Oppressed Armed Minority Woman Leads Hundreds to Freedom

Harriet Tubman

Courtesy Youtube

A new movie illustrates what most readers here have always known. That the gun is the single greatest tool for ensuring freedom and individual liberty ever invented (full trailer below).

On Tuesday, Focus Features released the first trailer for the upcoming film Harriet, a biopic about the gun-toting abolitionist Republican Harriet Tubman. A bona fide American hero, she escaped slavery, led dozens of fellow former slaves north to freedom on the Underground Railroad, helped John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry, and aided the Union Army as an armed scout and spy in the Civil War. She also campaigned for women’s suffrage.

– Tyler O’Neil in Inspiring Trailer for Movie About Gun-Toting Republican Harriet Tubman

 

 

harriet tubman currency design

Courtesy catholicvote.com

 

 

comments

  1. avatar GS650G says:

    Funny the left never mentio ms she was a gun toting Republican

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Saw this trailer yesterday. Hope it’s a good movie…no movie will be perfect and please everyone, but as long as it’s reasonably true to history and doesn’t push more LGBTQIA+ into my face, I’ll consider watching it.

      There’s a scene shown in which someone’s voice is heard speaking of the life-threatening danger Tubman was exposing herself to, as well as anyone who followed her to freedom. Yet she pursued liberty anyway. As I watched this, I was thinking “how many keyboard commandos among us would have the stones to do the same today, if things got bad enough?”

      I’m a bit torn on the whole put-her-on-the-currency thing. I’m not interested in seeing our bills changed any more, especially since all our bills and coins have undergone extensive remodeling over the past twenty years (the lone exception being the dime…please don’t touch that!…the quarter is a joke now).

      Perhaps update the Sacagewean dollar coin and make it the Tubman coin?

      1. avatar jwm says:

        I’d love to see her on the bill so long as they kept the revolver.

        1. avatar Art out West says:

          Put her on the $10 not the $20.

          Hamilton loved using debt to centralize political power, which resulted in the current monstrous enslavement of the American populace.

          Jackson did wrong to the Cherokee, but he did fight against the bankers, and fought for the American people. His battle against the bankers earned him his place in history (and on the $20).

          That is the reason the oligarchs want him forgotten.

        2. avatar Phil Wilson says:

          I remember some back-and-forth last time they were discussing changing bills, and Tubman was a candidate. Some lefty seemed to think that would be objectionable to Republicans because RACISM. But a gun-toting Republican who worked to free people from oppression by Democrats? What’s not to love about that?

        3. avatar Ing says:

          Yep. An armed woman on American currency would be the best thing ever.

      2. avatar Art out West says:

        “I haz a question”

        “push more LGBTQIA+ into my face”

        Don’t be naive.

        That is pretty much the point of Hollywood.

        The promotion of degeneracy is the Prime Directive

        1. avatar SurfGW says:

          It is suspected she was lesbian despite being married twice (to men). Very likely that Hollywood would work the LGBTQIA angle.

    2. avatar User1 says:

      Democrats don’t like to teach all history, they like to pick and choose. Democrats know more about the dark history of America than Republicans but they only have part of the truth. So they get angry and lash out against the wrong things and people because of the manipulation that was done to them at government schools.

      The Republicans don’t know how to counter the rage and misinformation to win over those Americans. Republicans just get defensive and egotistical, which makes them look like the people Democrats say they are. Essentially Democrats have manipulated the Republicans into becoming the people the Democrats need for them to be victorious.

      It’s like when you tell a kid he won’t be anything good in life when he grows up. That he will end up a criminal just like his daddy. Every year the same degrading and conditionally happens until the kid decides since they are treating him like a thug he might as well be a thug. Then the social engineers say, “I told you he was a criminal!”

    3. avatar historyishardz says:

      GS650 the parties platforms have totally traded places since the Civil War. So even though you are cheering on Republicans in name at the time they were the Democratic part of today.

      Do some simple research before posting and making us all look moronic. We must lose the stupid and uninformed if we are to triumph in the fight for our god given rights.

      1. avatar Ing says:

        Meh. Neither party bears any resemblance to what it was back then.

      2. avatar GS650G says:

        Thanks for the advice, Dad.

      3. avatar GS650G says:

        And God is spelled.with a capital G.

        1. avatar VicRattlehead says:

          Depends on whom you’re speaking of.
          I always capitalize when referring to THE God, lower case when referring to lesser ‘gods’.
          In the case of ‘God given rights’ though, you are correct: capital ‘G’. Anything else is an insult.

      4. avatar Tim says:

        “…..the parties platforms have totally traded places since the Civil War.”

        Yeah, I’m gonna need you to cite some coherent samples of that, perfesser.

      5. avatar Erik Weisz says:

        This just isn’t true. The voting blocks have changed, but the platforms are extremely similar to what they have been since reconstruction , particularly the dems – they’ve hardly changed at all.

      6. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

        That’s bullshit that is only pushed by the left trying to take credit for emancipation. Warts and all, the republicans are still the party of Lincoln and the dems were (are depending who you ask) the party of the KKK.

  2. avatar Missouri_Mule says:

    Free women and men may choose to bear arms for the defense of themselves and others.
    Slaves must ask permission.
    Freedom has no color, race, gender, sex or ethnicity.

    1. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

      ^This^

  3. avatar Shire-man says:

    Who doesn’t want to see an armed, strong, intelligent, black woman shooting Democrats?

    1. avatar Porridgeweasel says:

      Mmkay, I giggled. I admit it.

    2. avatar User1 says:

      Democrats? You mean the government?

      A lot of modern Republicans don’t want to see black people shooting up the government. They want you to follow the laws like a good law abiding person does. If the law said black people are property, then you must treat them as such. Respect the authority position. Lick the boot. Bend over. Jump when told. Walk off the cliff with the rest of them. It’s the law.

      Look at how the Black Panthers were treated and what the Republicans think of them today.

      If any black or Muslim person attacked the government for their unlawful/immoral behavior they would be considered horrible leftist terrorists scum by Republicans while Democrats think of them as patriots/heroes. Odd how that has flipped around.

      I find myself arguing more with Republicans than Democrats about corrupt big government. It’s a struggle to make Republicans understand our police state is bad, whereas with Democrats they are already chanting that it’s bad and has to go. I see Republicans calling for more government and arguing small government is just anarchy. Republicans say we can’t have anarchy/small government because someone strong will take over and do bad things. On the other hand, Democrats want to throw away government and live in a communist dreamland (as if communism isn’t big government). I have to argue with Republicans that illegally/immorally invading other people’s lands and occupying them is wrong. Democrats want to end all wars/conflicts and get rid of the colonies/bases. The Republicans fear monger by saying we will all die if we don’t proactively police the world, they consider a defensive military philosophy to be “isolationism” and self destruction by weak kneed cowards.

      1. avatar Geoff WWJWD - "What would John Wick do?" PR says:

        “A lot of modern Republicans don’t want to see black people shooting up the government. ”

        Well, you sure drank the Kool-Aid. What flavor was it, anyways? Grape?

        I’m conservative and I’ve been living here in the ‘Deep South’ (How deep? Atlanta, Georgia, considered the ‘Heart of Dixie’ is over *400* miles north of me) for over 35 years now.

        In all that time, I can’t recall more than maybe 3 people who have told me they didn’t like Blacks owning guns. That’s out of many hundreds of folks I’ve known over those years.

        Straight fucking truth. That you *seriously* believe a substantial percentage of Republicans don’t want armed Blacks is proof-fucking-positve you’re a bigot. And I bet a whole lot of your little Leftist buddies believe that as well.

        Thanks to you, I think I’ve finally figured out what the great divide is between the political Left and the Right –

        You’re convinced we are just as bigoted as you are, asshole..

        1. avatar User1 says:

          You, sir, are delusional. You see what you want to see and and project onto me. Then you call me a bigot when you (as defined in the dictionary) behave like a bigot.

          “A lot of modern Republicans don’t want to see black people shooting up the government.”

          Do you support the actions of black (former military) men that have killed cops because they believed the government is corrupt (aka the enemy) and they had to take up arms in defense of the people to fulfill their oath? Or do you think those men were BLM terrorists?

          Back in the day, after the Africans became free men, the governments passed gun control to stop blacks from arming up. This was universally supported by the people because they feared black Americans would retaliate against the white population for subjugating them, raping them and murdering their families. Prior to that, they supported disarming the “Indians” so they could conquer them.

          You have lived in Georgia longer than I have been on this Earth. Sounds like you are from the generation of fake ass conservatives that think someone like me is a lefty. You act like the typical old neo con who pretends to be a conservative for liberty.

          I am going to assume you are a proud white man due to how you have been triggered by my words. Why else would you freak out like that? Plus, white men who complain about being demonized for their race like to mention John Wick.

          Don’t forget that white men have taught non whites how to scapegoat problems onto another race and make them the enemy. However, in America, the non whites have legitimate grievances that European-Americans created and they are correct when they point their finger towards white supremacist policies and culture that made America as it is today. You can’t treat other races badly for hundreds of years then expect not to have any blowback come towards your race at a later time, which is why it’s best to genuinely acknowledge the wrongs and not excuse the behavior of the past, that way America can move on in peace sooner than later.

          If you don’t want black people to shoot up the place, stop acting like everyone that points out the truth is a bigot lefty commie. They could be a long time registered Republican and white male who voted for Trump.

        2. avatar Erik Weisz says:

          Found the commie.
          Pretty sure John Wick would just fucking shoot User1 already and be done with it.

  4. avatar million says:

    For all the parents: there’s a great historical children’s series called Nathan Hale’s (yes, the spy) Hazardous Tales. One book in the series is about Harriet Tubman and features her procuring and using her firearm. I highly recommend it. At one point during an “abduction” she threatens a couple of slaves who are considering turning around and heading back to the plantation.

    1. avatar daveinwyo says:

      Yes. The gun was to prevent exposure by a deserter, as much as for self defense.
      Will this movie show that?
      Or will it be more revisionist crap from hollywierd.
      Is the actress playing the lead a politically correct LGBTQWTF?

  5. avatar enuf says:

    [img]https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/06/15/us/politics/15dc-tubman1/044a95da8dad4d4db49094b9c3d93c0d-superJumbo.jpg[/img]

    1. avatar enuf says:

      https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/06/15/us/politics/15dc-tubman1/044a95da8dad4d4db49094b9c3d93c0d-superJumbo.jpg

      Okay so trying to use embed codes as in “Simple Machines” forum software doesn’t work here for embedding pictures.

      1. avatar Geoff WWJWD – "What would John Wick do?" PR says:

        I’d much rather the image on the new $20 bill be like the one at the top of this post. Gun in hand, with grim determination on her face. She was going to get her freedom, no matter what it took.

        But do know who would have the biggest problem with that?

        Leftist bigots like ‘User 1’ trolling TTAG.

        Dangerous freedom is something the Leftists cannot tolerate. It threatens their power…

  6. avatar pwrserge says:

    Given that she participated in an act of treason and terrorism by supporting Brown, she shouldn’t be on the $20. Especially when she’s replacing probably the most badass PotUS to ever live.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      Supporting John Brown was not the best move, but was only slightly ahead of its time, considering how the Confederacy started “The Southern War of Aggression To Save Slavery” barely 18 months later.

      She did do a hell of a lot of good freeing slaves before the war, during the war and did considerable service for the Union Army. Honoring her is appropriate.

      I would not remove Andrew Jackson from history though, nor from currency. I see no reason why we cannot have both of them on the $20 bill.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        … and Benedict Arnold was a great general before he turned his coat. Treason overrules any other prior or subsequent achievement

        1. avatar enuf says:

          For Arnold, hell yes. He betrayed his country over his feelings of being under-honored, it was entirely personal, all about his ego.

          That is not what Tubman or even Brown for that matter did. And unlike Arnold who turned against his country entirely and for the rest of his life, Tubman was on the right side of history.

        2. avatar Mike V says:

          I wouldn’t put the two in the same boat. Arnold was a hero…till he started killing patriots. Has a way of destroying your reputation.
          Not saying she should be on the currency, but I don’t necessarily think all treasonous acts are equal.

        3. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

          Endeavoring to overthrow a tyrannical government is not a crime in the ethical sense and really not even treason at all. Killing people you don’t have to in those efforts may be a crime though. Being monomaniacal is also problematic. However those faults were John Brown’s not Tubman’s.

        4. avatar Geoff WWJWD - "What would John Wick do?" PR says:

          “… and Benedict Arnold was a great general before he turned his coat.”

          Interesting trivia on that one –

          About a month back I was at the United States Military Academy at West, Point, New York, on the Hudson river for a family funeral. In the old Cadet’s Chapel (the new Cadet’s Chapel is nothing short of stunning, BTW) there are bronze plaques on the walls dedicated for each of the commanding Generals of the Revolutionary War.

          Well, almost. On the plaque originally created for General Benedict Arnold, the cadets at the USMA ground off his name on the plaque.

          Pic of how the plaque appears today :

          https://imgur.com/gallery/dDPQxni

          No more Benedict Arnold. *sob* 🙂

          Side note – I spent a few hours checking out the grounds at West Point, and seeing the museum there. The Academy grounds had numerous cannon seized over the years, and 13 links of the original blockade chain suspended between the banks of the Hudson. That place is *drenched* in history.

          The museum is *impressive*, having many artifacts from the various military campaigns over the years, from the Revolutionary war, through Desert Storm. From early muskets, to an example of the ‘Fat Man’ plutonium implosion bomb casing, built by the Los Alamos laboratory in case more than 2 bombs were required to force Japan’s surrender. Many other assorted artifacts, just a few are an example of a Gyro-Jet spin-stabilized gun and ammunition, one of Saddam Hussain’s gold-plated AK-47, and an example of a Girandoni air rifle, the original 30-round rapid-fire semi-automatic ‘Evil Assault Rifle’ the gun-grabbers say didn’t exist back then and bitch about so loudly today…

      2. avatar Chris Mallory says:

        Sorry, it was Lincoln and the Yankees who started the war.
        Tubman was a terrorist. So was John Brown. Brown was the first person in US history convicted of treason. Robert E. Lee led the US Marines who captured the terrorist Brown.

        The Republicans started as a big government, socialist, progressive party. They haven’t changed much and it is a shame the Democrats joined them when they elected Wilson.

        Jackson was our second greatest president. Only William Henry Harrison was better. Would that more presidents followed his example.

        1. avatar Swarf says:

          I notice you don’t mention slavery in your little diatribe about what a bunch of meanies the North were to the fine people of the South.

        2. avatar Manse Jolly says:

          The North started the war….oh we may have fired on Ft. Sumter and killed a donkey or horse but that certainly could not have led to 700,000 plus dead and wounded.

          The question remains, although some might considered it settled, Can those States that wish to leave the Union today? Right now.

          There is no slavery now…

          Don’t mean to hijack thread.

        3. avatar CWT says:

          If you believe it had anything to do with states rights you are sorely deluded. Money and power on both sides. Rich slave owners hoodwinked the yokels into dying for their pocketbooks.

        4. avatar Arc says:

          Oy, the north was all happy to let the south leave, Lincolns advisors even recommended that they peaceably leave. However, once the bean counters figured out the south would take with it around 1/3rd, 1/5th, some obscene amount of the economy and tax revenue, THEN, they changed their tune real quick. The north wanted to tax the south into oblivion and we were having none of it. Woe how history repeats its self. It only became a holy war to free the ‘slaves’ after the north war losing and the people wanted little to do with it.

          Abolitionists played very little role in the civil war but they get the most attention for some reason.

          Here is where I curb stomp someone’s toes. Blacks were much better off as slaves. Some were mistreated, but an uneducated man still cost as much as a used car in today’s dollars and you don’t buy a car and trash it. A slave that had a trade or skill can make you good money and its asinine to mistreat them. An uneducated female was worth 4-5x what a man was worth because she is born with tools for a trade and they were used. Of course it all depends on what part of the country you were in as to what the prices were.

          Slavery was a rich man’s game and the number of slave owners were very few compared to the general population. Abe’s emancipation proclamation didn’t free diddly squat because he wasn’t the president of the confederate states of America and his decrees only applied to the north. We would have been better off if America split into the USA and CSA, the leftists could have their utopia and the rest of us could wall them out.

          Within two consecutive democrat presidential victories, or election thefts since the owners of the voting machines are “trade secrets”, we will see secession again, or a civil war.

        5. avatar Geoff WWJWD - "What would John Wick do?" PR says:

          “Here is where I curb stomp someone’s toes. Blacks were much better off as slaves.”

          The only toes that need stomping are *yours*, ‘Arc’. (And your face 😉 )

          Are you buddies with Leftist bigot ‘User 1’, by any any chance?

        6. avatar jwm says:

          Geoff. I grew up in the civil rights days. I can remember signs saying ‘whites only’. The folks that said that ‘they were better off in slavery’ line, like my uncle, usually had bedsheets for weekend wear.

          It was glaringly stupid then, and is even more so now.

    2. avatar User1 says:

      Let’s not forget that the founders participated in general criminal acts, fake news, espionage and treason. They lied to, manipulated, murdered and stole from the loyalists. They tar and feathered government and committed other acts of terrorism. They behaved like sovereigns while still under the King’s orders.

      The difference is you like them… So you don’t take a different perspective on their actions. If you were loyal to Europe you would hate what the founders of the U.S. did.

      1. avatar Tim says:

        It’s fun listening to my 7 year-old attempt to explain to me how he thinks the world works.

        It’s tiresome when you do it.

  7. avatar enuf says:

    The new $20 would not have shown her carrying a gun, just a simple portait.

    Hard to say what that gun is in the photo, but it’s looking kind of hadn’t been invented yet when Tubman was smuggling slaves north and serving as a spy and guide to the Union Army.

    Even though the plate to print the bill has been ready since last year. Trump’s toadie Mnuchin has manufactured reasons to delay it until long after he’s done with a second term. At least until 2028.

    You see, Trump:
    A). Thinks she’s ugly, says maybe put her on the two dollar bill?
    B). Andrew Jackson is Trump’s favorite President.
    C). Has problems with women generally, let alone ugly uppity black ones.

    Republicans today are not the Republicans of Tubman’s time. But then neither are Democrats. For that matter, the two parties bear little resemblance to what they were during Ronald Reagan’s time.

    1. avatar Dude says:

      You have no sense of humor, do you?

      1. avatar enuf says:

        About Trump and his hatred of all that the United States of America stands for? Are you joking!?!?!?

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          “…and his hatred of all America stands for…”

          Um, okay.

        2. avatar Dude says:

          No sense of humor confirmed.

        3. avatar Enuf says:

          Nope, you completely missed it.

    2. avatar pwrserge says:

      Or maybe he doesn’t want co-conspirators to an act of treason against the United States to be on US money?

      1. avatar enuf says:

        Trump is ignorant of such things. All he knows is self-promotion.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Sure he is… That’s why he’s President and a billionaire and you’re here bitching about him on a random gun forum.

        2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          ^^ BOOM! ^^

          I’m not typically a fan of pwrserge, but that was the perfect comeback.

        3. avatar jwm says:

          Boo-yah. If hillary or bernie were knocking Tubman enuf would be cheerleading them. Another case of TDS.

    3. avatar enough of enuf says:

      Yes, Trump has long hated uppity black women, which is why Omarosa was prevented from getting anywhere in the Trump organization, and why people like Candace Owens, Diamond&Silk, and Alveda King hate him so much.

      1. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

        enuf is the new Vlad Tepes. Vlad and Pg2 have gone on vacation, so the vacuum must be filled somehow.

      2. avatar User1 says:

        I recall Omarosa was treated badly and was fired or quit. I remember her saying bad things about Trump.

        Candace is a Democrat profiteer who became a Republican to fool all the Trump supporters into supporting her. Hence why she works with Turning Point USA and the Christchurch shooter made jokes about her.

        There are a lot of black people that support Trump on social media just for the cash. They always talk positively of Trump and spin the bad things he does if they even mention any of it in the first place. I used to watch their stuff until it got too obvious they are mouth pieces for Trump and the establishment. It’s sad to see people are willing to sell themselves like that, especially so if they are minorities and/or women. It’s not a new thing: FOX used to hire “minorities” to read the Republican party’s scripts during Bush’s presidency just like Alex Jones does now.

        They even tried to use Kanye West for propaganda. Their scheming scared him away from the Republicans. Having Kanye would have been huge for the Republican party. He has so much influence with black America and the young black males respect him.

        1. avatar Geoff WWJWD - "What would John Wick do?" PR says:

          “There are a lot of black people that support Trump on social media just for the cash.”

          A bigoted Leftist racist like you would believe that, son… 😉

          Record low unemployment by Blacks under Trump, as well. It seems Obama couldn’t pull that off for his own folks..

  8. avatar former water walker says:

    Put her on the $20bill…who gives a sh#t what Trump thinks?!? He only likes pretty women(like his black ex-girlfriend). Sorry white boyz I think Jackson was an azzhole. Trail of Tears,slave owner and bigamist. Oh and John Brown had the right idea if poorly executed(irony intended).

    1. avatar Dave G. says:

      @ former water walker:
      +1 on Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill.
      +1 on Jackson was an asshole.
      Have to part company with you on John Brown; he was either crazy, stupid or both.

    2. avatar Victor says:

      +1 here too. I’d also say Jackson was an asshole.

      For a crowd that often talks of the Constitution, it’s weird hearing adulation of someone who wiped his ass with the separation of powers, forcibly suppressed dissenters, and was arrantly brazen in his lawlessness.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        “separation of powers” does not mean what you think it means. Judicial review effectively gives the SCotUS dictatorial powers over the legislative and executive branches with no practical recourse.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          No, ding dong. Read Article III. The Federal courts serve at the pleasure of Congress, and SCOTUS’s original constitutional purpose is simply to advise. Their decisions are still called “opinions” to this day. Congress may lawfully tell SCOTUS and all District Appeals Courts which cases/topics they are allowed to consider, if desired. They may also remove any Justice or disband any Court at any time. The Constitution doesn’t lay out the framework for the Federal Courts in specifics, it only requires that Congress creates and oversees one.

          Did you read that? “Creates”. The creature is never greater than its creator. Man does not tell God what to do, the Fed Gov does not rule the States in all things, and SCOTUS does not mandate Congress.

          In the infamous Marbury v. Madison, the Court simply told Congress it was on equal footing, and Congress didn’t slap the Court back into its place. We therefore have this same misconception of “three separate but equal” branches today.

          So what is SCOTUS’ original purpose? Think of it this way…Your neighborhood creates a charter that establishes your home, and provides you with rather simple guidelines, and establishes your household (the group of people who live there) as the authority. This charter also requires you to consult an advisor of your choosing if anyone within your neighborhood has an issue with what you’re doing. This could be a single person, or a group of nine people in black robes, or whatever. So if you build a nice white fence and someone complains to your advisor that it’s too high, that person’s job is nothing more than to consult the original charter to see if your household has violated it. Regardless of their opinion, they have no power over you except to report their opinion to the entire neighborhood. If you disregard the opinion and your neighbors feel you’re acting in violation of the charter, THEY are the ones who hold the final sway, and can vote your household out of power and give the title to another.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Except that’s not how judicial review has worked in practice for the last 200 years and you know it. At this point, basically any federal judge can decide to shut down any action by any government body at his whim for months if not years. Tell me more about how that follows with “coequal” branches of government.

        3. avatar Geoff WWJWD - "What would John Wick do?" PR says:

          “Congress may lawfully tell SCOTUS and all District Appeals Courts which cases/topics they are allowed to consider, if desired.”

          In what dream world do you live in? Cite your source, son…

        4. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          In the spirit of my analogy above, that’s like the advisor boldly telling you what to do in front of everyone, and you do what he says without question. That emboldens him to order you around the next time, and soon your own household follows suit and passively gives the advisor the false sense of power. Over time, as the members of your house – as well as people in your neighborhood – pass away and new generations come into the picture, this false power balance is believed to be the norm and anyone who questions it is ridiculed.

          All it takes is for someone in prominence to go back to the original charter and spend the whopping 15 minutes necessary to read the darn thing, then bring it to the attention of you and your household with a commanding tone for the whole neighborhood to hear.

          The way things have progressed, SCOTUS has surpassed even the false “separate but equal” paradigm and now assumes it has not only lifetime appointments (not true in the slightest), but the power to boss Congress around. It most assuredly does not, and if any of the Signers could see us today, he’d be throwing his powdered wig out the window in frustration of how we’ve allowed the Fed Gov to become so mangled.

        5. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “Judicial review effectively gives the SCotUS dictatorial powers over the legislative and executive branches with no practical recourse.”

          Spot on.

          http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html

        6. avatar Dave G. says:

          @ pwrserge
          I think he meant “Checks and Balances.” It’s common for people to confuse the two, and the confusion is understandable.

    3. avatar Art out West says:

      Jackson was an azzhole, but was also a great President. He fought the bankers, instead of dancing for their nickels (like most other Presidents).

      Jackson fought for the common Americans, and screwed over the bankers (and the Cherokee).

      Most other Presidents fought for their Wall Street masters, and screwed over the common man.

      1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

        Yes, he fought the bankers and successfully prevented decades of wealth building in the US economy.

        (s) Woo. (/s)

    4. avatar pwrserge says:

      Jackson was easily one of the top 5 presidents of all time. You might not like his policies, but he put the judicial branch in their place as arbiters of LAW not dictators of public policy. I despise the modern trend towards judicial activism where the federal courts think that they have absolute authority to override elected officials when they act strictly within the bounds of their authority under the CotUS. (See: the national injunctions on the “muslim ban”) While the laws themselves are subject to judicial review, the motives for executive actions are not. The anti-citizenship question ruling was a blatant case of the federal courts denying the PotUS his legitimate executive authority just because they didn’t like the motives for exercising that authority.

      1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

        “…The anti-citizenship question ruling was a blatant case of the federal courts denying the PotUS his legitimate executive authority just because they didn’t like the motives for exercising that authority…”

        Exactly what happened. Spot on.

  9. avatar daveinwyo says:

    The picture of the bill above bears an uncanny resemblance to our favorite muzzy congress critter.
    And, NO, I do not support this change to our currency.
    Maybe a statue next to the MLK jr statue in DC. Or a replacement thereof.

    1. avatar User1 says:

      It’s not even your currency. It’s the Federal Reserve’s note of debt. The bankers own the U.S. dollar and control it. Congress has given away their responsibility to private bankers.

  10. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

    but then we’ll be stuck with oprah, michelle and whoopie.
    with concessions for mahalia, aretha, diana, etta and koko.

    1. avatar daveinwyo says:

      Perhaps we could do to pennies what was done to quarters, a new face each year.
      BTW. I don’t accept pennies at the store. I leave ’em in the change cup as obama change.

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        pre-1982 copper pennies in good condition (not too many of those floating around anymore) go into a jar for safekeeping. All others get saved into a different jar destined for Coinstar (choose an egift card and you’ll never pay for fees). Every single time I see an Obama penny, I’m reminded of when he referred to himself as “the modern day Lincoln”, which makes me choke back the vomit and want to get rid of them as quickly as possible.

        The 50-state quarter program was actually a cool idea, and educational. But it was supposed to sunset in 2008. Instead, we got more quarters with every imaginable territory, province, National Park, etc. that has turned that denomination into a joke.

        Revisit Bretton Woods, reset our currency, and bring back 90% silver coins. And stop remodeling our coins…go back to the classic designs and leave them alone.

  11. avatar William Matthews says:

    …Democrats hardest hit

  12. avatar Username says:

    “Oppressed Armed Minority Woman Holds Up Fast Food Restaurant Over Cold French Fries – Amusing Hundreds”

    Fixed it for you

  13. avatar Shiffrod says:

    Nice to see the trailer here. I worked on this film. It was filmed in VA.

  14. avatar Ralph says:

    Who’s going to be pictured on the new three dollar bill? I’m voting for Kevin Spacey.

  15. avatar B.D. says:

    Things to note:

    REPUBLICAN Harriet Tubman.

  16. avatar blameblamewhatever says:

    Looks like a great film.

    It’s very annoying to hear the unnecessary “gun clicks” when all someone does is point a rifle or pistol at a target. Almost as bad as revolvers making shotgun pump action sounds when they’re pointed at someone. Hollywood needs a new gun sound revolution.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Or better…another hammer-back *click* or pump-rack every time the character enters another room or turns around to confront a new enemy, even though no rounds have yet been fired. Especially when he’s holding a Glock.

  17. avatar *keep yur paws off my dead guy" possum says:

    The gunm does not ensure freedom. It’s what’s in the heart.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      True, but it sure does speed up the process.

  18. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

    “A new movie illustrates what most readers here have always known. That the gun is the single greatest tool for ensuring freedom and individual liberty ever invented.”

    It’s good that a movie like this will be shown to an audience that has oppressed not only black people through slavery but also the indigenous peoples who were victims of white genocide. Although TTAG focuses on the “gun” as the liberating principle here, the fact is that it took a people who were pushed to their limits physically and spiritually to fight back with everything they had – and that included guns. It is the spirit of an oppressed people that has brought us to this stage of history. Kamala is the new “Harriet”. She will not need guns to fight the oppression of the many black, indigenous, and immigrant people who have systematically been oppressed from day one. We outnumber the right racists by 10 to 1.

    1. avatar Geoff WWJWD - "What would John Wick do?" PR says:

      “We outnumber the right racists by 10 to 1.”

      ‘Vlad’ lad, I dedicate this song for *you* :

    2. avatar jwm says:

      kamala isn’t a wart on Tubman’s ass. I wouldn’t expect a racist like you to know that. After this election season she’ll be back to turning tricks with the ofwg’s in the dem party.

    3. avatar CLarson says:

      LOL! Harriet Tubman likely would have shot Kamala’s ancestors if they had ever met face to face. Kamala has no Black American ancestry, her ancestors were from India and Jamaica and her Jamaican ancestors owned a slave plantation. 🤡

  19. avatar John Boch says:

    A movie I *might* actually go see in the theaters.

    But I’ll wait to see some reviews first, just to make sure it’s not a corrupted SJW production.

  20. avatar Chris Morton says:

    The Marxists hated “Defiance” because it showed Jews arming themselves and fighting back against the Nazis.

    I fully expect the same kind of criticism of this movie.

  21. avatar former water walker says:

    Oh they’ll SJW Tubman. How could they NOT?!? Funny but Black Panther had comparatively little SJW BS. And black folks showed up in droves😏

    1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

      Funny how that works when you make a really fun to watch movie. The director knew he didn’t need anything to preach about.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email