What Would My Revolutionary War Ancestors Think Of Our Nation's Present Predicament?

There is little doubt that Jacob and Conrad Brumbaugh, knowing what the rest of us know concerning Trump, would regard him as a traitor no different from Benedict Arnold.



With the Independence Day celebrations tomorrow, I thought it might be instructive to consider what my ancestors Jacob and Conrad  Brumbaugh - both of whom fought in the War of Independence- might think of our situation and Trump.  I ought to take time here to applaud Janice's notable efforts in finding the connections to  Jacob Jockel and Conrad as well as intervening generations, while doing research at Ancestry.com.

It was Janice's fine efforts which first turned up Eliza Ann Brumbaugh,  my paternal great grandmother, with her marriage certificate  dated Nov. 20, 1881- marriage to my great grandfather Phillip Adam Stahl.  From there, and getting hold of the book, 'The Genealogy of the Brumbaughs',  she could track back four generations to Jacob 'Jockel' Brumbaugh, and younger brothers Conrad, George, and Johann. It was Jacob and Conrad who fought in the Pennsylvania Militia during the American Revolution.

Specifically, Jacob Jockel Brumbaugh served as a Private, Seventh class, 4th Company of the First Battalion, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania Militia.   Conrad served as a Private in Capt. John Orbison's Fourth Company, Fourth Battalion of the Cumberland County Militia - commanded by Col. Samuel Culbertson. Jacob and Conrad knew what they were fighting for:  home and country -   against a tyrant King (George III) and his whole gang of Redcoats.

However, there is no doubt at all that neither Jacob or Conrad - if confronted by today's appalling events and our dear "leader"- would wonder why the War of Independence had been fought at all. That is,  given so much liberty and a thriving nascent Republic appeared to have been so easily sacrificed to a latter day "Mad King George".  Only now in the odious person of a grifter-made billionaire named Donald Drumpf. And one in conspiracy with a hostile foreign power which clearly helped put him into office.

As James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence, noted in a recent TIME interview:

"Of course the Russian efforts affected the outcome. Surprising themselves, they swung the election to a Trump win. To conclude otherwise stretches logic, common sense and credulity to the breaking point.  Less than eighty thousand votes in three key states swung the election, I have no doubt that more votes than that were influenced by this massive effort by the Russians."

Both Jacob and Conrad would no doubt have weighed Clapper's words carefully, but also examined the deep background as turned up by the extensive reporting in  The New Republic (Aug./Sept. p. 29) to wit:

"A review of the public record reveals a clear and disturbing pattern: Trump owes much of his business success, and by extension his presidency, to a flow of highly suspicious money from Russia. Over the past three decades, at least 13 people with known or alleged links to Russian mobsters or oligarchs have owned, lived in, or even run criminal activities out of Trump Tower and other Trump properties. Many used his apartments and casinos to launder untold millions in dirty money .....Taken together, the flow of money from Russia provided Trump with a crucial infusion of financing that helped rescue his empire from ruin, burnish his image, and launch his career in television and politics....It's entirely possible that Trump was never more than a convenient patsy for Russian oligarchs and mobsters."

The ongoing, deplorable actions of the White House occupant would also have angered and appalled both brothers, e.g.   the flouting of the emoluments clause in the Constitution by Trump and his family, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2017/01/lawsuits-against-trump-for-emoluments.html

Neither Jacob or Conrad would have taken kindly to Trump's  continual reliance on rallies for his base, inciting their passions and presenting further evidence for the 'mischief of faction'  Madison warned about whereby "citizens - whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole - are united and actuated by a common impulse of passion (to cast their votes) adverse to the rights of other citizens or the permanent and aggregate interests of the community". 

This is exactly what the Trump voters did, motivated by passion and recklessness via Trump's often violent rallies to give a middle finger salute to the rest of the country - thereby militating against the majority's interests.  It is also what Trump's pandering to his base continues to do.  I suspect Conrad would be most exasperated at Trump's betrayal of long time allies, while also pandering to hostile authoritarian regimes, including in Turkey, the Philippines, and North Korea- even saluting a N. Korean General, an action for which I can just imagine both Jacob Jockel and Conrad saying: "For that he should be hung!"

What about Trump's "zero tolerance" policy of locking up infants, toddlers in cages at "tender age shelters"?  Jacob and Conrad would have blown their respective gaskets: "In cages? Children?  This vile filth should not only be hung but drawn and quartered too! Is that what he would have done to us on entering this country from Germany?  To our brothers too? Swine!"

In the end, it's good neither Jacob or Conrad is able to see the travesty, betrayal and destruction to which our country has been subjected.  At the same time, if their spirits were still alive and energized, they'd be literally screaming "Do not go quietly into the despot's  dark night! Fight, fight for what is right though all looks lost! This country we fought for is more important than one man - or all his supporting liars,  quislings and followers!"

-----------------------------
Footnote:  It was Janice who reminded me that  Jacob Jockel also fought in the American Revolution, hence the edits made  to this post.

Trump Now Demands "Repeal Only" And NO Replace - Why Even His Supporters Are Abandoning The Twit

"I want the whole Obamacare repealed! No replace! Do it!"

Trump, aka Donald Drumpf, can't seem to help burning his whole administration down from the inside out using his own halfwit, impulsive brain. The latest salvo manifesting as friendly fire on his own Repuke Senate (struggling to pass their "Better care" bill) was his demand to just "repeal Obamacare and don't replace".   The very fact this imbecile could offer this shows: a) he doesn't know diddly about the existing R- bill, and b) doesn't know it contradicts all his previous statements committed to NOT doing that, and c) that it would leave 32 million without any health care.

In addition, as per a WSJ article today (p. A4, 'Conservatives Seek Speedy ACA Repeal') "those inside and outside the GOP warned that repealing the ACA without a replacement would create enormous uncertainty, roiling the insurance markets, panicking consumers and making life difficult for businesses."  Not mentioned is the effect it would have on health insurance stock shares, i.e. send them into the toilet.

Above all this Trump tweet demand discloses the guy isn't serious, he's again acting the part of the disrupting clown he really is, only fit to do stand ins as Bozo, or....maybe clean porto-potties in a clown costume. Hell, he isn't even aware of the peril he's now in as word is spreading through more intelligent and savvy former supporters that he's a loser and the carny barker most of us on the Left had always claimed. He's simply the real estate swindler and reality TV "firing" goon he always was.

As a blogger friend, Vietnam-Era vet and Trump voter put it in a recent blog post referencing the falling out:

 --------------

I voted for you but this is embarrassing,” someone else wrote last week, responding to the president’s tweet attacking the department store Nordstrom.

Complaints like these are being logged by a Twitter account called @Trump_Regrets. Since November, the account, managed by Erica Baguma, a 23-year-old Canadian college student, has climbed to more than 220,000 followers by curating some 1,500 messages, mostly from exasperated people who say they voted for Trump.

And…these people are not the only ones’ pulling their support from Trump. There are literally thousands of veterans like myself also ‘waking up’ to his BS! He’s ‘shit’ on and pissed off the wrong people with veterans. Despite Trump being granted FIVE deferments during Vietnam (one medical and four educational deferments), we vets nevertheless voted for him 2-1 over Killary.

The last straw was when he proposed to cut financial support for aging and disabled veterans included in $1.1 trillion federal budget proposal for the estimated 225,000 vets who would have lost the payments, had it not been for the hue and cry from veterans and veterans’ groups, and finally…Shulkin said he would not include the (IU) cuts in the budget proposal.

But, as far as myself and thousands of other vets are concerned…too little – too late! It shouldn’t have even been a consideration!

Some comments from veterans, when they found out it was in the budget proposal were:

“Make that guy in the White House keep his promise to all of us veterans, lest we all fall by the wayside and be left on the battlefield,” said a former Army staff sergeant who served in Vietnam.

“Please don’t do this to us,” said a sailor who served on ships in the Tonkin Gulf during the Vietnam War. “My wife and I already live our later years in constant uncertainty. We thought our VA benefits were fairly safe.”

“I have become aware that President Trump’s VA budget sets to screw Vietnam veterans first in line by eliminating the unemployability benefit for those of us who actually served and sacrificed who have reached the age of Social Security benefits,” said a former Navy lieutenant who flew the EP-3E version of the P-3 Orion surveillance aircraft in Vietnam.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Wow! If trends like this continue, Drumpf's "re-election campaign" will be dead in the water before it even gets to the midterms next year. And these are just the citizens, mainly military, upset about the potential cuts if his budget goes through, and as my blogger pal noted these are mostly "wish lists", most don't go through in entirety. But now add to those the millions of Trump voters who will be adversely affected by his pulling Obamacare without replacing it and it's his (and the GOP's) worst nightmare.

Even Kimberly Strassel in her Op-Ed in the WSJ two days ago, conceded that 77 percent of Americans now accept the minimum for the health care tableaux must include: i) acceptance of pre-existing conditions and  (ii)that kids can stay on their parents' plans until they are 26 years old. She argued the reason the acceptance of these ACA provisions was so widespread  because they were "the simplest part of the ACA to understand".  Maybe, but they are also humane and rationally based, especially not charging ten times more to those suffering from pre-existing conditions!

All Trump is doing now - between his deranged tweets and trying to trump Bitch McConnell in health care policy -  is ensuring disaster for himself, his administration and his party.

For those of us on the Left, it can't happen soon enough that all of these assholes sink, one time if possible, but we'll accept the 'long game' otherwise.

See also:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/p-m-carpenter/73742/just-say-it-donald-trump-is-mad

WSJ Provides A Reality Check For Trump And His "Paranoid-Style" Groupies

Trump screams at his followers to "punch the hell out of those bums" at a recent rally.

 Let us accept the proposition that Donald Trump (aka Donald Drumpf) is roughly the equivalent of a five year old pitching a fit in order to inflate his self esteem as Bill Maher portrayed him Friday night. As a corollary we can regard his supporters as also five year olds, or perhaps as Peggy Noonan  recently described them in her WSJ 'Declarations' column (March 19, A13):

"Maybe, to be charitable, a lot of Mr. Trump's supporters are 14 year old boys acting out on their mom's computer while she works her second shift"

Which occurs when you behold their over use of f-bombs and the like in their assorted blog screeds and tweets and especially the need to find scapegoats wherever they can, whether in immigrants,, "rag heads", Obummer "apes", "Bernie's  Gestapo", "Killary Feminazis" or sundry others they blame for wrecking Trump's assorted rallies. But funny thing, they never ever blame their Hitlerite hero himself for drawing this negative blowback by the use of violent language and even regarding it as some kind of "entertainment". ("This is fun! A lot better than a boring ol' rally!")

Thus Noonan's subsequent comment (ibid.):

"America is an imperfect country populated by imperfect people, but there would be a reason Mr. Trump draws the particular kind of garbage he draws, what is it?"

Well, it was once accurately described by historian Richard Hofstadter in his book, The Paranoid Style in American Politics as a streak of nasty, angry, scapegoating paranoia that's been seeded almost from the time of the nation's founding.  Many believed it had reached its apotheosis in the McCarthy commie witch hunts of the 1950s. (See the excellent movie 'Trumbo', starring Brian Cranston, to gain an insight.)

At that time the American Right was so paranoid about commies infiltrating the country and hiding under bedroom community beds that it even led to  TOPPS "Know Your Communists" trading cards, e.g..


 The aim was to inculcate ‘Communist Recognition’ in children  from 8- 10 years of age and get them to hate this system even before they knew what it was about. The garish depictions, such as that shown of Mao Tse-Tung with ghoulish green face, helped to reinforce the propaganda.   Hysteria grew as an admixture as grade schoolers - like I was in 1952 - had to duck under desks in regular drills to "escape the fallout from Communist atomic bombs". Oh, and btw, did you know commie H-bombs were much more devastating than the 'Murican variety?

"Commies" then - like Muslims now-  were the "devils" of the 1950s and even the 1960s as the term was unloaded  - usually by John Birchers - on any relatively liberal person and even John F. Kennedy. He came under suspicion first on account of making a hidden deal with Nikita Khrushchev to end the Cuban Missile crisis in October, 1962. (That was to remove all the Jupiter missiles from Turkey six months after the Russians removed theirs from Cuba.)  Then, in August, 1963, Kennedy signed a Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, also with Khrushchev. The Right went ape shit because it included bans on anti-missile defense systems. Third, JFK signed NSAM 263 to pull all personnel out of Viet Nam by 1965.  That definitely put him in commie territory as he ignored the "domino theory" circulating at the time.

But Kennedy's biggest faux pas - certainly to the then CIA and security state- was initiating a rapprochement with Fidel Castro. That probably sealed his fate as a "commie'" that had to be killed, by the same CIA that learned of it (the public didn't until decades later).

All this, as Hofstadter noted, served to spur on the "paranoid style". As he wrote then (ca.1964):

American politics has often been an arena for angry minds. In recent years we have seen angry minds at work mainly among extreme right-wingers, who have now demonstrated in the Goldwater movement how much political leverage can be got out of the animosities and passions of a small minority.


 But unknown to him, that presumed apotheosis was a mirage. In fact, it was postponed until the much later incarnation we're seeing now with the rise of Trumpism. No longer is this breed of paranoia confined to a radical right nut like Barry Goldwater - who had zero chance of winning the WH in 1964 anyway-  but to a brash, loudmouth demagogue who has already compiled so many delegates in primaries he could well nail the Reep nomination and also gain the White House.

Hence, it was gratifying to read a WSJ editorial ('A Trump Reality Check', Mar 18, p. A10) that put Trump's so called successes in perspective, not only for this wannabe Hitler but for his groupies too. Imagine if the Weimar German press, ca Jan. 1932, had delineated such a reality check on Adolf Hitler and his rabble rousing anti-Semitic, anti-Socialist, anti-Communist rants, and how that might have altered the outcome of the German elections that year and the next. Hitler, btw, always boasted he had used Weimar Democracy itself to gain power, after which he destroyed that democracy via the 1933 "Enabling Act" ( Ermächtigungsgesetz ) that dissolved the Reichstag and turned all its powers to the newly formed Reich government.

The WSJ editorial notes for example, that despite his claim to be "unstoppable" his actual numbers to date show him to be the "weakest Republican front runner since Gerald Ford in 1976."

For example, the Journal notes that by mid -March of 2012,  Mitt Romney "had carried the popular vote in 21 states and won 57 percent of the delegates."

By comparison, Trump "has 18 states and 47 percent of delegates" - not very unstoppable when one does the comparison. So one has to wonder how it his that the Trumpsters are so worked up  - even dissing on Mitt now - when their own guy is still three states behind and ten percentage point in delegate differential.

Are Trumpies' paranoid delusions messing up their brains? The argument of a divided field sucking up Trump's extra votes also doesn't wash because, as the WSJ notes: Romney "was in a three way race with Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich with Ron Paul also nabbing votes"

Adding:

"John McCain in 2008 was even more of a consensus pick ...by this point the Senator had won 24 states and 59 % of allocated delegates."

The WSJ goes on to point out Trump "has fervent support but equally passionate opposition among Republicans", noting his "net favorable rating in the  GOP is only 22 percent" (That is, the share of people with positive views minus those with negative views).

Going on to single out the Real Clear Politics polling average which shows twice as many adults have negative views (61%) as positive (32.5%).  Meanwhile, "Gallup reports he has a higher unfavorable rating than any other nominated candidate from either major party dating back to 1992".

And that includes that socialist guy Bernie Sanders, who the Trumpites believe is dispatching  guerrillas  to disrupt their stupid rallies. (Note: the main protest organizers, Moveon.org, have no relation to Sanders's campaign.)

Of course, none of this ought to make the Dems feel too smug. The reason is that Hillary has negatives almost as high as Trump's. While TIME's Joe Klein often gets things wrong because of his Neoliberal lens, he was correct that Hillary has to be a much better, more nuanced (and less rote - and screaming) persona if she faces Trump in the election (Mar. 28, p. 41).

Her planned appearance at the Israeli lobby (AIPAC) convention this next week (Mar. 20-22) is also not going to help her with the Dem left base, which is already leaning to either staying home on Nov. 8th, or writing in Bernie's name if he concedes or loses out to Clinton.   I mean, the mere sight of her appearing along side the likes of Trump, Cruz and Kasich is not designed to appeal to Left core supporters that she will need in the fall - assuming she still is the nominee.

Hillary in one forum (Town hall)  response conceded she isn't the political charmer who has the "poetry" of those like hubby Bill or Obama. But as Klein put it, "she's our own quinoa and kale salad, nutritious but bland. The human embodiment of the Establishment Trump is running against." In addition, she harkens back to the politicians of 20 or more years ago with "too many oratorical switchbacks"
"Our very own quinoa and kale salad, nutritious but bland". (Joe Klein, TIME, Mar. 28, p. 41)

Klein concludes that if she and Trump square off she will have to grow into a modern politician - with modern oratorical skills beyond that screechy loud voice ("only used if you're angry"), and in a hurry. That has to start now with  her remaining Town halls with Sanders, and also avoiding the wrong optics - especially to Sanders's supporters. (Hint: Stay away from that AIPAC meet which will be seen as blatant pandering for the Jewish national vote.)

Colorado Springs Gazette columnist, Barry Fagin, has described (Mar. 8)  politics as an "accepted form of violence between tribes of voters" in our society.  Charles Krauthammer in his recent column  says "politics is the civilized substitute for settling things the old-fashioned way- laying your opponent out on a stretcher".   He goes on to write: "What is so disturbing today is that suffusing our politics is not just an air of division but an air of menace"

 Indeed, and that menace may well spill over into more overt violence in this election cycle. This worry is real and so long as Trump incites violent memes with his rhetoric we are at risk. But don't look for his lackeys to support that because as one observer noted, he is channeling their Id - like Hitler did of too many Germans in 1932--33.

The problem is, reality check or not, who in the candidate field has the courage, principles, and ferocity to stop his advance and provide a real choice to the American people? I see no one other than Bernie Sanders, but alas, too many of my countrymen are too cowed to vote for him - as opposed to the much worse candidates (including one under current FBI investigation) they do know.

If we are cowardly (or ignorant) in our choice we shall have to live with the consequences after January 20 next year.

Can We EVER Educate Trumpkins On The Difference Between REAL Socialists and Nazis?

Doofus image  put up by a Trumpkin who clearly doesn't know the difference between a socialist and a Nazi

I said it before but it bears repeating, that too many are insufficiently educated in political history to know basic  differences, say between National Socialism (Nazism) and real Socialism. And not to put too fine a point on it, it's a big issue to me because as a (Democratic) Socialist I won't want to be fucking compared to or conflated with, Nazi scumballs.

Sadly, most of those who don't know any better - and likely have read the least real history- appear to be Trumpkins or those who slavishly follow their master, The Donna, aka Donald Drumpf.  As shown in previous posts the right wing blogosphere is replete with disinformation, misinformation - in particular of deliberate conflation of  textbook socialism  with  German National Socialism, despite the fact that Hitler not only dispossessed and brutalized leftists: Marxists, Socialists and commies, but dispatched them for "final solution" in concentration camps as well.

When one accesses serious resources and history texts, as opposed to comics and Faux News, one can easily see Hitler couldn't have been a real socialist by his very actions and policies most of which were totally antithetical to Socialist values. Thus, he didn't use trade unions to parlay them into any "workers' paradise" - he squashed them like bugs!

Why did Hitler hate Socialists so much, with such intensity? Robert Payne in his biography of Hitler (The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler)) acknowledges it was because the originator of Marxism, Karl Marx, was a Jew. Hitler thereby erroneously inferred that Socialism was an inherently Jewish economic philosophy and its practitioners were also Jews. Hitler, like so many Americans today, committed the fallacy of composition - a logical error attributing to an entire class (the whole) what is true of only one part,  or in this case one person (Marx).

Why can't these conflaters just admit their error and walk away? Because most are Right extremists and to admit that would be to admit ideological kinship with the Nazi Right or "National Socialists" - who merely employed the S -word to misdirect the gullible. Hitler is associated with the RIGHT because he espoused FASCISM, which is RIGHTIST! In addition, as documented by Ian Kershaw in his magnificent account of Hitler’s rise to power (‘Hitler Nemesis’) the pre-Reich Weimar Republic constituted a weak democracy which had little or no control over the most radical Rightists, especially Hitler’s (actually, originally Ernst Röhm's) NSDAP party. They would regularly beat Marxists, socialists, and any leftists on the streets while holding up signs that read: “Tot dem Marxem!” (Death to Marxists!) 

Kind of a damned funny way to show kinship with REAL Left Socialists! IF the fucking Nazis were real Socialists why did they regularly beat the living crap out of actual Socialists? So far none of the geniuses that make these false cartoons - like the one shown- has been able to answer that question.

Now, if these geniuses who insist Hitler "wasn't of the Right" are correct, then WHY beat up on Marxists, Socialists and Commies of the LEFT? Huh? My late friend Kurt's films - from his archives -also showed the same thing! 

Hundreds of gangster S.A. (enlisted by Hitler) swooping in on a crowd of union workers, Socialists and Marxists and beating them half to death.

THIS IS HISTORY, ACTUALLY DOCUMENTED! If the American Right doesn't wish to be associated with this, I fully understand, but to try to revise history because you abhor the Rightist link is both pigheaded, and disingenuous. Take ownership, then move on!

 Hey, it's understandable the American fanatical Right doesn't want to be associated with a mass murdering psycho but blatant historical revisionism isn't the way to make your case.  Kershaw again - on Hitler's links to capitalism (‘Hitler Nemesis’, p. xxxiii):

“Leaders of big business, though often harboring private concerns about current difficulties and looming future problems for the economy, for their part were grateful to Hitler for the destruction of the left-wing parties and trade unions. They were again ‘masters in the house’ in their dealings with their work force”

Note carefully: It wasn't Hitler destroying right wing parties but LEFT WING PARTIES and TRADE UNIONS! THIS is why the German capitalists, such as Krupp, Volkswagen, I.G. Farben (infamous for later manufacturing the Zyklon B gas used in the gas chambers) etc. threw their lot behind him and provided the political ballast, without which he could never have become 'Der Fuehrer'.

Beyond all this, we now have very solid evidence, thanks to released FOIA files, of how close the Republican Party has been to the Nazis of Europe. We have to thank author Russ Bellant (Old Nazis, The New Right and The Republican Party, South End Press, 1990), for meticulously documenting how and when Nazi-SS elements and cliques infiltrated the GOP and insinuated themselves into the national political framework. (Which makes one wonder how many of their past policy formulations, e.g. Paul Ryan's "Medicare Voucher plan" are Nazi-based, or hatched originally by Republican Heritage groups. Or how much the Koch brothers - who were raised by a Nazi nanny imported from the Reich- were influenced by her thinking and ideology.)

The key link are the Republican Heritage Groups, which attained major ascendancy after Reagan became president. Bellant notes (p. 4):

"In a sense...the foundation of the Republican Heritage Groups Council lay in Hitler's networks into Eastern Europe before World War II. In each of those Eastern European countries the German SS set up or funded political action organizations that helped form SS militias during the war."

He cites, for example, that in Hungary the "Arrow Cross" was the SS affiliate. In Romania it was the "Iron Guard". In Latvia, it was the "Latvian Legion". And members from ALL of these - and others - obtained passage to the U.S. and found a home in various groups after the War. Under the umbrella of the Republican Heritage Groups Council and later its "Ethnic Division". Their main purpose was in Republican campaign fund raising but they were also used for assorted "dirty tricks" against Democrats and may well have come up with the noisome plan to bargain with Iran to keep American hostages there, until after Reagan was elected (as opposed to Carter, in 1980).

No connection between the Nazis and American Right? Hell, they're freakin' bedfellows! 

The continuing display of ignorance by the Trumpkins only reinforces the perceptions that current analyses of supporter backgrounds disclose.  Rather than provide grist to that mill I'd have thought Trumpian bloggers would seek to show their education is vastly greater than those data appear to show - not less.