Well, the New York Times editorial board, that reliable abettor of all the liars, haters, and fantasists (AKA: Democrats) who detest the American South and lust to rewrite America’s history into party-serving fiction, has endorsed dumping Andrew Jackson in favor of rewarding a woman with his place on the twenty dollar bill.
So fundamentally important to the nation is this switch that the Board’s reputedly adult members have decided that the only group sober and knowledgeable enough to decide how to destroy another piece of American history and further persecute the South is “the nation’s schoolchildren” who should be made to “nominate and vote on Jackson’s replacement. Why not give them another reason to learn about women who altered history and make some history themselves by changing American currency?” Why of course, what geniuses! And, then, why not let these kids — who cannot figure out that the brim of baseball cap goes in the front — go on to decide other pressing national issues. Maybe they can replace General Washington on the $1 bill with a Muslim woman and thereby end America’s war with Islam. As the saying goes, you could not make this stuff up.
Now Andrew Jackson was not the most unblemished of men, but he risked his life repeatedly for his country; killed its enemies; expanded U.S. territory in North America; defeated the British at New Orleans; was twice elected president; and faced down — and was prepared to hang — the South Carolina nullifiers when he believed they were seeking to undermine and break the Union.
But Mr. Jackson is one of those Southern fellows, and so he is now a target for banishment from our currency and eventually our history because he did not treat slaves and Indians as if they were his equals and, indeed, inflicted pain on both. But he also was — along with Thomas Jefferson, another insensitive chap toward Blacks and Indians — the longtime icon of the Democratic Party and its great self-praising and fund-raising feast, the annual “Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner,” which was, of course, a fervent tribute to those that General Jackson would have hanged without blinking — southern fire-eaters like Robert Barnwell Rhett, William Lowndes Yancey, Edmund Ruffin, who, with the anti-slavery fanatics John Brown and William Lloyd Garrison, made sectional compromise impossible and so lit the fuse that led to a civil war that nearly destroyed the Union.
Andrew Jackson then is a sturdy obstacle to the Democrats’ ongoing and increasingly frenzied campaign to erase from America’s history all the unsavory things their party has championed for most of its existence; namely, slavery, secession, civil war, segregation, socialism, and, most recently the slaughter of infants. And so their longtime hero Andrew Jackson has been, as Sam Spade once said, chosen to take the fall alongside the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia to help erase the Democrats’ consistently reprehensible behavior and policies from the history books.
But there is a rub. None of the women the Democrats have so far raised as General Jackson’s replacement in any way merit representation in the pantheon of patriots, nation-builders, and military leaders that grace the few denominations of our paper currency. The names Harriet Tubman, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Margaret Sanger have been floated by the Democratic history-haters, but they are, at very best, bit players in the nation’s story, perhaps meriting, at most, another portrayal on a small-denomination postage stamp.
The only American woman deserving a place on U.S. paper currency is, of course, Anne Hutchinson, a devout 17th century Protestant New Englander who was a fearless champion of religious liberty, family, free speech, and equality — not preference — for women in religious affairs. Perhaps a new piece of currency could be created, one to which the attachment of her portrait would do honor.
Ms. Hutchinson, however, is out of contention in the Democrats’ virulent anti-Southern currency crusade because her character traits — and the fifteen children she had with one husband — just do not jive with being Modern Democratic Party Women, those who glory in, and seek legal, economic, and political preference for their talents in whining, vamping, aborting, as well as recognition for their indispensable and eagerly given help in making the United States one of the world’s industrial-scale producers of both pornography and the dismembered corpses of infants.
There may be something that can be done, however. The portrait of another Democratic icon named Woodrow Wilson now adorns the $100,000 bill, which appears to be to be used mainly in transactions between the Federal Reserve and the larger banks. Now, the Democrat Wilson was a dyed-in-the-wool bigot who as president tried to rid the national government of its few Black employees, save, of course, those who could be cooks, waiters, drivers, or fill other kinds of menial jobs. Wilson was, indeed, as great a bigot toward Blacks, as today’s Democratic president is toward whites, especially white males who see the need for bibles and rifles. (NB: Wilson also gave America two other enduring curses, the policies of starting unnecessary wars and ordering interventionist military campaigns to teach foreigners how “to elect good men.” Each policy is now firmly part of the foundation of both Democratic and Republican foreign policy, which is one reason why the United States is always at war. The Democrats also are zealous domestic interventionists, a tack they are now using to hammer the battle flag and Jackson as a way to neuter and shame the South and to please their subordinate and lapdog Black and feminist colonies.)
Surely in this enlightened age the Modern Democrat Party Women would support erasing Woodrow from the bill — if it pleases them, the engravers could dismember Wilson’s portrait — and replace him with the three portraits of Ms. Tubman, Mrs. Roosevelt, and Ms. Sanger. But the newly redecorated bill — and the one-dollar coin which is honored by the image of Sacajawea, the key guide for Lewis and Clark — would then have to sate the Democratic Party’s history-destroyers until Modern Democratic Party Women can produce, certainly in the far distant future, a female even remotely worthy of being considered in the same value-to-America discussion as Washington, Lincoln, Hamilton, Jackson, Grant, and Franklin.
But one problem remains. How can the conspiracy-minded Modern Democratic Party Women be assured that the switch was made? It is true that not many people would see the new bills and so some doubt might arise among the Democratic sisterhood about whether Wilson was really removed and then replaced on the bill by the three ladies named above.
There is only one sure-fire means of relieving the Modern Democratic Party Women of their doubts before the whining starts. That means is to have the Democratic National Committee direct its current icon, Hilary Clinton, to publicly report on who appears on the $100,000 note each time she and her husband receive a packet of those bills from one or another of the foreign governments for which they are apparently selling out American interests.
After all, if you cannot trust America’s graft-taker-in-chief, who can you trust?