← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · JoseyWales

Feds Rule “White Pride” is “Offensive” and “Immoral”

Thread ID: 19412 | Posts: 3 | Started: 2005-08-03

Wayback Archive

JoseyWales [OP]

2005-08-03 23:28 | User Profile

[url]http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/08/feds_rule_white.php[/url]

BlueBonnet

2005-08-04 03:47 | User Profile

How bout "Blanco Pride" or "Gringo Pride"?

Gabrielle

2005-08-04 23:10 | User Profile

[QUOTE=JoseyWales][url]http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/08/feds_rule_white.php[/url][/QUOTE]

**Josey, would I be correct in saying that we are a conquered people? **

"ACLU denies assistance and adds insult

My next step was to seek outside help from the Minnesota branch of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). I sent a brief letter to the ACLU-MN summarizing my case and asking if they were interested. They initially said they were willing to review the case, so I sent them pages of documentation. I thought I might have a chance since the ACLU prides itself on defending the rights of the little guy. I am white, male, heterosexual, married, employed, native born, English speaking, Christian-valued, have no criminal record, and am a retired law enforcement officer. I could be the perfect “token” case outside their mainstream clientele, or at least I thought so.

In March 2005, the ACLU not only turned my case down but took the opportunity to slam white people and Christians. Renee Hamilton, legal assistant for the ACLU-MN, wrote:

“Thus, when the PTO examined Moritz’s mark, their rejection of his mark was reasonable given that such a slogan has just but one meaning i.e. superiority of what he term (sic) ‘the white race’ over all other races and their brand of Christianity over the other religions.”

The ACLU was fully aware of all the other “pride” trademarks I had listed in my documents. If a “pride” trademark had been turned down for any group of people, other than whites, the ACLU would be in court screaming “Discrimination by the United States Government!”

My Appeal

On January 1, 2005, I decided to appeal the USPTO decision, but not before doing some research. I found that that the following “pride” terms have all been registered as trademarks by the U.S Government:

“African Pride,” “African Man Pride,” “Asian Pride,” “Bahama Pride,” “Black Pride,” “Brazilian Pride,” “China-Pride,” “Chippewa Pride,” “Choctaw Pride,” “Colombian Pride,” “Cuban Pride,” “Dakota Pride,” “Dominican Pride,” “El Salvador Pride,” “Ecuador Pride,” “Gay Pride Apparel,” “Guyanese Pride,” “Havana Pride,” “Honduran Pride,” “Indian Pride,” “Jamaica’s Pride,” “Jewish Pride,” “Kwanzaa Pride,” “Long Beach Lesbian and Gay Pride,” “Mayan Pride,” “Mexican Pride,” “Native Pride!,” “Nicaraguan Pride,” “Orgullo Hispano” (Hispanic Pride), “Orgoglio” (Hispanic—’Great Pride’ (supremacy?)), “Qisqueya Pride” (Dominican Republic Pride), “Rainbow Pride Coach,” “Red Pride,” “San Diego Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Pride,” “Spanish Pride,” and “West Indian Pride.”

The factual evidence for my appeal was overwhelming, or at least I thought so. It seemed as though the federal government wanted everybody to have pride, except white people. It seemed to be a clear case of discrimination. "