The verb to make has various meanings in English, but the sentences that you are asking about all (roughly) refer to the same grammar rule, that is of causing, provoking a certain effect.
Generally, you use the construct to make someone do something to indicate that you oblige or force someone to do as you wish, or else that you cause something to happen; see for example
My father made me stay at home on Friday night.
That film always makes me laugh my head off.
If the object of the verb is a reflexive pronoun, then instead of an infinitive form we use a past participle, because the meaning is passive; with this construct you are saying that you allow, or make it possible for you to be understood/seen/heard by others. Hence your first sentence, which is very frequent.
In your third sentence you are using an adjective instead of a verb, which results in a perfectly grammatical sentence with the similar meaning to the first, i.e. that others can understand you, although it seems to imply some kind of effort, and it is not so frequently used.
Finally, the second sentence has a completely different meaning, because here it is you who manage to understand something, through clear effort on your part. To try and clarify, consider the following example :
I made myself understand her reasons for deserting me.
Oh, wow, that's a much more complex bit of word-play than it seemed in the title of the question.
The expression "was had" is an idiom that means "was cheated or tricked", and is perfectly valid English. However, that is not the meaning of "was had" in context – though it very clearly is an allusion to and playing with the "was cheated" sense. The people singing are criminals, and they're singing about their being criminals – people who cheat and trick others; their song is a list of humorous excuses for their behavior, and "I was had!" can be a kind of excuse.
The context was:
My parents [...]
didn't wanna have me,
But somehow I was had.
In another idiomatic use of "to have", such as "have me", here, means "to give birth to a child". The singer is saying "My parents didn't want a (or another) child, but somehow they wound up with me."
Using "was had" to mean "was born" this way is very unusual, but makes literal grammatical sense – and reminds the listener of the idiom "I was had" meaning "I was cheated".
The entire song is a list of the reasons the characters addressed should have mercy on the young criminals, and those reasons are all specious explanations that position the criminals as the real victims of the unfairness of life: everything bad they do is someone else's fault.
Best Answer
I think the "parallelism" here is potentially misleading. Modern English doesn't normally start a sentence with an adverb in this way. We still use A1, A2, B2 in a limited number of constructions, but the grammar involved is no longer "productive".
As regards sentences starting with "Hardly", I would say these are always dated/formal/literary. Thus, for example, "Hardly had I begun" would normally be phrased today as "I had hardly begun".
We still "tolerate" the form here comes X, but it's no accident that OP chose to switch the verb from arrive to come. Modern grammar doesn't allow constructions like "here arrives the bus", except for certain established usages involving certain verbs (there goes the neighborhood is another one). Here's a chart showing how the form Here stand I, for example, has declined over the past couple of centuries, and here's one for Here stands a man showing that it's the same with both nouns and pronouns.
It seems to me here X comes is an even more "fossilised" form than here comes X. But it's been "modernised" by allowing X to be a pronoun, and we've gotten so used to that form we don't like to put the pronoun at the end any more.
Notice that for the vast majority of verbs which can be modified by here, there, etc., you simply can't put the adverb at the front. You have to adopt the modern style and place it after the verb...