[ Holy crap, bill-11b. I’m disappointed in you.
Tubman helped people oppressed by slavery to escape to the north, a key figure in the underground railroad. She is an American hero and a champion of the cause of freedom. And yet you say that choosing her is “pandering”. Well, I don’t care if it’s pandering or not. It’s a good choice. I’m not going to complain just because she’s a black woman. That would actually be racist.
Also by your logic about morality, and having wars to conquer new territory, then I suppose today the US could declare war on Canada, and if we won then that would be ok. If might makes right then there is no such thing as morality because you have the right to do whatever you want as long as you can get away with it. You really don’t want to follow what you have said to its logical conclusion. I guess you don’t believe in unalienable rights. Or I guess if I can extort some free crap out of you then that’s my right. And you call yourself a conservative.
Frankly I’m disgusted. ]

What protects our right to free speech? A loving government that just LOOOOVES having citizens speak out against it?

What protects our right to trial by jury? Just because it’s a neat idea on a piece of paper?

NO. The threat of citizen violence against the government via the second amendment is the only thing that prevents that government from trampling our rights.

Look at how much regulation the government does of our daily lives. We don’t do anything about besides vote, and when that doesn’t work, what are our options? Accept the status quo, or grab the pitchfork and musket. Thus far we’ve accepted the status quo.

But the only reason the BoR still exists is because “the people” have the collective threat of violence on our side to prevent the government from burning the constitution and doing whatever they want to us.

As for invading Canada, yes. If we as a people decide thats what we want to do, then we should. They have in their own rights to fight back, and if they win, guess what? We’ll likely lose land and have to pay some sort of war reparation. If we win, we get their land. That is literally how war works.

As for Tubman, why does Jackson NEED to be replaced at all?

Putting a black woman in his place is blatant pandering.

If the treasury said “We’re looking into making a $25 note, and we’ll be going with Harriet Tubman” then that’s great, go for it.

But to erase one of the nation’s founders, and in his place put a racially and sexually pandering figure, is progressive politics at it’s finest.

I don’t understand how people don’t see that for what it is.