Indian removal, 1830-1835 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears
UPDATE 3/16/2017 – Apparently I am not the only one who thought of the Andrew Jackson angle. See Robert Barnes: Trump Could ‘Go Full Andrew Jackson’ and Ignore Interference from Activist Judges.
Andrew Jackson is hardly one of my favorite people. But his very existence refutes everything modern intellectual liberals “say” about what our country “is” whether you like Jackson or note, because he is in fact part of history, and along with a lot of other people did things in direct contravention of the liberal view, so much so that the preponderance of the constituent history of the USA has to be judged to be anti-liberal, anti-diversity, and totally discriminatory as to who is allowed to live within its borders. Any recent counter-trend is just a blip in a long historical trend the other way.
Trump has called Jackson a “flawed and imperfect man” but in the same speech praised him for confronting and defying an arrogant elite. So I guess the $20 will keep Jackson’s picture. Jackson’s most famous fights were with the 2nd Bank of the US, and in opposing a Supreme Court decision protecting the rights of the Cherokee in Georgia. He famously said of the chief justice, “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”
I disagree with Jackson on both counts. But with goings on like this, the liberals simply can’t be right about the essence of America. Even if I agreed with them, I’d have to admit this “fact.” And it continued even after the Civil War. In 1875 Congress passed a civil rights act forbidding discrimination by places of public accommodation, but in 1883 the Supreme Court struck it down.
A Federal Court in Hawaii has just struck down (or “blocked,” if there is any difference) the 2nd Trump executive order on immigration. If you have read any of my recent blogs, you know I think there is constitutional grounds for discriminating against Islam, and not just on the basis of screening terrorists. Maybe it is time to take the Jackson approach, to specifically cite Jackson, and direct the US Customs and Border Protection to carry on with the ban.
Is my view radical? Only relative to the liberal globalists who want no borders and no USA, just a monolithic one-world socialist melting pot with themselves at the top and everyone else their slaves. I am dead center in American history, which has fought much less justified wars to settle borders and expel anyone who wasn’t fitting in.
Do I advocate expelling Muslims? Of course. Their holy book advocates killing any non-Muslims. This is entirely treasonous. If you don’t believe this (I have friends who don’t), read the Quran for yourself. Could this be successful? Historically it has been one of the most successful things ever done. Simply ask them to renounce the objectionable verses, or convert to another faith. See previous post on a country that did this successfully.