The three presidents at the center of America’s insurrections
SAN JOSE, March 7, 2017 – It is quite clear that the Democrats are waging a battle against President Donald Trump and his cabinet appointments. It has also become increasingly clear that former president Barack Obama is at the core of an insurrection against the foundations of the United States of America.
Last Tuesday Obama’s former Attorney General Loretta Lynch called for demonstrations and violence including the shedding of blood, offering a feeble comparison of this modern insurrection to America’s founders who fought and died for freedom.
It is possible she read the wrong history book, one written by Progressive revisionists, that distorts the reality of the fight for freedom in America with a Marxist-oriented interpretation of reality.
In the wake of recent efforts to force current Trump Attorney General Jeff Session to resign, Washington Times Editor Emeritus Wes Pruden, published “On the eve of the insurrection,” in which he quotes Benjamin Franklin saying
“We must indeed all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.”
Mr. Pruden warns that fellow Republicans in Congress may want to heed the advice Ben Franklin offered his fellow conspirators in Philadelphia.
It is also Franklin who originated the popular “Unite or Die” slogan used during the French and Indian War and the War for Independence.
Mr. Pruden writes:
“The Democrats call their scorched-earth attacks on the new president “the resistance.” But it is accurately described as “an insurrection.” They’re determined to destroy a duly elected president of the United States, by resignation or impeachment if they can, and if that doesn’t work, maybe something more sinister will be employed. We’ve never before seen anything like this. We’re sailing in uncharted water.”
Modern day Americans are witnessing an insurrection that goes beyond the simple intent to remove President Trump from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Its aim is the destruction of the United States, as we know it.
For some Democrats interfering with pro-Trump rallies around the nation this past weekend, Lynch’s call to insurrection was a green light for violence, as numerous anti-Trump rioters attacked Trump supporters and blood was spilled.
Mr. Pruden is correct in saying that Americans are witnessing a Democrat insurrection. However, Mr. Pruden is only technically correct in the rest of his statement:
“Americans living today have not seen anything like a contemporary political party so vehemently upset over losing an election, and willing to launch an “insurrection” against a sitting president.”
We have seen such vicious political protests twice before in America’s history. The first occurred when Andrew Jackson lost his bid against John Quincy Adams to become the 6th president of the United States in 1824, and the second transpired when the Republican Party nominated Abraham Lincoln to run for President and he won (March 4, 1861 – April 15, 1865.)
History reveals how “Democratic” Party leaders can be horrid when they lose elections they view as a serious threat to their future success, if not survival.
Tennessee Democrat Andrew Jackson, the great grandaddy of the modern Democrats, was so embittered with the results of the 1824 election—decided by the House—that he called Henry Clay the “Judas of the West,” because of the “corrupt bargain” he made that permitted Federalist John Quincy Adams (March 4, 1825 – March 4, 1829) to become President.
Earlier, in the first quarter of the 19th century, the Democratic-Republican Party of Thomas Jefferson dominated the game of politics.
Remarkably, our 5th president, James Monroe (March 4, 1817 – March 4, 1825) had no opposition party to contend with when he ran for re-election on the Democrat-Republican party in 1820. Despite his party’s inability to agree on a candidate for the upcoming elections, Monroe refused to run for a third term.
Out of the five candidates that ran for president in 1824, all of them were Democratic-Republicans due to disunity within the ranks.
Ironically, after the election results were tallied, none of the candidates had received a majority of electoral votes and the final decision, as stated in the Twelfth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, became the responsibility of the House of Representatives, viewed as a closer approximation of the voice of the people.
The House would consider the three candidates with the most votes among them. Henry Clay (KY) was the fourth place candidate, and thus was taken off the House election ballot, leaving the race to Jackson, Adams and William H. Crawford of Georgia, who served as Secretary of the Treasury under Monroe (1772–1834) .
Clay detested Andrew Jackson for a number of reasons but found harmony with the current Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams. History records that the so-called “Corrupt Bargain” made was the agreement between Clay and Adams that Clay would transfer any of his “potential” electoral votes to Adams. The charge by Jackson’s supporters was that Adams secretly agreed to appoint Clay as the next Secretary of State if he were elected.
Andrew Jackson was angry following the results of this first U.S. election that was determined in the House. He called Clay the “Judas of the West,” as people in that day looked upon the new states east of the original thirteen as the “West.” The loss left Jackson unhinged, and the senator from Tennessee swore he would make life hell and full of misery for Clay and President Adams in the following four years.
Jackson kept his promise.
Once sworn in, Adams had to face the wrath of the Jacksonians in Congress as they blocked most of his efforts for helping to fortify the nation’s infrastructure. Adams had wanted to provide federal funding to build an interstate system of roads and canals as well as the building of a national university.
Adams and Jackson were men totally different in many ways, and each rejected the other’s political beliefs. John Quincy Adams, the son of President John Adams was a northerner and ahead of his time in believing in and supporting the abolition of slavery, while Jackson was a large plantation owner who owned many slaves.
Adams believed in the rights of the American Indians to own their ancestral homelands, while Jackson, elected in his own right as President in 1828, ushered through Congress the controversial Indian Removal Act that forced Indians of the Southeast off of their own lands.
The two elections in 1824 and in 1828 revealed the change of direction toward which the nation was heading, and Southern Democrats would spread their increasing dominance throughout the nation from this pivotal point in history.
The second major twist in U.S. history occurred when the Democrats lost to the Republican Party’s candidate Abraham Lincoln in the election of 1860.
The Democrast party reacted to the Republican’s presidential victory in such an extraordinary way that it forged a new path in American history, leading to the American Civil War.
Then, as now, after losing the election of 1860, Democrat leaders in what became the Confederate States preferred, illegally, to separate or secede from the Union. They seized the initiative to create an alternative government that fundamentally rejected the ideals and values in the Declaration of Independence to be able to retain a presumed “right” to own human beings as private property.
Contemporary Democrats do not accept this view of their Party’s role in provoking the Civil War, but facts are tough things to dispute. Southern Democrats of that period wished to preserve the privileged status they had enjoyed, even if it meant a violent end to the United States of America.
Americans are currently witnessing a similar reality, which is only the latest installment of Democrat-led insurrection. At some point, all true Americans may realize that the “Democratic” Party is not a party of choice, but a party of force, which several times has shown its clear preference for choosing violent force over the democratic ballot.