An historical audit of the evolution of the “Democratic” Party reveals its use of force or terror over time that demonstrates a pattern of the blatant denial of terror tactics, a “reinterpretation” of flagrant acts of terrorism, as well as the outright use of terror for political gains.
SAN JOSE, CA, Dec. 17, 2016 — President Barack Obama’s final foreign policy speech last week focused primarily on a defense of his overall efforts in fighting the War on Terror, but his actual words, in light of the more blatant and brutal terrorist attacks on American soil, truly ring hollow. It is difficult to deny the reality of Americans killed in highly publicized terrorist attacks such as the shooting at the Soldier Readiness Center at Fort Hood in 2009, the Boston Marathon bombings, the Washington Navy Yard shooting in Washington D.C., the horror of the holiday party shooting in San Bernadino, California, or the massacre at the nightclub in Orlando, Florida.
More recently the brutal attacks at Ohio State University in Ohio, continue to bring the reality home that most U.S. citizens are far less safe now than prior to the sinister atrocities on 9/11 in 2001. Yet, the president and the “Democratic” Party want to portray the notion that the Obama Administration has done well in preventing such deadly attacks on American soil. However, actual historical facts reveal undeniable events that counter the feeble claims, so why are such claims even made? Essentially, the unvarnished history of the “Democratic” Party provides the answer.
An historical audit of the evolution of the “Democratic” Party reveals its use of force or terror over time that demonstrates a pattern of the blatant denial of terror tactics, a “reinterpretation” of flagrant acts of terrorism, as well as the outright use of terror for political gains. From the inception of the “Democratic” Party under President Andrew Jackson, official government policy was directed to sanction or source the usage of force or terror against specific political targets. Jackson, the old Indian fighter, was willing to use military force against the Civilized Tribes of American Indians as they were physically removed from their ancestral homelands in the Southeast. Jackson claimed that it was for “their own good.” And, Democrats got away with it.
In 1988, historian Eric Foner published a book entitled, Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863–1877, in which he described the Klan as:
a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired restoration of white supremacy. Its purposes were political, but political in the broadest sense, for it sought to affect power relations, both public and private, throughout Southern society. It aimed to reverse the interlocking changes sweeping over the South during Reconstruction: to destroy the Republican party’s infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life.
Southern Democrats in the late 1800s denied the Klan’s existence, and as Radical Republicans in Congress held official congressional hearings regarding such obstructionist and extreme violent tactics of the Klan, there was no success in getting to the truth regarding the “reign of terror” that was directed against Republican leaders both white and black. It was about as successful an outcome as Trey Gowdy’s efforts to get to the truth of Hillary Clinton’s involvement in Benghazi.
Actually, the Klan quickly became so successful that it was able to rapidly spread into nearly every southern state. It also proved successful in thwarting efforts to foster better education among the former slaves, as well as stifling their economic success, and denying blacks their rights to vote in state and local elections. All the while, the propaganda of the Klan spewed out lies that they were truly supporting American ideals and Christian values. However, the Klan was seriously exposed during the time of the Civil Rights movement as a violent terrorist arm of the “Democratic” Party of the southern white power structure.
Over time the Klan has gone through at least three recognizable periods of development, but it does still exist today as a source of white supremacist dogma, yet more as a fringe group that has been genuinely marginalized in contemporary society. And, despite the embarrassment of many contemporary Democrats, and an attempt to distance themselves as far as possible from the days of the Party’s terrorist tactics of the KKK, the memory is hard to shake as the Klan crept forward into the present, and its “fingerprints” are all over events in American history – even at the heart of the U.S. government, and upon laws observed even today.
Such a foundation of terror and violence can explain a great deal about the “Democratic” Party of the 21st century. Over time, other avenues of advancement and political development were utilized, and most have been legitimate efforts of garnering political power, but old habits are quite difficult to break – even for political parties.Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2016 Communities Digital News
This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.
Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.