivity-on-your-sleeve” atmosphere, the easiest thing for Snyder to do is surrender to the PC crowd (who truly could give a rat’s a**) and change the name.
    But he has declared he would not change the name as long as he owns the team. If RGIII and Jay Gruden can deliver a championship in the next couple years, Snyder will own the team forever and relish giving the PC crowd the finger.

  2. Gene Lefty says:

    Sandy, I have a hard time understanding where you are coming from with this McDonnell trial? You know my feelings.

    Based solely on what I have read, not guilty should be off the table. Why? The loan application. I do not think that is being contested.

    Second, failure to report the “gifts”, violation of Virginia law. I realize he is not on trial for that. But why shouldn’t he be after this trial?

    I would also think that we should pray for justice, rather than an acquittal or conviction?

    Check this link out about corruption in Virginia.

    Again, I just do not see your reasoning.

    Also, it’s Snyder’s team, name it whatever he wants. If the “Right Wing” owned media would stop giving the “name changers” a platform, this would have gone away long ago. That being said, as long as Snyder owns the team, somebody else will most likely own the Super Bowl. But that is his right.

    • Sandy Sanders

      Gene, I agree that the “loan” is the most damaging aspect of this case. But the question is: Was the so-called loan a genuine obligation to be reported or not. As the testimony of Williams would have to support that claim, it becomes dubious.

      I think the reporting statute is a state law and is a class one misdemeanor that has a statute of limitations of a year. I know Cuccinelli’s gifts were investigated and he was not prosecuted.

      I do not think former governor McDonnell or his wife are crooks in the classic sense. It would be unjust for either of them to become felons or go to prison.

      Now I do think you brought up an important issue: Whether Virginia politics – the “good-ol’-boy” system that many think permeates our politics – is corrupt. I will have to ponder the ideas in that article.


      • Gene Lefty says:

        Does it come down to this? About $165,000 was involved, loans, Rolex, golf clubs, wedding, etc., which I believe is not in doubt? Isn’t the being untruthful on a loan application also already proven?

        So, for acquittal, doesn’t the jury have to believe that a corporate CEO, Mr. Williams, gave or loaned all this expecting nothing in return? In other words, the Governor, his wife and family were able to convince a CEO to just give away money for nothing? Nothing what so ever?

        That my friend would be a hard pill for me to swallow as a juror! However, I still believe this trial was over after jury selection, just as was the OJ trial. Republican jurors will never throw McDonnell under the bus either.

        As an attorney, what are your thoughts.

        • Gene: I think the gifts and the money allegedly loaned are proven but the quid pro quo has not nor was it intended that this was a “real loan” to meet the financial obligations when McDonnell and his wife borrowed money. That is improper behavior but not criminal (in this case – might be other laws broken not charged) and if the governor or his spouse were offered a plea to a misdemeanor, say failed to report some thing to some government or bank or something required by law, I’d say take it! But not a felony.

          The McDonnell trial ought to force some serious questions about over-criminalization in the Federal sector. But it won’t.

          The jurors in this case ought to be politically neutral. Now I know better and Gene does too. The best thing might be a hung jury because that forces the government to decide: Try again or not? This evidence at this stage now raises the spectre of Maureen being convicted and Bob getting off.


  3. Mike Wilburt says:

    Well, ya know you’re getting old when you spell your own name wrong. It’s “Mike”, not “Mik”.

    I agree, Sandy. I don’t think the McDonnells are criminals either, as traditionally defined.
    I do think they demonstrated simply horrible, childish judgment in the way they spent their own money, other people’s money (Williams money), continued to borrow money, and flaunted what they did with all of it. Just plain stupid.

    I think this experience will probably “rehabilitate” them better than time in prison. But if the quid pro quo charge sticks, they just might go to jail.
    And one might consider it punishment that any future aspirations to hold public office are crushed.
    However, if McDonnell were to change parties…… This kind of experience means nothing on a Democrat’s resume.

  4. Gene Lefty says:

    That’s hilarious Mike!

    Gotta tell you this, as is the case with most Republican’s theses days, McDonnell is far to much of a fiscal Liberal to be accepted as a Democrat.

    In other words, McDonnell is even to much of a big government, big spender, than the Dems would tolerate!

  5. Jack Lee says:

    Hopefully McDonnell and McAuliffe can share a cell and save the taxpayers some funds.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge

Tom White Says:

Nothing is more conservative than a republican wanting to get their majority back. And nothing is more liberal than a republican WITH a majority.

Sign up for Virginia Right Once Daily Email Digest

No Spam - ever! We send a daily email with the posts of the previous day. Unsubscribe at any time.
* = required field

Follow Us Anywhere!