Tag Archives: Constitution

national news

This is on you, Wyoming

I want to direct these remarks to Wyoming Republicans who, when the ballots were counted last night, voted against the government they swore to preserve and protect.

They put their own party ahead of the country. They stood behind an individual who seeks to dismantle our democratic system of government. They rejected an incumbent member of Congress who, for the past several years, has voted consistently in favor of the very issues many in that beautiful state hold near and dear.

I have one friend in Wyoming. I don’t know how he voted, but my guess is that he did not vote for the individual who won more votes than Rep. Liz Cheney.

Cheney conceded in fine fashion Tuesday night, but she said something that is going to carry over for a long while. Cheney, who lost to a Donald Trump-backed primary foe, declared that “now the real work begins.”

Hmm. Real work? Would that include, dare I ask, a potential run for president in 2024 in a Republican Party field that might include the former twice-impeached POTUS?

Cheney lost her state’s GOP congressional primary for the right reasons. She lost because she stood for the rule of law and because she remains faithful to the oath of office she took, the one that requires her to protect and defend the Constitution. Her opponent, Harriet Hageman, won the primary for the wrong reasons. She won because she has adopted The Big Lie and because she is more loyal to Trump than to the Constitution.

That is the state of play in Wyoming these days.

Liz Cheney vows to continue to work toward preventing Trump from ever darkening the White House door. I wish her well in that effort. As for the Republican voters who turned against her because of her fealty to the sacred oath she took, they all have slathered themselves in shame.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

national news

Constitution Boot Camp? Yes!

Liz Cheney is a busy woman these days, serving as a Republican member of Congress who is critical of Donald Trump and suggesting that all new members of Congress take a remedial course on the U.S. Constitution.

Yes, we are electing constitutional nitwits to the very body that writes laws we all are required to obey. The Dallas Morning News editorial today took note of two individuals who clearly need a refresher course on the document they took an oath to protect and defend.

Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama, according to the DMN, couldn’t identify the three branches of government, said that World War II was fought against European socialists and promised to use his Senate resources to campaign for Republicans, which the newspaper noted is illegal.

One more: Rep. John Yarmouth, a Kentucky Democrat, said the government “cannot go bankrupt because we have the power to create as much money as we need to spend,” the DMN said. Umm, wrong!

Liz Cheney wants to require freshmen members of the House and Senate to take a Constitution Boot CampĀ course to acquaint them with the document that serves as the governmental framework for our nation.

That’s a hell of a notion, right? These people swear on a holy book that they will protect the Constitution to the best of their ability but don’t know the basics of the document that our framers cobbled together to send this nation on its way to greatness.

As I survey the field of congressional candidates seeking to win their respective races in 2022, I shudder in fear that voters, indeed, are going to elect MAGA numbskulls. These people will be voting on measures that affect every single American. I don’t want them writing laws that affect me so directly.

The Morning News notes Cheney’s overflowing plate of issues and concerns, but adds, “When she gets done protecting our founding documents on the Jan. 6 House panel, we encourage her to implement the Congressional Boot Camp.”

We shouldn’t ever send dummies to Congress, but we continue to send these dipsh**s to Washington to vote on laws — and order us to obey them! — then make the new ones take a course on the Constitution.

The Constitution requires these folks to swear an oath to be loyal to the document. Shouldn’t they be required to know something about the document they will protect?

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Uncategorized

Bannon bellows utter bullsh**

Steven Bannon strode before some microphones outside the courthouse where today he was convicted of two counts of contempt of Congress and then bellowed one of the more ridiculous pronouncements I ever have heard.

“I stand with Donald Trump,” Bannon yelled, “and with the Constitution.”

Roll that one around, OK?

Has there been a president of the U.S.A. who understands less of the Constitution than Donald J. Trump?

The testimony we have heard from the 1/6 House select committee tells me that Donald Trump shattered the oath he took to be loyal to the Constitution and to democracy.

Well, suffice to say only that Donald Trump and Steven Bannon deserve each other.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

national news

These Trumpsters told the truth

It is going to take me a long while to process fully what I heard this week in the televised testimony before the House select 1/6 committee.

We all heard several dedicated Donald Trump supporters set aside their personal support of the former POTUS and argue on behalf of concepts totally foreign to The Donald: the rule of law and the sanctity of their oaths of office.

Gabe Sterling and Brad Raffensberger of Georgia spoke the truth to power. So did Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers. They confronted Trump’s assertion that they could flip votes, overturn election results, “find” enough ballots to swing their states from Biden’s column to Trump’s.

They all voted for Trump. They were loyal to the man … to the extent of casting their ballots.

However, they refused to cross the line into lawlessness, which is what Trump wanted them to do. None of them would shirk their oaths of office. Speaker Bowers’s testimony was particularly riveting, as he said any notion of his forsaking his sacred oath was totally beyond his capacity as an elected public official.

Bowers, indeed, appeared to grow quite emotional as he testified before the House committee. It was, at some level, tough to watch. Then again, I was filled with pride that he continues to stand firm in his belief that he took the oath to protect the Constitution and to honor the laws of the land. He remained true to his oath.

As did Raffensberger, the Georgia secretary of state, and Sterling, one of his deputies.

They all demonstrated the incalculable value of public service.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

business news, national news

Will Trump take Fifth? Hmm?

You might recall the several times Donald Trump has declared that ā€œinnocentā€ people have no reason or justification to fall back on the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the one that protects citizens self-incrimination.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, we might get the chance to see if Trump really and truly believes it. You see, a judge has ordered the former POTUS, his oldest son Don Jr. and daughter Ivanka to testify ā€” under oath ā€” about their financial dealings that are under investigation by the Manhattan district attorney.

So, Trump will take an oath to tell the truth. If he has nothing to hide from investigators, heā€™ll talk. Isnā€™t that right? I donā€™t thatā€™s going to happen.

His company already is under indictment for assorted felony accusations, such as tax fraud.

The walls appear to be closing in around Trump and his family. His son, Eric, already has hidden behind the Fifth Amendment, invoking it hundreds of times during questioning by prosecutors. Do you wonder what Daddy Trump told Eric after he left the conference room? Might he have called Eric a ā€œloserā€?

The smart money, based on what I have heard on the news, suggests that Trumpā€™s lawyers will tell him to ā€œnot say a word.ā€ His only option, therefore, is to invoke the Fifth Amendment.

But ā€¦ hey. Cā€™mon, Donald. An ā€œinnocentā€ man should be able to speak freely. Right?

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

national news, political news

If only Trump knew …

I have sought to inform readers of this blog about the myriad reasons Donald Trump was so profoundly unfit to serve as president of the United States.

One of those reasons has been laid bare in recent weeks. It has been his total ignorance of the power of the presidency and vice presidency and the limitations placed on both offices by the Constitution of the United States, the document Trump and Vice President Mike Pence swore to uphold and defend.

Trumpā€™s urging of Pence to ā€œoverturnā€ the results of the 2020 election on 1/6 illustrates so graphically the ignorance of Trump about the government he was elected in 2016 to lead.

Had he any notion of the limits of presidential power, or any understanding of what the Constitution allowed, he might not have demanded that Pence do what the VP knew in real time he could not do. Pence knew he could not overturn any stateā€™s duly certified election returns. Pence knew the limits of his role on that horrible day, which was to preside over Congressā€™s task of certifying the results of a free, fair, legal and secure election.

I donā€™t want to say, ā€œI told you so,ā€ but Trumpā€™s abject ignorance of government, mixed with his delusions of grandeur, have produced a case study in how unfit this guy was to have occupied the most powerful office in the land ā€¦ and arguably the most exalted office on Earth.

Yā€™all saw it right here.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

local news

Christian nationalism perverts Christianity

I had not heard of the term ā€œChristian nationalismā€ until I opened my copy of the Dallas Morning News this morning and read a lengthy but remarkably informative essay by Ryan Sanders.

Sanders, a member of the DMN editorial board, says essentially that Christian nationalism is bad for the country. Why? Because in his view the notion takes Christianity and its religious tenets to dangerous new levels.

The essay alludes briefly to the foundersā€™ intent when they formed this government of ours. They wrote the constitutional articles, noting in the preamble that ā€œWe the People of the United Statesā€ sought to form a ā€œmore perfect Union.ā€ It doesnā€™t mention God, unlike the Declaration of Independence, which refers to our ā€œCreator,ā€ which of course is a reference to a universal God.

The First Amendment to the Constitution lists freedom from several government mandates, the first of those was freedom from government-sanctioned religion; it instructs that ā€œCongress shall make no lawā€ that establishes a state religion.

I am fine with that. Christian nationalists, though, are not fine with it. They believe wrongly that the founders created a religious document when in fact they created a document that was as far from a religious governmental framework that one can get.

I encourage you to take a look at Sandersā€™s essay.

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2022/01/09/heres-where-christian-nationalism-comes-from-and-what-it-gets-wrong/

Sanders writes, for example:Ā Christian nationalism isnā€™t attracting followers because itā€™s far-fetched. On the contrary, like all the most dangerous errors, it is attractive because it seems good. It is darkness masquerading as light, like the Apostle Paul warned. In modern parlance, we might say it is truth-adjacent.

The rioters who stormed the Capitol Building on 1/6 exemplified the horror of Christian nationalism. They sought to persuade the rest of us that they were to do Godā€™s work by disrupting the 2020 presidential election certification. My goodness! They were acting at the urging of a defeated president and transferring his message into some twisted form of religious doctrine.

I must rank Christian nationalism among the list of existential threats to the very principles on which this nation came into being.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

national news

Filibuster? Yes, but make ’em talk!

By JOHN KANELIS / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Senate Democrats and progressives around the country want to eliminate the filibuster from Senate procedure.

They contend it is being abused by the Republican minority in the “world’s greatest deliberative body.” I am not going to join that chorus. I don’t have a particular problem with the filibuster, other than the way it is implemented now.

Senators can declare a filibuster is in effect when they object to legislation. Then they go about their business as if nothing is happening.

If they’re going to filibuster, they should be forced to stand on the Senate floor and talk their lungs out in an effort to kill legislation. Make ’em blab about this and/or that, which is what the filibuster was designed initially to require.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said recently he would talk until he “fell over.” I might pay real American money to see that happen.

The filibuster is aimed to protect the interests of the political minority. At the moment, the GOP is the minority party. One day they might regain control of the Senate, although I don’t particularly want that to happen. What happens then, if the Senate kills the filibuster now, disallowing future political minorities from exercising the long-standing Senate rule?

The filibuster wasn’t written into the Constitution; it was enacted under Senate rule-making authority. Getting rid of it only solves the issue of the moment. The balance of power has this way of swinging back and forth.

If we keep the filibuster, by all means then make senators stand in the well and bluster and bloviate until they do fall over.

national news

An ‘innocent’ POTUS keeps acting like a guilty POTUS

Here we are as a most tumultuous year is about to head for the sunset of history.

Donald Trump is going to stand trial eventually in 2020. He says the House of Representatives impeachment of him is a sham, a hoax and a witch hunt. He declares that he has done nothing wrong.

However, he is continuing to deny the Senate any access to witnesses who, it would stand to reason if you believe the president, would offer testimony that is favorable to him.

I keep wondering: Is this the conduct of a man with nothing to hide, nothing to keep from public view, nothing that would change any Republican minds?

The House impeached Trump on charges that he abused the power of his office by seeking political help from a foreign government. He did so in a phone call with the Ukrainian president. The White House released a memo of that phone call. He says it as clear as can be, but he calls the phone call “perfect.”Ā  The House also impeached him on obstruction of Congress. How does one dispute that, given that Trump has demanded that no key White House aides answer congressional subpoenas, denying Congress the ability to do its constitutional duties relating to oversight of the executive branch of government?

The president and his GOP allies say the evidence doesn’t stack up. I disagree with that view but that’s just my view.

I cannot grasp the notion of a president continuing to deny access to key witnesses if he is as innocent of wrongdoing as he insists.

I want this trial to be completed. I do not want a drawn-out extravaganza that will become a sideshow. I do want witnesses to testify. I also want there to be any additional evidence submitted that will enable senators to make a more clear-headed decision on whether the president stays in office.

The president says he’s innocent. The president’s actions are those of a guilty man.

Welcome to another tumultuous year.

national news

POTUS provides impetus to proceed now with impeachment

Donald J. Trump’s profound arrogance has given the House of Representatives all the evidence it now needs to determine that the president of the United States has committed an impeachable act.

He has committed an unconstitutional act. How?

By awarding himself a massive government contract that will bring the leaders of the seven leading industrial nations of the world to his posh resort in south Florida. Yep, Doral National Country Club is going to play host to the G7 summit of nations next spring.

Donald Trump has declared Doral to be the most fitting resort in the United States to host this event. He has violated the Emoluments Clause to the U.S. Constitution, the one that says the president cannot profit from his public office.

Trump will profit bigly by playing host to the G7 summit.

There is no more need, in my mind, for the House to look much further — if at all — for reasons to impeach the president. He has delivered a big reason all by himself.

I haven’t mentioned — until right now — what White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney declared, that the president withheld arms to Ukraine for political purposes. He then scolded the media to “Get over it.”

That, too, is an impeachable offense. It also violates the Constitution.

However, this awarding of the government contract to his own business simply crosses the biggest red line possible.

Donald Trump needs to be impeached. He needs to be thrown out of office after a Senate trial.

My question remains: How in the name of no man being above the law can Republicans in Congress and across the land ignore what is occurring in real time before all our eyes?