Thinking The Unthinkable, By Hal M. Brown

Tue, Aug 26 at 5:23 AM

 

I was going to write a Substack about this before I read my friend Sabrina Haake’s Substack this morning. Then I read her Substack and realized how what I was thinking fit in with what she was saying in her Haake Take titled “Blue states: Stop funding Trump's Confederacy.” It is subtitled “Previously held assumptions about federalism, including taxation, are falling.” I noticed that the illustration she used was Archibald Willard’s “Yankee Doodle” which is also known as “The Spirit of ‘76.”

I wondered why she used this painting rather than an illustration of a Civl War battle like one of these:

Still, even though she wrote about a peaceful civil war the picture is of a battlefield and you can clearly see, in addtion to the drummers and fife player a wounded soldier and a Union soldier raising his hat in victory.

This is her concluding paragraph:

A new kind of civil war is here, but Democrats did not invite it. When our backs are against the wall, facing the firing squad of a rogue president, complicit party, and corrupt high court determined to destroy us, we must act in our own self-interest. Freedom and our nation’s survival depend on it.

I agree completely with what Sabrina is saying about blue states hitting the Trump Confederacy in the wallet.

My focus is on the development we hope never comes to pass. This would be an actual armed confrontation between the New Union and the New Confederacy.

The Oregon Army National Guard consists of 41 armories in 33 communities. (Read about it in Wikipedia.)

Because we drove by one of their amories yesterday and Ann managed to take some decent photos last night I thought I’d use them as part of my Wednesday Substack.

Click above to enlarge.

There are a few scenarios which could develop where blue states would end up mobilizing their National Guards to protect themselves. Much would depend on the legal cover given if the Supreme Court came to its senses and ruled that Trump had violated the Posse Comitatus Act in sending troops to LA and DC. This could come to a head if he does this in Chicago as he has threatend to do.

If Trump defied such a ruling (Sabrina may want to weigh in on this since she’s a lawyer) and tried to take over normal law enforcement functions could the state governors order the National Guard to stop them from doing this? I seems to this non-lawyer that it is possible.

If Trump wanted his own soldiers to enforce his will, it could pit members of the Oregon National Guard against members of the Idaho National Guard (Wiki) or against members of active duty military.

I find it beyond the pale to imagine another actual replay of the Civil War with Americans shooting Americans. I could, however, see some extremely tense face-offs which resulted in a trigger happy soldier shooting someone.

Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

This post is public so feel free to share it.

Share

Leave a comment

Previous Substacks

Cataclysmic betrayal of Ukraine in the offing. By Hal M. Brown

 

First, some history thanks to Sabrina Haake’s Substack today: 

What the US owes Ukraine and why

Trump is about to get played again by a notorious war criminal, on American soil, without understanding why the US helps Ukraine at all

Now to Trump biographer Michael Wolff’s opinion about what Trump is attempting to do in his meeting with Putin. Wolfe see it as an attempt to distract from the Epstein story. It is described in the RawStory article 'I need a big thing!' Trump said to be considering major betrayal as Epstein distraction.

Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

He saw the first part of what I call his “don’t look here, look here instead” plan as the takeover of Washington , DC. Part two is an even more hideous part. This is the betrayal of Ukraine. 

Here’s an excerpt from the RawStory article:

“That is what he got to,” Wolff said. “‘I’m going to have to do Ukraine.’”

Wolff claims the president will pull the U.S. out of any involvement in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, which Trump believes will appease the isolationist MAGA base, after he meets with Russian President Vladimir Putin this week in Alaska.

“He’s going to sacrifice Ukraine for Epstein,” Wolff said. “Essentially, this is, in his mind, a trade. It is the MAGA people who have pressed this Epstein issue constantly. I mean, they’re the threat.”

White House staffers were caught off guard by Trump resuming his direct involvement in reaching a settlement in the conflict, and they aren't sure what he will do, but Wolff said “nobody in the White House can see this turning out so well for Ukraine."

Could it be that there is something so potentially damaging in the Epstein saga that he fears it could actually become a Nixonian level gate? Wolfe apparently thinks it might. Consider:

But the author ultimately thinks this distraction will fail to silence questions about Epstein, who described himself in an interview with Wolff as Trump's "closest friend."

“The Epstein drumbeat is real,” Wolff said. “It is unceasing and it is threatening, most of all, to Donald Trump.”

How bad could a highly credible revelation be about Trump’s involvement in a sex with minors ring be to unnerve him? This is the serial sex abusuer who survived the Pee Tapes and the E. Jean Carroll case. 

If this goes beyond what Trump knew about to what Trump actually did would this merely be dismissed as “fake news” by MAGA? After all, this is a group which accepted Pizzagate as real.

If they accepted this as real there’s no reason that they wouldn’t believe that even with photographic evidence they’d believe Trump either didn’t do it, or if he did, there was nothing wrong with it. In addition, what with the ability to use AI to make deep fake images, they could just say that this is what these were.

In fact, if Putin does have actual pee tapes which he’s been using as blackmail, there’s a ready made way to debunk them.

In MAGA world, nothing is real unless Trump says it’s real. Conversely, if Trump says something is fake, it has to be fake.

Meanwhile let’s see how much blood Trump will have on his hands if, as expected, he sells out Ukraine.

Thanks for reading my Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

This post is public so feel free to share it.

Share

Leave a comment

While anxiously waiting for Trump's next move on his dictatorial juggernaut I found two small things to be pleased about. By Hal M. Brown

 

..

I was looking at my friend Sabrina Haake’s Facebook page.  She writes the Substack The Haake Take.

This is what I saw:

I wrote the following comment:

Last night watching Stephanie Ruhle's MSNBC show with her talking to Jon Meacham about LA and Trump, and at the end of a long segment she (I'm paraphrasing) said we should get alarmed yet and he (again parphrasing) said it is acceptable to be alarmed. On Lawrence O'Donnell's long first segment about this, I was pleased that for the entire time he had this photo on the screen. Trump is known to watch the show and I suspect this was done just to piss him off. I'd seen the photo on the lower left but not this one. (click image to enlarge) I still haven't decided what to write my Substack about - this is hardly a big story but I am tempted to share it if I can't think of something else. Here's an article about the tripping video going viral. (The photo I posted with my comment is on the top of this page.)

I wonder whether there was any debate among staff at Lawrence’s show about which photo to feature. The photo of Trump’s face is one of the least flattering I’ve seen recently, but the one from the back shows how badly he tripped. Lawrence showed a video of Trump walking up the stairs to Air Force One and said that this was the video Trump did not want you to see.

Back to Jon Meacham and what he said to Stephanie Rhule.

I’ve referred to the impact Walker Chronkite had on LBJ and the country when he editorialized about the Vietnam War and how this is considered by historians to have been a seminal event leading to the United State’s withdrawing from Vietnam.

Excerpt:

It may be hard to believe in the current era of declining media credibility and amid President Donald Trump's bitter condemnations of "fake news," but mainstream journalists once were trusted figures in society who could sway public opinion in a major way.

A historic example occurred 50 years ago this week: the stunning commentary of CBS anchor Walker Cronkite on Feb. 27, 1968, in which he dissected the U.S. role in Vietnam, stepped away from objectivity, and came to a very negative conclusion. He crystallized public opposition to the Vietnam War and dealt a setback to the credibility of the U.S. government.

Today we don’t have any one person with the influence and credibility of Walter Chronicle. If I could chose one it just might be Jon Meacham.

Of course, back in the Chronkite days we didn’t have cable news. There were three networks. Of the three networks, CBS, NBC, and ABC, in the 1960s and 70s, CBS News was widely considered to be the best in the business (reference).

For those too young to remember here’s an article:

Note that the above article is from CNN and entrepreneur and philanthropist Ted Turner (who was married to Jane Fonda for 10 years) didn’t launch the first 24 hour news network until 1980.

With all the horrible news at least I was pleased to see how Lawrence O’Donnell may have sent a message to Trump that would piss him off, and I was glad that Jon Meacham gave permission, of a sort, to Stephanie Ruhle and her audience not only to be alarmed, but basically said that they should be alarmed.

Thanks for reading my Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts.

This post is public so feel free to share it.

Share

Leave a comment

Read all my Substacks.

Most recent (click to enlarge image):

Recommended reading:

Should we laugh at things like this, should we cry, or should we scream? By Hal M. Brown

 

I had nothing to write about a few minutes ago, but then Ann’s sister, Nancy, sent her this and she showed it to me. I didn’t know whether to laugh, cry, or scream.

I had the same feeling when I saw online what, with my perverse sensibility, I thought was the best anti-Trump protest sign (click for footnote: 1

Look at the editorial cartoons by Ann Telnaes (here).2 They are definitely not amusing They are somewhere between cry or scream inducing. Don’t look to Ann Telnaes or any of these editorial cartoonists to get a good laugh. If you want to laugh look at these New York cartoons.

Editorial cartoons reflect where the country is. Consider these cartoons and Biden. Here’s a search for Obama cartoons.

While many are critical none suggest that Biden or Obama were hellbent to utterly destroy democracy.

Whether in cartoons (some with words and others without words) protest signs, in articles, or on TV, the messages about what Trump is doing to wreak havoc on both democracy and what used to be considered the underpinnings of social order and common sense must be sent out across the nation in a way that the people who need to hear it pay attention before it is too late. It has to come as if it is the thundering word of God from sky.

Our rights to tell in any way we choose to do so what we sincerely believe is true are embodied in the First Amendment. 

This is the relevant, the crucial part, related to my Substack today:

Freedom of Speech / Freedom of the Press

The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech may be exercised in a direct (words) or a symbolic (actions) way. Freedom of speech is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights . The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without government interference or regulation . The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for interference with the right of free speech when it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. Generally, a person cannot be held liable , either criminally or civilly for anything written or spoken about a person or topic, so long as it is truthful or based on an honest opinion and such statements.

A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. For more unprotected and less protected categories of speech see advocacy of illegal action , fighting words , commercial speech , and obscenity . The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message. The level of protection speech receives also depends on the forum in which it takes place.

Despite the popular misunderstanding, the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the First Amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to individuals in general.

As long as we have a democracy this means we can get the message out that Trump is trying to undermine democracy. We can use whatever methods and means we have to educate, motivate, and inspire people to wake up from their “what me worry” sleepwalking through life and realize they must actually do sonething before the First Amendment, and in fact the entire Constitution, is rendered irrelevant.

Update:

My friend Sabrina Haake and I must have a cosmic connection since we wrote about similar topics today. Like I wrote yesterday (here), when it comes to a later stage of the round-up of Trump enemies the MAGA Gestapo will be knock at (or busting down) out doors. Read Sabrina’s Haake Take here.

She also references the First Amendment:

Social media vetting is viewpoint discrimination under the 1^st A

When the government engages in viewpoint discrimination, it singles out a particular opinion, perspective or “viewpoint” for treatment that differs from how other viewpoints are treated. Viewpoint discrimination, where the government persecutes or otherwise punishes someone for expressing views it dislikes or disagrees with, is illegal.

In 1995 the Supreme Court explained: “When the government targets not subject matter but particular views taken by speakers on a subject, the violation of the First Amendment is all the more blatant. Viewpoint discrimination is thus an egregious form of content discrimination. The government must abstain from regulating speech when the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker is the rationale for the restriction.”

She concudes:

Scared yet? Sabrina has a link to NPR story about Trump jailing and deporting US citizens abroad.

What, you haven’t subscribed for free to receive new posts by email? Here’s your chance.

This post is public so feel free to share it. I always appreciate it when you do.

Share

Read all my Substacks here. Don’t forget that comments are always welcome.

Recent (click image to enlarge)

1

You have to scroll down Stormy Daniels’ X page to find any posts about Trump. Mostly she promotes her shows there. I keep posting to her account hoping that she reposts something I write. This could get me many more followers. 

2

Telnaes made the news when she quit as the editorial cartoonist for The Washington Post when Jeff Bezos spiked this cartoon showing him to be a Trump tool. That backfired big time on Bezos since prior to that only subscribers could see the cartoon and then it was all over the news (Google search here).