From the Archives: Donald Trump Was Absolutely Right About Andrew Jackson--But It's Not About the Civil War: It's About Korea

May, 2017:

President Trump: "I mean had Andrew Jackson been a little bit later you wouldn't have had the Civil War. He was a very tough person, but he had a big heart. He was really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War, he said 'There's no reason for this.' People don't realize, you know, the Civil War, if you think about it, why? People don't ask that question, but why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?"

The Usual Pants-Wetters all went wild. And wet. They started lecturing Trump on history, misquoting him, accusing him of being pro-slavery, twisting his words, making worst-case assumptions, blahblahblah. In short, they went full "Last Night in Sweden" on him. So predictable. So pathetic.

These are the same nuts that screamed about Trump's Loyalty Day Proclamation yesterday as the Coming of New Third Reich!!!!!--until they learned Obama also issued a Loyalty Day Proclamation last year.

They don't even know history from a year ago, let alone from ante-bellum America.

Wikipedia:

"Jackson sent U.S. Navy warships to Charleston harbor, and threatened to hang any man who worked to support nullification or secession.

In December 1832, Jackson issued a resounding proclamation against the "nullifiers", stating that he considered "the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed".

South Carolina, the President declared, stood on "the brink of insurrection and treason", and he appealed to the people of the state to reassert their allegiance to that Union for which their ancestors had fought. Jackson also denied the right of secession: "The Constitution ... forms a government not a league ... To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union is to say that the United States is not a nation."

Jackson asked Congress to pass a "Force Bill" explicitly authorizing the use of military force...The Force Bill became moot because it was no longer needed. On May 1, 1833, Jackson wrote, "the tariff was only the pretext, and disunion and southern confederacy the real object. The next pretext [for secession] will be the negro, or slavery question."

If I were you, I would not mention 'Sanctuary Cities' around the General.

President Trump got his history right on the money. But how about his analysis?

The liberal historians disputing Trump all place President James Buchanan at the bottom of their presidential ratings. Why? Because he had no vision and exhibited no leadership to resolve the Slavery Issue and stop the nation's drift into war. But why fault him if war was inevitable?

In other words, they agree with Trump! He says Jackson's vision of Union FIRST and strong leadership could have made the difference--the difference they all fault Buchanan for failing to make!

Buchanan was indeed The Worst President in History...until Carter. And then Obama. And by Lefty standards, our first Woman President, despite claims by Pantsuit Nixon. Jackson referred to the transgendered Buchanan as "Aunt Fancy".

BTW, despite his flaws, Andy Jackson did more to save America at New Orleans than any of his modern armchair critics, who rail from the safe perch he helped create and provide.

Speaking of Hillary, she just emerged from her East German Prison Matron's Office to tell Christiane Amanpour that she had solved the Korean Crisis, and she would be glad to tell us for a six-figure donation. Just kidding. Seven figures.

Even though she's been around Washington since they fired her from the Watergate Committee, she was too busy taking bribes at the Foundation to bother with it until now. You've helped enough, Ma Barker.

She won't ask it, and the Know-It-All Media won't ask it and the Liberal Historians won't ask it--their combined wisdom got us into this mess. It never even occurs to them to ask:

Why is President Trump posing all these historical questions, anyway?

Maybe because he's dealing with a country that is split North against South, that could explode into war with massive casualties, where the previous American president was a visionless weakling and a country where presidential vision and strength are desperately needed now: Korea. 

And not only are North Koreans enslaved as a whole, the regime holds hundreds of thousands of actual slaves in forced labor camps.

You would think they would be glad that a president was thinking about ways to solve these issues without a massive war, but alas, no.

With so much at stake, all their Trumphausen Dementia will allow are endless cheap shots, childish smears and foaming at the mouth.

So don't forget to use the potty before bedtime, kiddies. Or just wear the damn diaper and be done with it.

Bad History-UPDATE: There was indeed some #FakeHistory spewed out the other day

--it was Crooked Hillary's recitation of her husband's disastrous Nuclear Deal with North Korea, which she tried to blame on George W. Bush:

CLINTON: Now, the North Koreans are always interested. Not just Kim Jong-un, but his father before him were always interested in trying to get Americans to come to negotiate, to elevate their status and their position. We should be very careful about giving that away. You should not offer that in the absence of a broader strategic framework to try to get China, Japan, Russia, South Korea to put the kind of pressure on the regime that will finally bring them to the negotiating table with some kind of realistic prospect for change. As Christiane said, there was a negotiation in the '90s that put an end to one aspect of their nuclear program. Two ways to make it, plutonium, uranium -- shut down the plutonium. And then, a few years later, there was evidence that they were cheating. And I think that there was -- and I've said this publicly before -- I think the Bush administration erred in saying they're cheaters, now we're not going to do anything. They should have said you're cheating, back to the negotiating table, now we're going to shut down your uranium program. But because they withdrew from any kind of negotiations, the uranium program started up. So negotiations are critical, but they have to be part of a broader strategy, not just thrown out on a tweet some morning that, hey, let's get together and see if we can't get along. And maybe we can, you know -- (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE) -- come up with some sort of a deal. That doesn't work. 
AMANPOUR: Did the Syria strike work?  

CLINTON: I think it's too soon to really tell. 
AMANPOUR: Did you support it? 
CLINTON: Yes, I did support it. I didn't publicly support it because there was, you know, that wasn't my role, but I did support it. But I am not convinced that it really made much of a difference. And I don't know what kind of potentially, you know, backroom deals were made with the Russians. I mean, we later learned that the Russians and the Syrians moved jets off the runway, that the Russians may have been given a heads up before our own Congress was." 

CintonHistory: Bush screwed up the Clintons' wonderful deal

Actual History: It was stillborn in the first place and she didn't bother to pretend to fix it when she took over at State

ClintonHistory: the Norks didn't start cheating years later

Actual History:  they never stopped

ClintionHistory: Trump cut a secret deal with Putin over Syria.

Actual History: She and Obama cut all the secret deals with Putin.

Miss Know-it-All knows how to fix everything--except she didn't do it when she had the chance. Too busy cashing checks. She was also quite angry that the Access Hollywood deal she engineered with NBC fell flat. What a nasty piece of work.

 And while Obama gave nukes and money to Iran out of love, it will be up to future historians to decide: Did the Clintons give nukes and money to North Korea for Clinton Ca$h or out of blackmail? (It wasn't out of Communist affinity; the Clintons aren't principled enough to be Communists.)

Certainly all the Commies had agents in Little Rock partying with the governor, making Bill Clinton the most blackmail-able president in history. Ask yourself this; if the Clintons were blackmailed, would they do the right thing and give up power or would they sell out America to keep power?

To ask the question is to answer it.

Lifezette: "On Oct. 18, 1994, Clinton approved a plan to arrange more than $4 billion in energy aid to North Korea over the course of a decade, in return for a commitment from the country’s Communist leadership to freeze and gradually dismantle its nuclear weapons development program..The North Korean deal of 1994 is the prototype for why open societies should not negotiate arms control agreements with rogue regimes,” said Robert Kaufman, professor of public policy at Pepperdine University. “The North Koreans duped Jimmy Carter — an emissary of Clinton — and the Clinton administration to subsidize the North Korean nuclear program in exchange for the counterfeit promise that North Korea would limit itself to civilian nuclear power.”

Kaufman said the agreement tranquilized the West while the North Koreans proceeded to cross the nuclear threshold, which they announced in 2002 after pocketing billions from the West.

"[President] Obama's feckless nuclear deal [with Iran] is the sequel," said Kaufman. "We have lifted sanctions on Iran, infusing that tottering economy with much-needed cash, in exchange for an agreement that enables Iran to cross the nuclear threshold — even in the unlikely event the Iranians abide by it. Worse, we can [not] verify Iranian compliance reliably. Nor can we enforce the agreement even if we detect unambiguous violation because enforcement depends on the U.N. Security Council."".......

Obama copied the North Korean Deal in the Iran Deal precisely because it was "unsuccessful". And Hillary helped enact them both.

Also From the Archives, April 2018:

Korean Drama Queens: "Experts Say"...and Say and Say and Say and Say...

"Me! Me! It was supposed to be me! Why am I not 38 Parallels ahead?"

How 'Bout Saying This:

"He was right. We were wrong. We're sorry."

And then I woke up.

Candidate Trump: "It's something I've been talking about for a long time. You have this madman over there who probably would use it. And nobody talks to him, other than of course Dennis Rodman,. That's about it. China has … total control over North Korea. And China should solve that problem. And if they don't solve the problem, we should make trade very difficult for China. We are holding China up. They're taking so much money. They're draining our country, and they're toying with us with North Korea. China should do it. They say they can't, they 'don't have that power.' They're toying with our politicians, who don't know what they're doing. I'd get South Korea — that's making a fortune, they're our trading partner, if you want to use the word 'partner'. We get almost nothing for what we do. We defend the world. We defend so many countries. We get nothing. They get everything. We get nothing. South Korea's going to have to start ponying up, OK? And we'll do it in a very nice manner. They'll like us even more than they like us now. We got to close it down, because he's getting too close to doing something. Right now, he's probably got the weapons, but he doesn't have the transportation system. Once he has the transportation system, he's sick enough to use it. So we better get involved."--DONALD TRUMP: Here's how I'd handle that 'madman' in North Korea, Business Insider, Jan. 6, 2016

Oh, how they mocked him:

*Of Course North Korea Is Endorsing Donald Trump | Vanity Fair

*Trump on North Korean Leader Kim Jong-un: 'You Gotta Give Him Credit'-ABC

*Donald Trump on North Korea going to war: 'Good luck, enjoy yourself folks'- The Guardian

*Trump has never had a plan for dealing with North Korea - The Washington Post ...

Here's a typical one from the New York Times, May 18, 2016:

*Donald Trump's Views on North Korea Test Hillary Clinton:

"Foreign policy experts said Mr. Trump’s openness to a presidential meeting was problematic because it would legitimize North Korea’s status as a nuclear-weapons power, unnerve American allies like South Korea and Japan and likely fail to persuade Mr. Kim to give up his weapons. ...

The comments came after Mr. Trump talked about withdrawing American troops from Japan and South Korea, which he suggested should acquire nuclear weapons to defend themselves. Mrs. Clinton and her surrogates have said these statements show Mr. Trump to be reckless, uninformed and unfit to be commander in chief. ...

“She wasn’t averse to testing diplomacy with the North,” Mr. Sullivan said in an interview. “She did have a clear-eyed view of what was possible.”...With her long experience, foreign policy ought to be an undisputed advantage for Mrs. Clinton. ...

Experts on North Korea said a meeting with Mr. Kim was different in several respects from one with President Raúl Castro of Cuba, for example. The North already possesses nuclear weapons; it is guilty of widespread human rights abuses, and Mr. Kim would insist on holding any meeting in Pyongyang, where he could exploit it for propaganda value.

“Kim would control this reality show,” said Michael J. Green of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “This is not like holding the Miss Universe contest in Moscow.”".......

"...he sniffed."

Donald Trump is THE ONLY ONE who had a "clear-eyed vision". And the guts to pull it off. THE ONLY ONE.

Sadly, I fully expect the #FakeNews and Democrats--but I repeat myself--to try and team up with North Korea to defeat America in the negotiations, such is the degraded state of a once-proud party.

...and here they go, right on cue: New York Times:

*As Two Koreas Talk Peace, Trump’s Bargaining Chips Slip Away

They just can't help it anymore.

"Oh, please don't throw me into that Briar Patch, B'rer Acosta!"

"Experts say 'They never learn'. That I can tell you"

Even Lefty Katrina vandenHeuvel gets it: "Forever let it be recorded that American cable news led with & devoted more air time to RussiaGate, broadly defined, than to truly historic day of deescalation, peacemaking between South & North Korea—"

Barack Obama got a Nobel Peace Prize for nothing, absolutely nothing, while Donald Trump got a Special Counsel for nothing, absolutely nothing.

Don Surber writes: "Trump alone earned the prize by forcing Kim to surrender. And that is what this is, a surrender. I hope Trump makes it clear he does not want the award. The Nobel Peace Prize committee does not deserve validation by President Trump."