SAN JOSE, January 20, 2017 – The inauguration of President-elect Donald J. Trump is now not just another inaugural event with the address of the duly elected president, because the Democrats have determined to agitate, to cast doubt, to instill fear in the American people for having elected Donald Trump. The Democrat leadership, from Barack and Michelle Obama on down through the hierarchy of tyrannically-correct politicians, media elites, and hollywood hypocrites, has declared all out opposition to the Trump presidency. This truly means an all out attack on all fronts – meaning even hard-core, paid rioters that are determined to foment chaos on the day in which the new president of the United States is sworn into office under the directives of the Constitution.
It is quite an amazing collective reaction that has unfolded in the days leading up to Donald Trump’s inauguration: Elected Democrat representatives vowed to boycott the inauguration, media moguls at CNN and other media corporations have cast fear over the entire array of inaugural events with drone scares and hypothetical narratives regarding an assassination of Donald Trump. Also, a number of reports indicate that there are massive anti-Trump marches, demonstrations, and even violent riots planned for D.C. inauguration events. Much of the effort to “crash the party” that the Trump team is planning for the inauguration seems to be originating from serious Democrat operatives, but some of the plans being reported run well beyond displeasure over losing the 2016 election — they touch on treason!
Some of what is reportedly set to occur, Americans may have already witnessed during the days of the presidential campaign. As the campaign rhetoric of the opposing presidential candidates heated up last summer, so did the emotions of those who viewed Donald Trump as a serious threat to their entrenched power over the people of the United States, as well as those who want to seize power over the people. In any case, the rioting in various cities over the summer, may have simply been practice as Leftist thugs and rent-a-rioters disrupted many Trump rallies, and violently attacked innocent civilians.
Only once before in the history of the American political arena has one political party refused to concede the results of a legally conducted election.
With the outcome of the election of 1860, as Abraham Lincoln was elected president, the same political party that is in denial now reacted in a very negative way, and came up with plans to exercise their secessionist threats that had enabled the Democrats to hold onto their power in the Deep South for decades. The Democrats lost the presidential election in 1860, and instead of accepting the results of the election, Democrats engaged in the process of secession. Yet in fact, it represented an attempt to destroy the Constitution and establish an alternative government in the southern states to retain the “right” to own human beings as private property.
Southern Democrats rejected the legitimate election results, and created their own version of a new nation called the Confederate States of America. It represented a very real attempt to bring an end to the United States as it was previously established. This is still a source of confusion for many people and is still controversial today. In essence, the conception and principles at the core of the Confederate States of America originated from a political philosophy antithetical to the causes for which the United States of America had been founded – antithetical to the values represented in the Declaration of Independence.
Freedom for those in the elitist white southern power structure was understood to be only for the white race, and the ideals of freedom were openly disputed and not considered to be applicable to blacks or Indians, or whomever threatened that white power structure. This power base had existed before the creation of the nation – at least 160 years – as early as the development of colonial Jamestown, Virginia, in the mid-1600s. The conditions in the South were conducive for labor intensive farming, and slavery proved to be an economic institution extremely beneficial to the large plantation owners, and eventually the political party of choice for slave owners eventually became the Jacksonian Democrats.
Ironically, the great grandaddy of the Democrat Party also had serious problems accepting the results of his first attempt at becoming president of the United States in 1824. He refused to accept that John Quincy Adams had defeated him in the presidential election that year, and he vowed he would get even with Adams and those who supported him. Since Jackson stayed in the Senate after the election, he vowed solemnly to make Adams’ presidency miserable throughout his four-year term, and he did. Additionally, after the 1860 election, the party of Jackson determined to reject the vote of the American people, and as a result, they violated the U.S. Constitution. Their treason led directly to the American Civil War.
An historical audit of the evolution of the “Democratic” Party reveals its use of force to obtain political objectives, or to retain political power. For example, from the inception of the new “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, he got away with it.
Historically, the Party has proven itself comfortable with the blatant use of force in the form of terror or violence, either overtly, as in the case of President Andrew Jackson using the United States Army to force American Indians off their ancestral lands, or the instigation of the American Civil War, or covertly through the efforts of a white southern power structure of defeated Democrats via the Ku Klux Klan, or even more insidious and deadly efforts in the attempted coup to overthrow the U.S. government less than a week after Robert E. Lee surrendered his command of the Confederate forces at Appomattox. Lincoln lost his life in that moment, but the Democrat charade of an alternative government was destroyed. Such insanity should never be repeated.
In the same time period, the undeniable use of brutal force was utilized in the slave empire of the Deep South as a “natural” way to maintain control over human beings that were not accepted as fully human. After the Civil War had left the Confederacy broken and crippled, the Democrats needed a way to adapt to the military control of the Union Army over the state governments in the Old South during Reconstruction. The answer to the dilemma of maintaining a degree of political control was the creation of a terrorist organization called the Ku Klux Klan created on December 24, 1865. An extremely secretive and self-protective organization, the purpose of the “Invisible Empire of the South“ was aimed at protecting and perpetuating the old white power structure the Democrats had forged before their transformation into the Confederate States of America.
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 black and white. 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 Democrat 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 of the contemporary Democrats, and an attempt to distance themselves as far as possible from the days of the Party’s use of terrorist tactics, the memory is hard to shake.
Historically, other Democrats have been more comfortable with the connections forged between Big Labor and the “Democratic” Party in the late 1800s, despite the violence-riddled strikes of the time. Labor unions easily linked with the Democrats due to a perception that the Party was always supportive of and a defender of the rights of the “working man.” Nevertheless, under Democratic President Grover Cleveland, a labor strike involving extreme violence and bloodshed, led to a serious confrontation between the American Railway Union and the federal government, and it almost derailed a budding relationship between the Party and their most favored voters.
Such insanity should never be repeated.