Substitute

          According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the word "substitute" is defined as "to take the place of". 

    To most of us, the word substitute is best associated with substitute teachers. My wife is a veteran teacher and regularly depends on substitute teachers (aka: subs) not only for times of temporary illness, convalescence, meetings or simply time for personal matters but also for when testing of students is required. 

    The purpose of this post is to bring to the reader's attention the regular substitution of one particularly heinous, verboten word with a handful of others deemed acceptable in our society but almost exclusively spoken, written, typed, etc. by one very powerful and influential group of people. This group, primarily existing in the United States, almost exclusively consists of those who do not vote for Republicans, especially not conservative Republicans and most certainly NOT for our president, Donald J. Trump.

    Perhaps you are becoming more and more curious, now that I introduced a very pointed political message to this post, what this word is I am referencing. You may have figured it out by now because, if you think about it, what is the most verboten word in our English language? What one word, above all others, causes people to be fired or reprimanded for saying it, even when quoting the words of another individual, and even when providing a "trigger warning" to others the word is about to be said?

    Not even the most famous, and naughty, four-letter word in the English language (f*ck) elicits nearly the same alarm and outrage from most Americans. In fact, "f*cking" is often used in conjunction with this forbidden word by those who wish to emphasize the usage of the following word when they seem to be extraordinarily angry or disgusted with the intended target of their ire.

Have you figured it out yet? OK.... six paragraphs in and I will finally mention the word, but even though I could have fully typed the "F" word in the last paragraph, I chose not to since who knows if the site which hosts my blog will take issue with that so better safe than sorry, right? That said, of course there is no way I dare fully type the English language's most offensive word so I will simply use it's much more common abbreviation: the "N" word, as in ni**er.

    Think about when this word is, and has always been, nearly exclusively used and by whom in America since the 1830s: Democrats. Why was/is this word used if not to unequivocally express dominance of a black person either to ensure the black person stays oppressed (in chattel slavery, even) and under the complete control of Democrats or express disgust towards any black person who dared say, do or think differently than what the Democratic agenda expected them to, even to this day?

    Since ni**er is no longer an acceptable term in polite society today yet the feelings of disgust by too many Democrats towards those black individuals who dare say, do or think differently than what the Democratic agenda expected them to, how can those feelings best be expressed otherwise without actually calling such blacks "ni**er"?

    This word, ni**er, is all too regularly substituted today with various words or phrases, to include:

• Uncle Tom (most common example, by far)
• Oreo
• token
• minstrel
• race-traitor

    To use any of the previous words today can ONLY be in substitute for ni**er, for they are intended to convey recognition of unacceptable deviation from the "approved" Democratic agenda by any black person.

    Notable "Uncle Toms":

• Clarence Thomas
• Thomas Sowell
• Walter E. Williams
• Larry Elder
• Shelby Steele
• Dr. Ben Carson
• Sen. Tim Scott
• Hershel Walker
• Kimberly Klacik
• Brandon Tatum
• Candace Owens
• Rob Smith
• John James
• Mia Love
• Leo Terrell

    You may have noticed not once have I stated this phenomenon with calling non-conforming blacks solely a white Democrat problem for black Democrats are just as guilty, obviously, if not more so, considering black support for Democrats often exceeds 90%. In fact, it took the Democratic primary to make its way to South Carolina (27% black population) this year for Joe Biden to finally win a Democratic primary as a presidential candidate (despite two previous attempts). Why they did not choose one of the contending black candidates instead of Joe Biden, or any of the other five white vote-leading candidates in that primary, says what about Democratic voters, especially with identity politics as the fundamental practice within the Democratic party?

The second most damaging lie during Trump's presidency

    Without question, the most damaging lie during Trump's presidency was the "Russia Hoax" but I want to focus on what I consider the second most damaging lie: Trump praising the tiki-torch carrying, vein-bulging, out-of-the-fields marching neo-Nazis and white nationalists in Charlottesville, VA on August 11-12, 2017. In particular, this lie states Trump praised those specific knuckleheads as "very fine people" and one half of "both sides" attending/opposing a "Unite the Right" rally (the organizer of which just endorsed Joe Biden via Twitter today, btw). Also in the city were people both in support of and protesting against the planned removal of the General Robert E. Lee statue in a city park. At that time in American history, especially in the former Confederate South, such protests against and support of the removal of countless Confederate statues and monuments were very common, with virtually no acts of violence between the two factions, certainly nothing like the events at this time and in this city. 

    Being a conservative and believing history to be understood and appreciated, even if it is a painful reminder of our nation's past, I believe the statues/monuments should remain in place. This belief matches an August 14-15, 2017 poll by NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist of 1,125 National Adults where more blacks responded in favor of (44%) keeping the Confederate statues in place as a historical symbol compared to 40% responding they should be removed because they are offensive to some people.  See page 9 of the poll for quick reference.

    If adding accurate context to the history of the person, place or event is considered proper, then placing an informative plaque or similar explanatory display is acceptable, in my opinion. Installing an additional statue or monument nearby instead of a plaque would be even better provided there is room and proper approval is granted by the city. What is not acceptable is the secret removal, especially the overnight destruction, of any display without public input. If that means waiting for the next election to place the matter on a ballot, so be it.

    On April 25, 2019, former Vice President Joe Biden officially announced his desire to run for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination. He began his video announcement describing the events of Charlottesville, and Trump's fabricated reaction to it. Most importantly, he stated the very foundation of his entry into the race to defeat President Trump was repeating the extremely damaging lie of Trump's remarks.

    Last week, the 2020 Democratic National Convention took place virtually, with Biden repeating for the world to hear once again the primary reason for entering the race for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, which he failed achieving twice before, was Trump's supposed reaction to the events in Charlottesville three years prior. 

    Beginning tomorrow evening and running thru Thursday evening, the Republican National Convention will take place, much of it virtually, but likely much more live vs. recorded as the Democrats seemed to prefer. What drove me to compose this post before the end of today was my hope Trump, as well as all other individuals scheduled to speak each night, will repeatedly demonstrate to not only the assembled propaganda arm of the Democratic Party (the media, of course) but to the entire world the horrible and demented lie perpetrated for over three years but especially Biden's repeated explanation of it being the bedrock foundation of his entire reason for competing a third time for the Oval Office and earning the chance to sit behind the Resolute Desk.

    If Republicans, Trump especially, are smart about the golden opportunity before them, they could drive a stake thru the heart of Biden's nomination simply by showing what Biden claims Trump said and demonstrating exactly what Trump actually said at a news conference on infrastructure at Trump Tower on August 15, 2017. This would be so effective, not only because the media would be forced to cover the comparison and any effort to hide this news from their readers/viewers will simply be yet another example of wanton pro-Democrat bias, but it will also highlight the fact it would be obvious nobody since his candidacy announcement thru his acceptance speech last week proved what he publicly believes about Trump's remarks is patently a lie.

    Below are the pertinent remarks by Trump during his new conference:

Excuse me, they didn't put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name. 

...and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally – but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats – you had a lot of bad people in the other group too.

    To me, for Trump to truly have praised neo-Nazis and white nationalists in any way would obviously require him to have also truly praised Antifa equally as much since he said "very fine people on both sides". Not once has he ever come close to praising the likes of Antifa. Never happened, never will.