Out: Trail of Tears Architect. In: Underground Railroad Heroine
Mrs. P. and I have a saying we like to use on each other: “That would have been more impressive if you had said it earlier.” We use it when one of us claims to have thought something that later turns out to be kind of amazing.
Mrs. P. said it to me today. I said that, months ago, I rooted for Andrew Jackson, and not Alexander Hamilton, to get kicked off U.S. currency. (And my view had nothing to do with a hit Broadway musical, either.) What’s more, I was actually rooting for Harriet Tubman to be on the new $20 bill. Which, as it turns out, will be happening (as early as 2030! your federal government at work!).
The Jackson aspect was obvious. While I’m not a big fan of Hamilton, I’m even more annoyed by the presence of Andrew Jackson — a virtually illiterate, nasty, prideful, vindictive, Trump-like figure who was behind the Trail of Tears. A military hero, to be sure (unlike Trump), but otherwise a contemptible human being in many ways.
As for rooting for Tubman, it wasn’t a completely original thought. When the news came that the government wanted to put a woman on the currency, Harriet Tubman was one of the names that was batted around — and the one that made the most sense to me, by far.
I have always considered the $2 bill to be the king of currency. I consider them good luck and always have one with me in my wallet, at all times. (I’m a Jefferson guy, not a Hamilton or Jackson guy.) But if the Treasury used this totally unofficial design that was floating around the Internet today, I think there would be a new king in town:
How cool would that be?
P.S. I can’t find any evidence that I said any of this in public, which is distressing. It would be awesome to link you to the post where I advocated putting Harriet Tubman on the $20. It . . . truly would have been more impressive if I had said it earlier.
P.P.S. The latest news is that they’re keeping Jackson, but putting him on the back of the bill, with Tubman on the front. I say: bring back Grover Cleveland, and kick Jackson to the curb.
P.P.P.S. I now hand over the mic to the Long Ryders:
UPDATE: Trump and Carson both think it’s terrible to take a President off our currency. Instead, they say, Tubman should go on a $2 bill.
Who wants to tell them?
I’m told the Trumpers on Twitter are the hardest hit.
Ben Carson doesn’t like it either, the twit.
Patterico (86c8ed) — 4/20/2016 @ 6:37 pmAndrew Jackson was a tremendous secretary!
Patterico (86c8ed) — 4/20/2016 @ 6:45 pmWhy would anyone object??
I also saw this letter from Frederick Douglass to Harriet Tubman 1868 posted today:
Beautiful.
Dana (0ee61a) — 4/20/2016 @ 6:50 pmDon’t worry, you did. I remember it. And I agreed with you.
Milhouse (87c499) — 4/20/2016 @ 6:51 pmI . . . can’t tell if you’re making a funny.
If you are, don’t tell me. Leave me with my delusions.
If you’re not, I’d love to see where. So I can show Mrs. P.
Patterico (86c8ed) — 4/20/2016 @ 6:53 pmDo all these democrats realize Tubman was a Republican sympathizer? There’s talk at Drudge of Marion Anderson? Really? A singer? No gays though. How about Harvey Milk? He was a gay and a commie. Two birds, one stone. Or Arthur Ashe. He was gay and black.
Thank heaven we’re finally getting the politically correct cash we so richly deserve. But I am for bringing back the $500 and $1,000 bills. I haven’t had one of those in over fifteen years. And we don’t need McKinley and Cleveland. I suggest Al Sharpton and Al Gore.
Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6) — 4/20/2016 @ 6:54 pmHow is an armed Republican politically correct?
Patterico (86c8ed) — 4/20/2016 @ 6:56 pmthey’re trying to get rid of the higher denominations, altogether, now Jackson was against the predecessor to the Fed, the Bank of the United States, the beginning of dirigisme in the Americans, otoh, you have the trail of tears, and then Treasury Secretary Roger Taney,
narciso (732bc0) — 4/20/2016 @ 6:58 pmYeah, I’m a fan of the hundred dollar bill too. And I know they’re trying to get rid of that, too, the bastidges.
Patterico (86c8ed) — 4/20/2016 @ 6:59 pmThey’re keeping Andrew Jackson?
I also heard on the CBS Evening News that they are changing the $5 bill and the $10. They’re putting a whole slew of women on the back of the $10 bill. A veritable Mount Rushmore. It is going to have a number of famous suffragettes. Lew was originally going to put Susan B. Anthony on the front of the $10 bill – now she’ll be on the back, along with Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, Sojourner Truth and Alice Paul (who, after the 19th amendment was law, spent half a century campaigning for the Equal Rights Amendment, which she wrote the first version of.)
The $5 bill will have allusions to events that took place at the Lincoln Memorial, like maybe Martin Luther King’s August 1963 March on Washington, and opera singer Marian Anderson and Eleanor Roosevelt will be there too.
http://www.ibtimes.com/new-5-bill-feature-martin-luther-king-eleanor-roosevelt-marian-anderson-lincoln-2356875
Sammy Finkelman (a5988d) — 4/20/2016 @ 7:05 pmThis makes me happy, Patterico.
http://media.graytvinc.com/images/585*350/Harriet+Tubman+Pistol+1.jpg
I wish they would run the photo of her with her weapons.
FREEDOM!
Simon Jester (154617) — 4/20/2016 @ 7:06 pmHoagie ™ (e4fcd6) — 4/20/2016 @ 6:54 pm
Well, they might try to claim Eleanor Roosevelt.
Sammy Finkelman (a5988d) — 4/20/2016 @ 7:07 pmOne must admit it is a strange and telling thing when a hip-hop musical – tickets $400 on the low end – has an influence on decisions like these, and not just the individual and their place in history. This re US Treasury secretary Lew
Dana (0ee61a) — 4/20/2016 @ 7:10 pmThe gays can wait for current Pinal County (Az) Sheriff Paul Babeu as Department of Homeland Security.
urbanleftbehind (d3ea16) — 4/20/2016 @ 7:18 pmI also cannot stand Andrew Jackson. The Nullification Crisis, the Indian Removal, the drunken rabble running through the White House at his inauguration … yuck.
I would like to add something positive to the terrible story of the Trail of Tears that many white people, especially the Christians who lived on the Cherokee reservation, which was almost totally Americanized, were against the removal and protested vigorously. Two ministers were put in jail until they would halt their protest, and they refused. The governor even had their wives in to sweet talk them and beg them to convince their husbands to stop. Didn’t happen. Can’t remember their names, but a student of mine went to Georgia and researched it and wrote about it.
Patricia (5fc097) — 4/20/2016 @ 7:19 pmIndividual Cherokees were not given the option to stay and homestead on 160(?) acres same as white settlers, the way the Choctaws in Mississippi were? In other words, they could stay but not as a tribe?
(Like sausage-making, some parts of history I deliberately avoid learning about.)
nk (dbc370) — 4/20/2016 @ 7:24 pmActually, the drunken rabble running through the White House at the inauguration kind of redeems Jackson a bit in my estimation. I mean, most all Presidents try to play the “just ordinary folks” card, but Jackson seemed to be the real deal.
To his brother’s credit, Billy Carter probably went on a drunken rampage at the White House during Jimmuh’s inauguration in 1977. It’s probably why Carter banned alcohol in the White House.
JVW (9e3c77) — 4/20/2016 @ 7:41 pmFrom Wikipedia, “When the Cherokee negotiated the Treaty of New Echota, they exchanged all their land east of the Mississippi for land in modern Oklahoma and a $5 million payment from the federal government.” So that was their exchange. Some however settled in Mississippi or Florida, for instance.
Patricia (5fc097) — 4/20/2016 @ 7:44 pmJackson out, Tubman in was my own preference also, but I never said so either…
Trucebreakers should be cast out, no two ways about it. (The Trail of Tears was a treaty violation–and as such, necessarily unconstitutional.)
Regarding the $10 bill…Elizabeth Cady Stanton is a distant cousin on my mother’s side.
Ibidem (970323) — 4/20/2016 @ 7:46 pmAndrew Jackson was but one of a series of perfectly awful Democratic Presidents thought great by the ignorant.
SPQR (a3a747) — 4/20/2016 @ 8:18 pmI wasn’t, but I can’t find it any more either.
Milhouse (87c499) — 4/20/2016 @ 8:19 pmAnd do you think Jefferson (and Washington, Franklin, etc) isn’t going to get the same treatment?
DN (1da183) — 4/20/2016 @ 8:39 pmOnce again, Tam nails it http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2016/04/is-there-any-wine-so-sweet.html
“This is like sipping a martini made out of hippie and Nazi tears, shaken AND stirred.”
SPQR (a3a747) — 4/20/2016 @ 8:45 pmMartha and Pocahontas on US currency was a revelation to me.
As for 21st century America, the fact no single American is currently honored with a full-fledged holiday other than Martin Luther King, and in light of political correctness going off the deep end, I’m being only somewhat sarcastic when I say that the American five-dollar bill in the future may very well feature an image of Mohamed on the front, Caitlyn Jenner on the back.
Mark (f0df8f) — 4/20/2016 @ 8:58 pmnote jefferson doesn’t come off well in hamilton, and well ‘e pleb nista’
narciso (732bc0) — 4/20/2016 @ 8:59 pmWould Treasury do this without any review or approval by Obama?
DRJ (15874d) — 4/20/2016 @ 9:14 pmJackson was pugnacious, austere, mercurial, and possessed of a churlish aspect that begat dueling wounds and dead opponents.
On the minus side, he was also a slaveowner, and worse still, a lawyer.
He seems to have been devoted to country and family, particularly his adopted children, and much of the historiography concerning his anti-Native policies in the South is highly selective, revisionist dreck (inter alia, you wouldn’t know from such sources that the wrothful Indian fighter had an adopted Native son).
Yes he was an unpleasant and contentious sort, and why not drop him from the $20 bill.
On the other hand, compared to the oiliness of certain modern Democrats (and some Republicans), whose chief attributes seem to be relentless self-promotion, grasping ambition for high office, and rent-seeking, he gets a comparative bum rap.
He’s also a lot more interesting than most 20th century US Presidents. LBJ and Clinton dodged syphilis; Old Hickory dodged bullets (and then only with passing success). Obama and Nixon have boring dog stories; Jackson had a parrot so profane that its benedictions derailed his funeral service. Reagan survived an assassination attempt; in his 60s, Jackson beat the tar out of a would-be assassin with his own walking stick.
JP (bf6604) — 4/20/2016 @ 9:19 pmToo bad about Jackson being on the back. I would rather it were Douglass and John Brown.
As for putting people on the backs of bills, I’m not sure we need to do that in any event, but trivialities like opera singers or communist first ladies? Bah.
Better on the reverse of the $5 would be Sherman, Grant and Thaddeus Stevens. On the $10, John Jay and James Madison.
I’d also suggest that Grant has had his day, and put Martin Luther King on the $50.
And, of course we need the $500 and $1000 bills back. One can be FDR, the other the Gipper. The reverses to commemorate their two great victories.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/20/2016 @ 9:31 pmThat way, I can say I said it.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/20/2016 @ 9:31 pmI’m being only somewhat sarcastic when I say that the American five-dollar bill in the future may very well feature an image of Mohamed on the front, Caitlyn Jenner on the back.
Well, not unless you want the Muslims to be burning all the $5 bills. Oh, wait, maybe that’s good. Free oil.
And Caitlyn might be better on a different denomination…
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/20/2016 @ 9:37 pmI do hope that someone slips “E Pleb Nista” onto some mockup bill and see how long it takes for anyone to notice.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/20/2016 @ 9:40 pmThat image may be all over the Intertubes, but Google CAN NOT find it. Googling “Harriet Tubman bill gun” does not get you there. It’s inconceivable.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/20/2016 @ 9:47 pmOn the minus side, he was also a slaveowner, and worse still, a lawyer.
Nice one! Kudos JP.
JVW (9e3c77) — 4/20/2016 @ 10:20 pmR.I.P. wrestler Joanie Laurer, aka “Chyna”
Icy (4f33a9) — 4/20/2016 @ 10:33 pmAn armed, Christian Republican; Harriett clung (bitterly, no doubt) to her guns and her religion to see her through the tough times.
Icy (4f33a9) — 4/20/2016 @ 10:38 pmthe Long Ryders were another great group that the radio industry strangled…
i love there stuff and have vinyl here someplace. maybe cassettes too.
not sure about CD’s… i gotta organize all this stuff.
right after i finish the BBQ pagoda, and the reloading bench, re-do the garage… etc, etc.
redc1c4 (f581e5) — 4/20/2016 @ 10:47 pm“Tracks of my Tears” with Linda Ronstadt (YouTube).
When the Eagles were her back up band.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 4/21/2016 @ 2:12 amI’m a gonna transgender myself so I can p.p. on the girls toilet seats.
mg (31009b) — 4/21/2016 @ 2:47 amPatterico, you sly devil. The PC part is the black woman which I’m sure you know. The PC part is removing the evil slave owner which I’m sure you also know, even though he was a Revolutionary War patriot and the victorious general of the War of 1912. Not considering any other presidents is more PC. Exactly who was considered for the honor, based on what and determined by who and by what authority? What’s the matter with Neil Armstrong, George Patton or Ronald Reagan? My opinion is that with the exception of The Founding Fathers, the honor of appearing on money should be reserved for Presidents as national leaders. But that’s just my opinion. At least that way the portraits on money wouldn’t be politicized. Everything today is political. You can’t just throw Polk on a twenty and be done with it.
Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6) — 4/21/2016 @ 4:33 amLet’s paint the White House while we’re at it. Blacks make up 13% of the population – the White House should be 13% black, with appropriate colors and percentages for Hispanics, Asians, American Indians, Eskimos, Hindus, and Mohammedans.
The Washington Monument could also be painted in appropriate colors like a bar graph to show the proportions of our multi-colored population. Then visitors to Washington DC could feel good about themselves in liking color.
ropelight (8f9d35) — 4/21/2016 @ 5:08 am“… the War of 1912.”
Was Jackson up to some wet work against the Ottomans that I don’t know about?
JP (bd5dd9) — 4/21/2016 @ 5:10 am41. Unfortunately, only those dastardly czarist Russians ever put in work against the Turks until Gallipoli (whose waste of Anzac bodies set in motion Australian and New Zealand indepependence).
urbanleftbehind (13d124) — 4/21/2016 @ 5:30 amIn the fwiw department,
MD back in Philly!!! (f9371b) — 4/21/2016 @ 5:37 amHoagie, do you have reason to say Ash was gay other than he died of AIDS?
Maybe so, but I am pretty sure he had heart surgery and received a blood transfusion before blood was tested for HIV.
But I never read his book or much about him.
Oops, Ashe
MD back in Philly!!! (f9371b) — 4/21/2016 @ 5:39 amIt don’t mean a thing, if it ain’t got that swing. 13% is way more than is needed to affect the outcome of an election. D. Trumpalulu has gotten just under 7.5 million votes so far. That’s 2.4% of the population.
nk (dbc370) — 4/21/2016 @ 5:44 am42. Google is your friend. Google Balkan Wars.
nk (dbc370) — 4/21/2016 @ 5:46 amWomen are now scheduled to outnumber men 8-7 on regular U.S. currency.
There will be 5 women on the back of the $10 bill, and 2 on the back of the $5 bill and Harriet Tubman on the front of the $20 bill. While there will be men on the fronts of the $1 bill, $2 bill, $5 bill, $10 bill, $50 bill and $100 bill, and Martin Luther King on the back of the $5 bill. Blacks will constitute 20% – 3 out of the 15, two on the back and one on the front.
Assuming, that is, there are no changes adding portraits or images of people made to the $2 bill, $50 bill and $100 bill. The $1 bill is sure to stay the same – there are too many machines that read it, and it’s not worth counterfeiting. on any scale. And probably also the $2 bill because nobody much uses it. The 50 cent coin has also pretty much disappeared from common circulation, probably because people were collecting and saving Kennedy half dollar coins, especially since they cntained more silver for a while.
Sammy Finkelman (a5988d) — 4/21/2016 @ 5:48 amYou realize the Trail of Tears was a necessary part of creating a unified nation from “sea to shining sea,” right?
With the waves of immigration that were coming from Europe, those people needed to be settled somewhere and it was also necessary to grow the nation.
Interesting that you’re speaking out against it considering your position on our current illegal alien invasion.
NJRob (a07d2e) — 4/21/2016 @ 5:56 amAll of America’s problems can be traced to the immigration policies of the American Indians. Pat Paulsen said it a long time ago.
As for the Trail of Tears, I’d like to continue to believe it was only for those Cherokees who wanted to remain an independent nation within the United States under their chiefs. And they took their black slaves with them. And fought on the side of the Confederacy, under Stand Watie* who was already in Oklahoma as one of the voluntary Old Settlers from the 1820s.
*Not to be confused with a Clint Eastwood movie character.
nk (dbc370) — 4/21/2016 @ 6:10 amSince Obama has a sense of urgency about all this, what say he picks Al Sharpton to grace a $3 bill?
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-harriet-tubman-20-bill-20160420-story.html
Colonel Haiku (903a0b) — 4/21/2016 @ 6:41 amAll through history people have been conquered by other people. There is a “trail of tears” a thousand times around the world. The American Indians were nothing special in that regard. But so far in our America we’re doing our best to conquer ourselves with our ridiculous immigration policy. We are not on a trail of tears, we’re standing in a puddle of them.
Pat Paulsen was right, nk. The American Indians, just like we today, failed to keep out foreigners who were determined to conquer and destroy them and their way of life. In our case it’s done in the name of “diversification”. America will be “diverse enough” when all the Anglo-Americans are gone. Isn’t there a word for targeting a racial/cultural group for replacement?
Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6) — 4/21/2016 @ 6:43 am46. I realized that…..once I refreshed the page, but then I had to drive and not use my device. I think a lot of Serbians, Greeks, Croatians that I share the workplace with would be displeased.
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 4/21/2016 @ 6:54 amPatterico can like any President he wants on his blog. From my point of view, Andrew Jackson (like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, JFK, and the Model T) is now as much legend as history. I don’t really care if George Washington never chopped down a cherry tree or if you had to back up a hill in a Model T because it did not have a fuel pump.
Make the $20 bill worth an ounce of 0.900 fine minted gold again. Now that would be something.
nk (dbc370) — 4/21/2016 @ 6:56 amLet’s paint the White House while we’re at it.
There was a preview of what that would look like the day the Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage and what’s-his-name had the building’s flood lights switched to rainbow colors.
The revised 20-dollar bill will help reinforce the sense that America’s chickens are coming home to roost and further the ethos that they need to squawk louder and louder.
Mark (f0df8f) — 4/21/2016 @ 6:57 amoh my goodness you failmericans keep rearranging the deck chairs
like it’s some kind of honor to have your face on these sleazy worthless yellendollars
happyfeet (831175) — 4/21/2016 @ 7:00 amWe all know unless you are black, mexican, gay or transgender the Government is trying to slowly kill you off and marginalize you.
Still does not dispel the fact WHITE PEOPLE CREATED THIS WONDERFUL FIRST WORLD WE LIVE IN. Not the Mexicans who have their shit show to show for progress. Not Africans who have theirs. Not Asians, sans Japanese but we had to whip their asses to get there, Not anyone but white folks with their awful Christian Values. For all the BS about minorities, they played a small supporting role in creating the modern world. What the next 200 bring? No idea. So, sorry Harriet. Andrew Jackson is more fitting. Heck MLK is more fitting.
Now if we were in a color blind society, I would not engage in this rhetoric but since 1964 we are no longer all equal in the eyes of the law. Some are more equal than others and INCREASINGLY so. Victims have the right to lie, cheat, steal and abuse others then claim victim status and get Govt to side for them cuz ya know .. racism or whatevah…
Rodney King's Spirit (db6706) — 4/21/2016 @ 7:14 amWell thaymt is true, Polk isn’t on any currency, but he was the successor to jackson, is probably viewed as favorably with aztlan and other nationalist group
narciso (742ca9) — 4/21/2016 @ 7:15 amIn for a penny, in for a pound. The other legend besides the Battle of New Orleans I learned in school about Andrew Jackson, around the same time I read “Rifles For Watie”, was that he abolished the property requirement for voting. Does that redeem his other sins or does it compound them?
nk (dbc370) — 4/21/2016 @ 7:16 amMark, there are good reasons to keep Old Hickory on the $20 bill, but “so a black woman will not take his place” is not one of them. You are not helping the cause.
nk (dbc370) — 4/21/2016 @ 7:19 amUPDATE: Trump and Carson both think it’s terrible to take a President off our currency. Instead, they say, Tubman should go on a $2 bill.
Who wants to tell them?
Patterico (86c8ed) — 4/21/2016 @ 7:21 amThe Treasury Dept should put Barack on all of our currency since he’s presided over historic spending.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 4/21/2016 @ 7:21 amI could live with a net tax payer requirement / outright 1 time fee for voting in a given contest (if you are a “net receiver” -though that would be colored as a poll tax). And would an individual condo owner only have fractions of a single vote?
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 4/21/2016 @ 7:22 amP, let them propose it and lose 1/2 their support instantaneously. Why, unless their trying to tag-team Diamond and Silk and then swap places.
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 4/21/2016 @ 7:25 amnk, I read ‘Rifles for Waitie’ in sixth grade. In fact, I sent my brother an email about that book a couple weeks ago, since he was asking me for recommendations about historical novels that his son might enjoy. Btw, did you ever read ‘Johnny Tremain’? Or see the Disney film?
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 4/21/2016 @ 7:25 amWell, that was abolished by the 24th Amendment in 1964.
nk (dbc370) — 4/21/2016 @ 7:25 amYes conquest is part of history but there was something terrible about exiling peaceful people who had a legal treaty. Btw Don cheadles ancestors were slaves owned by Indians. His face fell when this was revealed to him. White people were not the only slaveowners here
Patricia (18d457) — 4/21/2016 @ 7:26 amI’ve read the book; I don’t know if I saw the movie, CS.
nk (dbc370) — 4/21/2016 @ 7:28 amif Mr. Trump is signalling that as president he’s not gonna indulge in silly cosmetic maunderings while this loathsomely cowardly country is one hundre percent primarily concerned with placating its glorious terrorist masters in saudi arabia then I think it’s a very sensible stance
our sleazy servile wiscotrash speaker of the house might should take note
happyfeet (831175) — 4/21/2016 @ 7:33 amoh my goodness one *hundred* percent i mean
happyfeet (831175) — 4/21/2016 @ 7:33 amso are we going rename jacksonville, jackson state, jackson, mississippi, because this is the larger agenda, I would say Frederick Douglas would be worthy of inclusion, the other aspect of tubman’s life, as with susan b, is left out of the picture,
narciso (732bc0) — 4/21/2016 @ 7:36 amJackson was the only Democrat with a legitimate shot at Mount Rushmore. Now he’s being demoted, with no-one of his stature to be offered as replacement by the blue team.
Look at the bright side. And how much it must suck that after 240 years Jackson is the Dem’s high water mark.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 4/21/2016 @ 7:38 amthere are some parallels with ariel sharon, a rough edged character, who spearheaded the victories in 56 and 67, the founder of the likud, in later life, had a more separationist
narciso (732bc0) — 4/21/2016 @ 7:43 amagenda hence his new party,
but “so a black woman will not take his place” is not one of them
nk, where you see race, I see politics/ideology.
Ramping up guilt and shame in 21st-century America over the existence of slavery is politically/ideologically not too different from ramping up guilt and shame over the existence of “Islamo-phobia.”
BTW, I recall your claiming awhile back that the problems of Africa can be laid at the doorstep of white imperialist Europeans, or something along those lines. I instead see the socio-economic dysfunction in that part of the world as stemming largely from the socialist/leftist instincts of many Africans (ie, their way of judging the good and bad in both humans and ideas), not anything related to their or any other group’s race.
Mark (f0df8f) — 4/21/2016 @ 7:46 amI think a lot of Serbians, Greeks, Croatians that I share the workplace with would be displeased.
Albanians, Arabs, Armenians, Poles, Romanians, Ukrainians…
Quite a few bones of contention with the Ottomans were passed around by quite a few different peoples well before 1912.
JP (bd5dd9) — 4/21/2016 @ 7:47 amwell greece was a turkish colony for 300 some years, ukraine was carved out of the tatar vilayets, with some persian influence,
narciso (732bc0) — 4/21/2016 @ 7:50 amLol… http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/231958/
Colonel Haiku (903a0b) — 4/21/2016 @ 7:54 amMark, you do know that Communism was invented by white people, right? In England and Germany? Not by Chinese in China or Africans in Africa?
nk (dbc370) — 4/21/2016 @ 8:06 amnk, communism was defined by a couple rich, Jewish, Germans living off their families wealth in England. The “undefined” system was around all along. Like Franklin (soon to be replaced on the $100 bill by Cab Calloway) didn’t “discover” electricity Marx didn’t “invent” communism. Hell, the Pilgrim’s had communism.
Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6) — 4/21/2016 @ 9:18 am🙂
nk (dbc370) — 4/21/2016 @ 9:23 amyou do know that Communism was invented by white people,
nk, I didn’t realize liberal or leftist biases (which incubate mindless, corrupt belief systems like Communism) were somehow unique to people based on their race or ethnicity.
Mark (955f29) — 4/21/2016 @ 9:30 amIt seems obvious to me, Mark. White people, not content with imperialism and colonialism, had to go and infect Africa and Asia with Communism too. Before the coming of the Europeans, those were monarchistic/feudalistic places.
nk (dbc370) — 4/21/2016 @ 9:50 amInstead of Tubman, use Angela Davis; she of the monster afro! Spent her entire life putting it to ‘the man’. Obvious choice for Obummer.
dee (c6474e) — 4/21/2016 @ 9:50 amRonald Reagan freed about 40 million people from the slavery of Communism. Harriet Tubman assisted about 70 people escape from southern slavery. Which one gets on the $20 bill?
CrustyB (69f730) — 4/21/2016 @ 10:04 amIf we’re to have a Black woman on our $20 bill, why not a good looking one instead of the scowling sourpuss Tubman?
Over the day, TV has shown a variety of her pictures. She doesn’t smile, her countenance is invariably severe, foreboding. It gives me the willies. Really, is that the sort of image we want to see each time we reach for our currency?
We can respect and admire Tubman’s contribution to the freedom of America’s slaves, and she deserves more credit than she’s received. However, she’s just too ugly to represent Black women.
ropelight (8f9d35) — 4/21/2016 @ 10:11 amif Team R were smart (lol) they’d insist that Harriet get put on the 100 dollar bills the NSA CIA IRS sleazebag gestapo wanna ban
happyfeet (831175) — 4/21/2016 @ 10:15 amNow Crusty B, in this politically correct time Ronald Reagan is just another white, Protestant, heterosexual male like the Founders so……racist. Remember, we can’t have true diversity until all “those guys” are stamped out.
Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6) — 4/21/2016 @ 10:16 am#84 ropelight,
We put people on currency to honor their accomplishiments—not their beauty. You would never say about Abe Lincoln’s physical appearance what you just said about Tubman.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 4/21/2016 @ 10:17 amFOX NEWS reports that TAFKAP (The Artist Formerly Know As Prince) has died at the age of 57.
ropelight (8f9d35) — 4/21/2016 @ 10:18 amActually ropelight, if you look at any pictures from that time nobody smiles. I think it was too hard to hold the position long enough with a smile.
Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6) — 4/21/2016 @ 10:20 amPrince is dead? There’s your one dollar bill! A black gay, it’s a miracle!
Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6) — 4/21/2016 @ 10:22 amYes, and I’ve heard many others say it too. He was one ugly dude. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6) — 4/21/2016 @ 10:25 amAndrew Jackson was but one of a series of perfectly awful Democratic Presidents thought great by the ignorant.
By most standards, a “great” president is one who gets his agenda enacted(FDR, Jackson, Reagan, etc), and a failure is one who gets very little done (Fillmore), or who is run over by Congress (Tyler). Partisanship colors some of it for a while (Reagan is still moving up), but not forever.
Jackson ripped power from the southern planters and northern elites. Jackson was the first president whose home state was neither Massachusetts nor Virginia. As a result of the electoral disaster of 1824, the electorate expanded with all but two states going to a popular election instead of being decided by the legislature. The vote totals for president went from 350K in 1824 to 1.3 million 8 years later. He was a champion for the common (white) man, for better or for worse, and shaped the course of the nation for the next 20 years.
I dislike much of what he did, but he was what they generally describe as “great”. Also terrible.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/21/2016 @ 12:39 pmIts an absurd decision but coming as it does amongst far more devastating decisions by the Obama Administration its a giant MEH.
mark johnson (0c4c19) — 4/21/2016 @ 12:51 pmYou realize the Trail of Tears was a necessary part of creating a unified nation from “sea to shining sea,” right?
No, I didn’t.
How does uprooting a westernized culture with a written language, towns, houses, and every effort to assimilate — to the point of taking their case to the Supreme Court (and winning, fat lot of good it did them) — help in unifying anything? If only MORE natives had assimilated, but they’d hardly do that after what happened to the Cherokee, would they?
The real problem with the Cherokee was that they let anyone join their tribe, no questions asked, and it just didn’t sit well with proper southern whites who wanted their land anyway.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/21/2016 @ 12:52 pmIt seems obvious to me, Mark. White people, not content with imperialism and colonialism, had to go and infect Africa and Asia with Communism too
nk, I’d think that statement were just a case of your being sarcastic if I wasn’t aware that you do have a strain of liberal bias that often leads to the flip side (or opposite extreme) of chauvinistic instincts—or all its variations (“my race is superior than yours!” “my religion is better than yours!”).
What’s ironic, however, is I do recall your saying some time ago (presumably seriously) that it would be better for the next US president to conform to historic tradition in terms of his race, nationality, ethnicity—but no mention of his/her ideology or political biases.
Mark (955f29) — 4/21/2016 @ 12:56 pm74. Its touch enough to condemn the Armenian genocide with Cher, the Kardashians, and the default slumlords of my ghetto-burb 1 hour north of Chicago on the other side of that scale.
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 4/21/2016 @ 1:03 pmNot at all, Mark. I am sticking up for my African heritage. For one example, if great-great-grandma Lucy had not discovered the steak, we would still all be eating leaves and berries.
BTW, I’d be obliged if you could find that comment you mentioned here:
nk (dbc370) — 4/21/2016 @ 1:04 pmWhat’s ironic, however, is I do recall your saying some time ago (presumably seriously) that it would be better for the next US president to conform to historic tradition in terms of his race, nationality, ethnicity—but no mention of his/her ideology or political biases.
I’m kind of curious of what it was that I said myself.
Jackson was the only Democrat with a legitimate shot at Mount Rushmore
Like it or not, FDR has a decent shot. See above about “great” presidents versus “ones I like”. Besides Teddy, only FDR and Reagan deserve Rushmore from the 20th Century. Were there room.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/21/2016 @ 1:10 pmMy take: most Republicans are happy with this, most Trumpies are not. The far Left is also against, although more because they don’t like “money” contaminating Tubman.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/21/2016 @ 1:11 pmwhy not a good looking one instead of the scowling sourpuss Tubman
She wasn’t always 87. Although if you’d been born into slavery, you’d do some scowling, too.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/21/2016 @ 1:14 pmIn other words, a stereotypical democRat.
If they still taught actual history in schools, I’d say “Leave him there.” Just to remind everyone.
arik (02de93) — 4/21/2016 @ 1:17 pmPolk isn’t on any currency, but he was the successor to jackson
Jackson was #7, Polk was #11, elected after several one-term failures. He was also a one-termer, but by choice, and is rated quite highly as he got done what he said he would.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/21/2016 @ 1:19 pmRonald Reagan freed about 40 million people from the slavery of Communism. Harriet Tubman assisted about 70 people escape from southern slavery. Which one gets on the $20 bill?
Tubman went in harm’s way, repeatedly. If caught she would have been hanged or put to the stake. But we need a $1000 bill and someone to go on it. Reagan on the front and this on the back.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/21/2016 @ 1:26 pmI’m a Republican and I’m not a Trumpie and I’m not happy with it. The left once again is politicizing something that is non-political and should remain so. Up till now having the Founding Fathers, Presidents and one Chief Justice. Republicans, Democrats and Whigs. No favoritism to speak of. But suddenly in our “post racial” America it became super important to find minorities, specifically blacks, and women to show our “diversity”. How about a gay., lesbian and handicapped person or perhaps Caitlyn Jenner? Money traditionally memorializes a great leader it does not reflect current fads in White Guilt.
There is nothing wrong with Presidents on money and to keep it non-political only Presidents should remain on money.
Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6) — 4/21/2016 @ 1:52 pmNothing political about presidents, after all.
Leviticus (8c45cc) — 4/21/2016 @ 2:06 pmThere is enough being said about this to make a new post of “Stupidest things said about the Tubman $20”
My favorite is Greta Van Susteren ripping the “stupid” Tubman $20, then saying “”We could use a $25 bill. Put her picture on that and we could all celebrate,” she said. “That’s the smart and easy thing to do”
Without a trace of irony.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/greta-van-susteren-20-harriet-tubman-222247
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/21/2016 @ 2:15 pmHoagie,
If it makes you any happier, I am rather UNhappy with the rest of the stuff — putting obscurities and singers on money is a travesty. I’d rather go back to Walking Liberty and such.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/21/2016 @ 2:18 pmThe Dems must be furious now that the conservative side is crowing about the gun loving Repub replacing their own!
Patricia (f5abc1) — 4/21/2016 @ 3:39 pmI really like that totally unofficial design. That’s genuinely inspirational on about twelve different levels, and I especially love the fingertips reaching for us, helping us onward, through the bottom border.
Beldar (fa637a) — 4/21/2016 @ 5:00 pmYou’re kidding, right?
Portraying your modern sensibilities on the time period which required rapid expansion and growth to build our nation.
NJRob (a07d2e) — 4/21/2016 @ 5:26 pmwhen i think american indians i think fast food and check cashers
and squalor
and hopelessness
and illiteracy
and i have no reservations about saying so
happyfeet (831175) — 4/21/2016 @ 5:27 pmI’m surprised it’s held out this long,
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/04/21/top-dem-wants-j-edgar-hoovers-name-erased-from-fbi-building/
narciso (732bc0) — 4/21/2016 @ 5:34 pmThis book cover seems to be the inspiration and raw source material for the $20 bill mockup above.
Beldar (fa637a) — 4/21/2016 @ 5:35 pmthe link shows the assault he’s been under, since the 70s, one example was an episode of bones, where there was a disciple of hoover, who was of course, a murderous psychopath,
narciso (732bc0) — 4/21/2016 @ 5:37 pmit seems to be just common sense to be armed,
https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/384819/great-equalizer
narciso (732bc0) — 4/21/2016 @ 5:47 pmI’m late to the party, but right on Patterico!! Tubman on the $20 is such a great move IMHO, I’m shocked the president didn’t try to veto it.
qdpsteve (b06fb2) — 4/21/2016 @ 6:00 pmhow much for a bj?
two tubbies!
oh.
nevermind.
happyfeet (831175) — 4/21/2016 @ 6:05 pmCorrecton, maybe:
47. SF:
Since Andrew Jackson will still be on the $20 bill, albeir on the back, that makes it 8-8.
But there are numerous small and tiny men on the back of the $2 bill, signing the Declaration of Indepedence. About 40 of them. 26 seated or standing on the left, 6 seated on the right, 5 standing to the left, behind the table. One standing, with the face and a lot of the body seen, to the right of the table, and the legs and the left arm of somebody sitting in front of the table. That’s 39 men on the back of the $2 bill.
On the other hand, they may be outnumbered by the numer of tiny women schduled to be on the back of $10 bill (a suffragettes march)
The Woman Suffrage Procession, standing on front of the Treasury Building in 1913.
There used to be a few figures, of inderterminate sex, although more probably male, and an old car on the back of the $10 bill but they changed it after the year 2000.
http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2009/10/26/trivia-whats-the-car-on-the-old-10-bill/
I liked that old car.
It turns it’s not a Model T or anything else.
Sammy Finkelman (a5988d) — 4/22/2016 @ 3:12 amHarriet Tubman had the gun partially to prevent slaves whose escape she was organizing from backing out. (They could reveal their position, or helpers)
Sammy Finkelman (a5988d) — 4/22/2016 @ 3:14 am112. Probably due to intra-dem beef. JE Hoover will get the Hamilton treatment in about 50 years as a pioneer for the “team”.
urbanleftbehind (c599d5) — 4/22/2016 @ 4:50 amPortraying your modern sensibilities on the time period which required rapid expansion and growth to build our nation.
No. Suggesting that back-stabbing the most prominent native tribal group to embrace western civilization was a predictable way to ensure a century of warfare rather than assimilation.
White man speak with forked tongue.
At what point does lack of honor, theft, kidnapping and murder on an industrial scale become something to cherish?
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/22/2016 @ 10:55 amThat’s genuinely inspirational on about twelve different levels, and I especially love the fingertips reaching for us, helping us onward, through the bottom border.
“Come with me, and live free!”
There is something very American about that. Especially the gun.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/22/2016 @ 10:57 amNJRob,
Or, more pointedly, since the Cherokee were assimilating, farming, building fixed settlements and doing everything that their white brothers were doing except, well, being white, what good did uprooting them do? What single, positive good did it do?
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/22/2016 @ 10:59 amI took my daughter to one of those historical places in Illinois. They had a house which was part of the Underground Railroad with the trap door to the hiding place under the stove. You guys already know this but a lot of people don’t: Because of the Fugitive Slave Act, runaway slaves could be captured by the authorities or bounty hunters anywhere in the United States, even in free states like Illinois.
nk (dbc370) — 4/22/2016 @ 11:01 amtwo tubbies!
More of the classy rhetoric we’ve come to expect from Trump U graduates.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/22/2016 @ 11:02 amnk,
And after 1857’s Dredd Scott, there was no such thing as a “free state.” Slaves were property everywhere, and blacks were citizens nowhere. President Buchanan and Chief Taney thought that this was now “settled law” and the argument was over.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/22/2016 @ 11:04 amThe Cherokee Nation was not assimilating. It was a state within a state, a nation within a nation. “Indians not taxed”. Also, the white men wanted their land.
nk (dbc370) — 4/22/2016 @ 11:04 amKevin M, there are two articles at Drudge which I’m sure you’ll like. One is about illegal families crossing into the US and the other about the 55 million Latinos now here. Back-stabbing, lack of honor, theft, kidnapping and murder? Wow, you really do hate white people. I could say that native tribal group were nothing but filthy, backward savages who couldn’t even invent the wheel and spent their time raiding, slaughtering and massacring other tribes and murdering their men, raping their women and enslaving their children and even after 300 years have not the capacity to fully assimilate. But I won’t cause now some are rich casino owners and may be offended. See you’re lucky. It’s okay to denigrate and offend whites. Everybody else, no way.
Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6) — 4/22/2016 @ 11:14 amHistory is that version of past events that people agree upon. Here’s my version: The Cherokees, like the Choctaws, were welcome to stay on their very own 160 acres like the white settlers. The tribe as a whole could not stay on “Tribal Lands” as an autonomous nation. The Treaty of Etocha was as much desired by the Indian chiefs, because they kept their nation and their authority, as it was by the Great White Chief.
nk (dbc370) — 4/22/2016 @ 11:20 amKevin M (25bbee) — 4/22/2016 @ 10:59 am
It helped people who were cheating them maybe.
Sammy Finkelman (a5988d) — 4/22/2016 @ 11:41 amKevin M (25bbee) — 4/22/2016 @ 11:04 am blockquote> And after 1857’s Dred Scott, there was no such thing as a “free state.” Slaves were property everywhere, No, that was what Abraham Lincoln, and others, said might be the next step.
That was correct.
Settled law about the territories.
Sammy Finkelman (a5988d) — 4/22/2016 @ 11:43 amI know little in the details of the dealings with Native Americans, in part because I have a suspicion I would need at least a degree in American History to begin to know who to believe,
MD back in Philly!!! (f9371b) — 4/22/2016 @ 11:56 ambut what nk says has the ring of truth
Rare is the Cincinnatus or Washington who willingly gives up power because of higher principles.
The Cherokee Nation was not assimilating
It was assimilating culturally — following a path set down by President Jefferson. Yes, it lost the state-within-a-state part of the Supreme Court case, but that could have been handled through county governments. It certainly was heading a better direction that what happened after.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/22/2016 @ 12:16 pmWow, you really do hate white people. I could say that native tribal group were nothing but filthy, backward savages who couldn’t even invent the wheel and spent their time raiding, slaughtering and massacring other tribes and murdering their men, raping their women and enslaving their children and even after 300 years have not the capacity to fully assimilate.
No, but I do not adhere to the actions of white per se.
The Cherokee and the Apache are different tribes. What worked for one would not work for the other, but an accommodation with the Cherokee might have served a better model for, say, the Hopi or Navajo than what was designed for the Apache or the Sioux.
there are two articles at Drudge which I’m sure you’ll like
Drudge is a Trump-financed site right now, and I’m not much interested in his propaganda.
As for the millions of Hispanics in the US, some were here before the Mexican War, some came here during the 100 years after that when nobody cared much so long as they weren’t Chinese. About a million came under Reagan’s amnesty and the rest are descendents. Of those 55 million, at least 40 million are US citizens, which pretty clearly is not conditioned on ethnicity. Are you saying it should be?
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/22/2016 @ 12:31 pmWith a deficit of original productions I can’t figure why the story of Stand Watie hasn’t been made into a miniseries. What an awesome scope of American history it would contain.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 4/22/2016 @ 1:52 pmNice to see you keep an open mind. Cause we all know just reading an opposing thought will make you run for your safe space. Even if Trump is financing Drudge, which is so preposterous it’s stupid, the articles are from <emThe Washington Times and The Washington Examiner unless you think Trump finances them too.
No Kevin, I’m not. But what I am saying is Immigration has to take “ethnicity” as you so casually call it into account especially when that ethnicity can change the culture or pose a threat to the existing society. Ask your Indian friends. BTW, 30 million of those 40 million “US citizens” came here illegally to begin with. There is absolutely no good reason for the United States to allow 55 million of anybody to immigrate here at this time in history. We have no need of it and it only benefits them not us.
Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6) — 4/22/2016 @ 5:11 pmthe problem is the same, here or across the seas
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/22/extremists-free-to-travel-to-uk-because-eu-states-cannot-agree-o/
narciso (732bc0) — 4/22/2016 @ 5:45 pm120) I would say five years tops, who they would name the organization after, is anybody’s guess,
narciso (732bc0) — 4/22/2016 @ 5:56 pmIt’s okay to denigrate and offend whites. Everybody else, no way.
In today’s era of very disingenuous group politics and group identity, the one entity that reins supreme and is the most protected — far more than any racial, ethnic, sexual, religious, national, etc, enclave — is (wait for it)…liberals.
The group-think behind that is so tricky and full of denial, that the current occupant of the White House, when he has been criticized and snubbed, has been defended with cries of “stop the racism against him!!” from his supporters, who don’t bat an eye (even though they may be the exact same people who yawned when Ben Carson was slighted), because his leftism is almost never singled out and denounced in public—using the very words of “leftism” or “liberalism.”
Notice how much of the politically-correct brigade avoids denigrating and offending lousy, wretched whites like Hillary Clinton?
Mark (225519) — 4/22/2016 @ 6:25 pmActually Mark, you may have a valid point though I never heard it nor considered it before. I’ll have to sleep on that one. Although I will take exception to those defending Obama as “the same people who yawned when Ben Carson was slighted”. That’s not true. They didn’t yawn because they were the very people slighting and calling Carson names just as they did Clarence Thomas and to a lesser degree Dinesh D’Souza and Bobby Jindal. Gotta remember leftists are nothing if not hypocrites, how else can a thief like Hillary! worth over $130 million be taken seriously when she rants about “the rich”?
Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6) — 4/22/2016 @ 6:46 pmDAMN
TOOTIN’.
Last truly great PotUS we had. The last one to truly understand the proper limits of government.
The Leviathan has been growing ever since.
IGotBupkis, "Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses." (225d0d) — 4/22/2016 @ 8:46 pmBTW, 30 million of those 40 million “US citizens” came here illegally to begin with.
Nobody gave a damn for the longest time. Until travel became easy, if you got here and weren’t Chinese, you got in.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/23/2016 @ 12:51 amThere is absolutely no good reason for the United States to allow 55 million of anybody to immigrate here at this time in history.
Who says that we are doing that “at this time in history”? That’s just crazy talk.
The majority of Hispanics in this country are at least third generation. There were no limitations on immigration from Latin America until 1965. Until then ALL Mexican immigration was legal.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/23/2016 @ 12:59 amNo, crazy talk is ignoring 45 million illegals since 1980. And the majority of Hispanics in this country are not third generation. 55 million or 17% of the population is Hispanic. in 1980 14.5% were Hispanic and that accounted for 19 million people. An increase of 35 million is not “third generation” Kevin M. It’s invasion. Or are you actually trying to make the case that we have no illegal immigration problem in the face of years of documented facts?
First of all I care about what’s happening now to our country, today, not what immigration policy was ten, fifty or a hundred years ago. That has no bearing on today. What America needed at those times is not what America needs today. Secondly, Chinese were brought in as well you know and I fail to understand you constantly calling “Chinese” like it’s some sort of code word. You do recall the Chinese working on the railroads, don’t you, Grasshopper?
Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6) — 4/23/2016 @ 6:48 amGoogle Anti-Chinese Acts, Hoagie. Particularly the last one, of 1924, which was extended to all Pacific Ocean Asians. Also the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Until the Magnuson (Chinese Exclusion Repeal) Act of 1943, Mrs. Hoagie would either not have been admitted into the United States at all or, if admitted, not allowed to become a U.S. citizen.
nk (dbc370) — 4/23/2016 @ 7:02 amLove, love, love everything Long Ryders. What a great American band.
Donald (22324e) — 4/24/2016 @ 7:51 amThere were no limitations on immigration from Latin America until 1965.
^ That last sentence actually should be altered to “from the extremes of the past to the extremes of today.” That is, unfettered immigration in 21st-century America, particularly involving the so-called undocumented.
Mark (2fd21b) — 4/24/2016 @ 8:54 amYou can Google any damn thing you want, nk, the fact is the Chinese were here. It seems to me you believe we have some sort of international obligation to bring in or allow in anybody from anywhere. We don’t, and if they wanted to exclude Pacific Asians it was their sovereign right to do so. One more time so you clearly understand: whatever was our immigration policy before it has no bearing on what it should be today. We have enough criminals and welfare people of the home grown nature we don’t need any from South America, Mexico or the Middle East.
Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6) — 4/24/2016 @ 9:06 amThey’re not “so-called” Mark, they are literally undocumented. We have no idea who they are, where they’re fro, if they bring in disease, if they are criminals, if they are terrorists or what, if any, positive attributes they bring to America. It is dangerous and flies in the face of the freedom and security the American citizen deserves and expects from it’s leaders.
Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6) — 4/24/2016 @ 9:13 amHoagie, the one thing that irritates me the most about people who take a la-dee-dah approach to the issue of immigration is if they’re also the same ones who pretend to not understand the phrase of “demographics is destiny” while nonchalantly — if push comes to shove — eventually voting with their feet and the moving van.
Or similar to the current very liberal, very progressive occupants of the White House, who sure as hell displayed a variation of voting with their feet in regards to the schools they sent their beloved daughters to. And I don’t blame them one bit for being guilty of voting that way. But please don’t then turn around and play dumb and pretend that what’s described below isn’t going to be affecting the future of this nation. Or please don’t incubate a negative situation in the first place and then — when things become intolerable even for the la-dee-dah types — pack up and move (ie, voting with their feet), leaving behind a big mess for others to clean up—assuming anyone is left behind who can clean things up.
^ And nothing more irritating then when people say the solution to the problem is giving more MORE! money to the school system, making the culture even MORE! progressive, making it even MORE! politically correct.
Mark (2fd21b) — 4/24/2016 @ 9:48 amThis one’s for nk:
Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6) — 4/24/2016 @ 2:43 pmMark (2fd21b) — 4/24/2016 @ 9:48 am
I hesitate to say it, but in that case what you really ought to be against is open housing laws. If you are going to engage in discrimination against whole classes of people, it ought to at least reflect sociological reality.
Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6) — 4/24/2016 @ 9:06 am
They are just about ALL home grown. People learn to become criminals growing up in the United States (most so called illegal alien criminals were brought to the U.S. as children), and they cannot be effective criminals if they come from somewhere else. The 9/11 hijackers had plenty, plenty of help – maybe from the Saudi Embassy, but from long timers in any case. In a few cases imported criminals they are part of a much larger U.S. based gang, because of special trust, in which case your problem is basically the gang, not the extra people they bring in, who are actually more detectable. Criminals usually stay very close to where they are unless chased away. They do not feel they can fuction in strange places.
Sammy Finkelman (a5988d) — 4/25/2016 @ 1:10 pm“There were no limitations on immigration from Latin America until 1965.”
That is true. Actually not until January 1, 1968. There was no quota, only the qualitative restrctions – no public charge = sponsorship and no job arranged in advance. There was also a small tax.
What evidently happened was, people who organized migration completely bypassed all procedures.
Sammy Finkelman (a5988d) — 4/25/2016 @ 1:14 pm