Doc issues phony diagnoses

(AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

I want to make one more — but certainly not my final — observation about the idiot who represents the Texas Panhandle in the U.S. Congress. Ready? Here goes …

Republican Ronny Jackson is a trained medical doctor who once served as physician to three U.S. presidents: George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump.

As a physician, he should know the limits of his knowledge and whether he is capable of diagnosing individuals from the cheap seats. Thus, he is in no position or has any medical or ethical authority to suggest that President Biden needs a “cognitive exam” or that he is “unfit” to serve in office because he lacks the medical snap required.

Jackson has not examined the president. He has not seen Joe Biden’s medical charts. I feel confident in proclaiming that he has no fu**ing clue about the president’s mental acuity.

Therefore, Ronny Jackson — not Joe Biden — is the one who is unfit for the office he occupies representing the 13th Congressional District of Texas. I say that because he has violated — in my view — a basic tenet of medicine, which is that he is speaking way out of turn on something of which he has no direct knowledge.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Trump channels Hillary?

Donald Trump probably never realized this when he sat in the Oval Office, but everything the president does is open to public scrutiny … and that includes phone calls, especially those he makes during crises.

Such as, oh, the 1/6 insurrection … the one GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnel termed a “violent” event.

It turns out that some of the calls that Donald Trump made during that hideous episode a little more than a year ago are not logged in the White House phone records.

It brings to mind the chiding of Hillary Rodham Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign in which candidate Trump insisted that Clinton had deleted those emails to hide them from public view during the time she served as secretary of state.

Do you get it? Trump now might have done the very thing he accused Hillary Clinton of doing while he sought the presidency more than five years ago. He said famously during one his debates with Clinton that were he in office when she ditched the emails that she would be “in jail.”

Don’t make me say out loud what I am thinking at this very moment about whether the ex-POTUS deserves to spend some time behind iron bars.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

POTUSes can’t always control inflation

Presidents never deserve all the credit they take for economic growth, nor do they deserve all the blame for when economic conditions head south. Thus, Joe Biden doesn’t deserve to be pilloried for the inflation that is ravaging our economy; for that matter, neither did Donald Trump deserve it when he was in office.

President Biden’s poll numbers continue to sag partly — or perhaps largely — because of inflationary pressure being felt in millions of American homes. Sure, there are other factors contributing to Biden’s falling poll numbers.

How can a president control some issues, such as the “supply chain” matter that has affected the economy in light of the coronavirus pandemic? I have no answer to that one, but it doesn’t seem to matter to Americans who today are blaming Joe Biden for all the fiscal ailments they are feeling.

I want to be clear: I have been highly critical of Donald Trump’s initial response to the pandemic, but my criticism of the former president had nothing to do with the economic pressure that mounted prior to the 2020 presidential election. Therefore, while presidents can take some credit for economic success and must accept some blame for economic failure, some matters are beyond even their control.

President Biden promises that inflation will relent by the end of this year. I hope he is right … although I do wonder if he has the power to make such a pledge.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Compromise possible on guns

Guns usually prompt passionate and occasionally unreasonable arguments over the constitutional amendment that says Americans are entitled to “keep and bear arms.”

The issue shows up during election season when conservatives argue that progressives want to “take away your guns.” Well, maybe some ultra-progressive politicians want to disarm Americans. They are swimming against a riptide of opposition to that notion. That won’t happen. Why? Because doing so would essentially eliminate the Second Amendment to our Constitution.

I consider myself to be a good-government progressive, which means I am not a flaming progressive who wants to rewrite the Constitution. The one we have with its 27 amendments (so far) suits me more or less just fine.

What I do want to happen, though, is for our political leaders to find some legislative remedies to curb the gun violence that keeps erupting on our streets. We sit in our suburban Dallas home each day and watch the news tell us of shootings in Dallas, or Fort Worth, or in other suburban communities nearby. Children are stricken by random violence; some of them die from the wounds inflicted.

Then, of course, we all hear and agonize over the mass shootings that kill so many innocent victims.

Some pols want to put more guns out there, believing they create a safer society. I disagree with that notion. I want fewer guns, but to get to that goal requires some remedies to take these weapons away from individuals who don’t deserve to carry them.

Does any of that violate the Second Amendment? It might, but only if it goes too far. Thus, I want our Legislature or our Congress to seek legislative solutions that keep faith with the Constitution.

The amendment that our founders wrote is a bit of a mishmash, if I could offer that critique. It speaks of a “well-regulated militia” and then declares that the right to “keep and bear arms” must stand.

Our courts have ruled that the amendment says the right to bear arms belongs to us all. I accept that.

However, as a law-abiding, tax-paying American patriot, I believe a legislative solution to the gun violence is out there. It’s somewhere in the weeds. We just need some courage to find it and to craft it and to enact it into law. I will not listen to gun lobbyists who insist that there is no solution to be found.

Get busy, politicians. We need some leadership from you.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

No privilege to invoke

Peter Navarro is the latest Donald Trump adviser to face a subpoena by the 1/6 House select committee, which has summoned him to testify before the panel that is searching for the truth behind what happened when the traitorous mob stormed Capitol Hill.

Navarro served as a trade adviser to Trump. He is now trying to invoke “executive privilege” in resisting the committee’s order for him to talk about what he knew about what happened in the White House while the mob was rioting.

Hmm. OK. He has no right under the law to invoke any privilege. There’s that.

Nor does Donald Trump have any right to invoke such privilege. Why? Because he is no longer the president. Joe Biden, the man who beat him in the 2020 election, has declared categorically that he will not allow any executive privilege for his predecessor. There’s that, too.

I’ll restate once more: The committee is legally constituted. It has the authority to order people to testify. The speaker of the House selected the bipartisan panel and gave the committee its assignment: get the truth behind the riot and seek solutions to prevent it from recurring.

Peter Navarro is an economist who provided Trump with advice on trade policy. He has been called a “lousy economist,” but that’s really beside the point. The real point is that he is close to Trump. He knows a lot of what happened on that terrible day. Navarro has been ordered to testify. He faces criminal indictment by the Justice Department if he refuses.

if this guy has a lick of sense — and that’s debatable, to be sure — he will sit before the select committee, take the oath to tell the truth and then … tell the truth.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Astonishing turn in one congressional district

Ladies and gentlemen, we are witnessing an astonishing and frightening turnaround in at least one Texas congressional district, which happens to be one district I know quite well, given that I lived in it for 23 years before moving southeast to Collin County.

It is the constant haranguing of the commander in chief by a member of the House Armed Services Committee, who happens to represent the 13th Congressional District of Texas. Ronny Jackson, the former White House doctor and one-time Navy admiral, cannot stop berating President Biden via Twitter and the Fox (Propaganda) Network.

The turnaround involves the quality of representation that befell residents of that district and the dignity the district residents used to witness from Jackson’s predecessor in Congress, fellow Republican Mac Thornberry.

Jackson is a loudmouth wacko who cannot stop suggesting from afar that President Biden lacks the snap to perform the duties of the office to which voters elected him. He keeps yammering via Twitter and on Fox about the need for Biden to take a cognitive test. What the hell for … doc? He’s just as sharp as you are!

Thornberry, a man with whom I had plenty of differences, wouldn’t dare take to the Twitter-verse to stage the non-stop harangues we keep seeing from his dipsh** successor. Jackson won’t stop.

We’re represented in Collin County by a GOP House member. Van Taylor is as conservative as Jackson, but he doesn’t resort to the constant barrage of epithets via Twitter to make his point. Indeed, Taylor actually reaches across the aisle to work with Democrats when issues present themselves. Does the former doctor now representing the Panhandle do any of that, or is he just too damn busy seeking ways to undermine the commander in chief?

Ronny Jackson simply just pisses me off. The dude is a disgrace.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

This news hurts … a lot

We all have people who come into our lives and never really leave us, even if we no longer see them regularly. They are work colleagues, or those with whom we establish a sort of sibling-like relationship.

Ben Hansen filled both roles in my life. I got some heart-shattering news this morning, that Ben had died peacefully during the night.

I am trying to collect my thoughts and reel in my emotions as I bang out this post. Suffice to say, Ben Hansen — who was a physically imposing man — cast a large shadow over my life and over the communities he served as a newspaper editor in four states over many decades.

Our paths crossed the first time in early1977. Hansen was editor of a suburban daily newspaper in Oregon City, Ore. He had a position to fill on his staff; it was a temporary slot as a sportswriter. The sports editor of the newspaper had taken maternity leave, so Ben needed someone to pinch hit while she was away. I got the job, knowing it could end several weeks later.

Well, it didn’t. Another opening came up. Hansen hired me on a permanent basis. He helped launch my career then. He would leave the paper to take another editor’s job in Utah. After that, he gravitated to Beaumont, Texas.

That’s where our relationship took off. He called me one day to ask if I would like to interview for a job as an editorial writer for the Beaumont Enterprise. I flew to Texas for that interview; he hired me again. Ben told me that the Golden Triangle was a hotbed of news. He was so right.

Ben promoted me to editor of the opinion page. We raised a hackle or two on the editorial page of the Enterprise over the years. I was proud to be part of that effort. I reported to Hansen for nearly 11 years in Beaumont before I departed for the Texas Panhandle.

Ben and I stayed in touch, even after he left Beaumont for another editor’s gig in Prescott, Ariz., where he eventually retired.

I learned much about my craft from Ben. He was a stickler for “active-voice” writing. He despised text that contained “passive-voice” narrative; you know, the kind of the thing that would tell you that “mistakes were made.” He insisted that an active voice required you to say that “so-and-so made mistakes.” Even to this day I am keenly aware of that and seek to avoid lapsing into passive voice when I write this blog.

Ben Hansen was a good and decent man who saw himself as a crusader. He was quick with a quip and could knock out a nearly spot-on impersonation of John Wayne with barely a provocation.

I will hold him in my eternal gratitude for taking a chance on a young man seeking to start a career in print journalism. It worked out well for me and I owe much of what I was able to achieve to the patience he showed me decades ago.

I will miss my friend.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Lock him up?

What the hell is going on here? I could swear that Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign made a lot of noise about Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email account while she served as secretary of state and the candidate himself allowed crowds to yell “Lock her up!” over the inadvertent use of that email server.

Now we hear that the former POTUS took classified material with him to Mar-a-Lago, Fla., after he lost the 2020 presidential election to Joe Biden. Moreover, he reportedly flushed some presidential papers down the White House crapper to keep it from falling into the hands of, oh, the National Archives.

Hey, isn’t that a violation of the Presidential Papers Act? And … isn’t that punishable by jail time for those who violate it?

Hmm. What the hell, indeed!

I believe there is much more drama to follow. Stay tuned … eh?

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Wanting to put the past … in the past

Almost nothing in this good old world would please me more than to put the past in the past, that we would just stop talking about the 2020 election, the one in which Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump.

If only we could put the past behind us.

The problem is that Trump keeps repeating The Big Lie. He keeps telling us the election was “stolen” from him. That Biden won only because dead people cast ballots and that elections officials in many key states were so corrupt that they manipulated ballots to create a Biden victory.

None of that happened! Hence, we have The Big Lie!

Why doesn’t Trump let the issue just wither away and die? Because he can’t. He won’t. He refuses to accept that he lost the election.

So, The Big Lies lives on. We keep talking about it. I don’t want to talk about it. I want to talk about the future. I want to look ahead.

I want Donald Trump to disappear. I want him to vanish behind the gilded gates at Mar-a-Lago, never to be heard from or seen again.

Go … away … Donald!

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Subpoena = direct order

What do you do when a governing authority orders you to do something, such as … oh … testify under oath about what you might know about a criminal act?

I know what I would do. I would report to the authority and tell it what I know. Or don’t know.

The 1/6 House select committee is issuing subpoenas to former Donald Trump aides, friends, family members (who also worked for the government) about what they know about the events that led to the insurrection on 1/6. Many of them are refusing to comply with what I would describe as a “direct order” from the committee.

I will add that it is a direct lawful order by a duly constituted congressional committee charged with finding the truth behind the insurrection.

The committee chaired by Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., is working with breathtaking speed. It is proceeding at a pace I didn’t think was possible. Congress isn’t known as a breakneck organization. Yet, the chips have been thrown down and this panel is moving with remarkable speed and efficiency toward what I hope is a well-researched conclusion.

As for the subpoenas it is issuing, the subjects of those summonses need to understand the gravity of the orders they have been given. They are issued in the name of an American public — at least most of it — that is horrified at the events of 1/6. We all witnessed what Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell has rightly defined as a “violent insurrection” against the U.S. government. Such hideous violence cannot be allowed to stand.

When the powers that be issue an order for those with direct knowledge of the circumstance to report, well, they need to comply or else face the consequence of their refusal.

I believe that is what they call the “rule of law.”

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com