Huh? WHICH party is racist?

    The two major American political parties - Democratic and Republican - are two of the three oldest continuously operating political parties in the world today. Britain's Conservative Party (aka: the Tories), rounds out the top three. 

    The Democratic Party has its roots in the late 1820s and its first elected Democratic president was Andrew Jackson, in 1828, followed by his re-election in 1832. Over the following decades, the party tolerated, then supported before eventually championing slavery as more states and territories were added to the country until the practice ended with the conclusion of the Civil War in 1865. 

    Eleven years prior to the end of the Civil War (1854), the Republican Party was created from the remnants of the former Whig Party specifically to prevent the expansion, and continuing use, of slavery championed by the Democratic Party. The party's first presidential nominee was John C. Fremont, who lost to Democrat James Buchanan in 1856. The first successful Republican presidential nominee was Illinois' Abraham Lincoln in 1860, although he did not win based on obtaining a majority of electoral votes, but that is not something I need to expand on in this post.

    The two dominant parties at the time continue to be the two dominant parties today. One party championed the abhorrent, yet historically common, act of slavery. The other was created specifically to end the act of slavery and the supporters of both parties fought a nearly country-ending civil war over slavery, with the Republican cause eventually proving successful in 1865.

    Considering the decades-long support for slavery and their willingness to end the United States as the world knew it, it is understandable Democrats would still harbor racist views and a desire to control newly emancipated blacks just short of physical shackles or threats of a whipping, or worse, for many years after the war. These feelings manifested in opposition to Reconstruction and especially to the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments but also into the Jim Crow and KKK era and finally into opposition to the civil rights acts of the 1950s and 60s.

    When I say "finally" above, you would think it was after alllllll those many, many decades of solidly Democrat-championed anti-black policies and actions, they would have suddenly, practically overnight, become enlightened to the errors of their ways and ended virtually all vestiges of racism towards black Americans, correct? If I did not know better, I certainly would have inferred such a thing, yet, as I will demonstrate below, racism against black Americans is still very much alive within the Democratic Party today, despite their insistence it is Republicans who are the true racists today. After all, Democrats like to claim there was a "big switch" during the height of the civil rights era where all the racist Southern Democrats suddenly switched allegiances to the GOP, effectively shedding racism from the Democratic Party onto the GOP ever since. Uh.... riiiiiiiight.

THE LIST

    I mentioned in my most recent post how the most popular term Democrats use to denigrate non-conforming black Americans today is "Uncle Tom". I clearly demonstrated Uncle Tom is used in exactly the same way the N-word was used for decades to express disgust with ANY black person who does not say/think/write/believe as they are expected to exclusively by Democrats. This fact alone is the clearest possible example why racism is still solidly ingrained within the Democratic party, but there are plenty of other examples, as listed below.

1. A 2016 Gallup poll asked respondents how they felt about the requirement of photo ID to vote. Seventy-seven percent of non-whites favored photo ID requirements and 63% of Democrats overall favored the obviously sensible ballot-protection act of presenting a govt-issued photo ID. For some reason, Democrats consistently claim black voters are uniquely incapable of obtaining ID due to not being able to afford it, not knowing where to get it, not having data on their phone or internet at home, etc. They also claim photo-ID requirements unfairly depresses black voter turnout but this has proven untrue. See my favorite video on this subject.
2. For Michigan, three Dem-appointed 6th-Circut judges unanimously voted to uphold the existing straight-ticket voting (STV) option citing black communities primarily would be unfairly burdened with the requirement to choose a candidate in each race instead of choosing one option to cover all same-party candidates. Personally, I like that option quite a bit but only six states permitted STV in 2020. The fact black voters were determined to be uniquely burdened only adds to the belief black people lack certain abilities, intelligence, etc. compared to other races, whites, in particular.
3. Alabama recently enacted a photo-ID requirement and made obtaining one extremely easy, and at no cost, if necessary. They will even drive to your home at no cost to provide a photo ID yet the typical lawsuits were filed, nonetheless. Luckily, a federal judge dismissed their case for obvious reasons. Seriously, how much easier do Democrats want photo ID to be obtained? To go to the trouble to file a lawsuit against Alabama's Secretary of State knowing there is no reasonable burden to the state's black community is crazy and only hurts the plaintiff's cause.
4. OK, this one is not directly related to racism but since I am on the subject of photo ID for voting and racism charges are ubiquitous on the matter....  this article mentions an interesting study finding Republicans are not only much more concerned about photo ID for voting but even when presented with the possibility lack of photo ID would benefit GOP candidates or policies, they hardly budged on their core belief in the need for photo ID. Conversely, Dems were very transactional when it came to who benefited or suffered due to photo ID. They strongly supported photo ID if it benefited Dem candidates or policies but were much less supportive when it benefited the GOP. "When it comes to voter ID laws, Republicans care intensely about fraud while Democrats worry more about whether their own party will come out ahead" is the leading line of the article. With that, Dems have absolutely NO credibility when it comes to election integrity concerns.
5. Now, on to education: Dems (white Dems, especially) say black students don't deserve the same school choice options they enjoy (expect/demand is more accurate, really). Blacks parents, perhaps more than anybody, desire to have school choice options and it is Democrats, controlled by the teacher unions, who are the most ardent opponents to school choice.
6. Another on education: coming soon
7. Competence Downshift: This one is really damaging and is similar to the study mentioned in #4. This post on one of my favorite sites highlights a study demonstrating liberals uniquely tend to lower their word complexity and overall appearance of competence when speaking to a black crowd. My take on this study is it reinforces the left no longer believe (if they ever did) in MLK Jr's famous quote: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." To the right, character is color-blind but skin color is paramount to the left in nearly all facets of our society, character be damned.
8. Reparations: black conservative radio host, Larry Elder, perhaps said it best recently with this quote: "Reparations is the extraction of money from people who were never slave owners to be given to people who were never slaves." To best describe how relatively lucky American blacks are today, despite the slave trade (and slavery, in general) being abhorrent, this Q & A between a reporter and Muhammad Ali after Ali returned victorious from his fight against George Foreman in Zaire: “Champ, what did you think of Africa?” Ali replied, “Thank God my granddaddy got on that boat" is spot-on in explaining why American blacks are obviously exponentially better off today than they would otherwise be if comparing to their African homelands today. With that, reparations are fully unjustified, if not for the impossible means of determining equitability but certainly by comparing outcomes for any slave's true descendants in America today. To continue advocating for reparations demonstrates perhaps the ultimate example of virtue-signaling, especially if they are a white liberal.

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.

The Difference in Political Trinities

    Not much to add to this obviousity, is there? The Republican/Conservative Trinity is E Pluribus Unum, In God We Trust and Liberty (on every American coin, btw) while the Democrat/Progressive Trinity is Race, Gender and Class. Between the two trinities, only the former can be healthy for a successful society's survival.

A (Non) Exhaustive List Of Things That Have Been Deemed OFFENSIVE By The Left, For Some Reason

At the 4:44 point, he states the obvious: "Just assume EVERYTHING is racist". 19 parts, for a total of 76 examples, demonstrating whites are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Don Lemon's 2013 RANT Comes Back In 2020 To Highlight How MUCH Has Changed in a Short Time

Here is a great video demonstrating just how far radically left Democrats have lurched in recent years. Watch at the 3:30 point for his example of a former employer admitting those they deemed to be far-right only looks that way over time because they themselves moved so far left. The rest of the video is full of other examples like that and explains fully why all the social chaos in America today is the product of Democrats and their supporters racing further and further left towards the abyss and can only hasten societal chaos and our nation's decline from within:

Exceedingly Rare: A lesson in perspective

Late term abortions compared to gun homicides: Why does the media focus much more heavily on the rarer of the two?

Being such a fan of history, I quickly began to understand the importance of perspective when discussing any comparison between two or more subjects. Sometimes, when somebody might be alarmed, even outraged, at the price of an item, the profit of a business/industry, the history of a given person/society, etc., hopefully their alarm/outrage is tempered when presented with additional facts, especially facts which put the matter into proper and logical perspective.

Below is an article I read recently which is, I believe, an excellent example of perspective.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/new-york-times-story-late-term-abortions-born-alive-abortion-survivors-protection-act/