Monthly Archives: June 2022

national news

Do you see the irony?

Occasionally, I see irony where others might not realize it exists. Think for a moment about Donald Trump’s inauguration as president in January 2017.

He stood on the Capitol steps that day and made a declaration that became the signature line of his inaugural speech to the nation.

“The American carnage,” he said, “stops right here and right now.”

Oh, the conservative media just ate that stuff up.

But wait a second!

Just two weeks short of four years later, a whole lot of carnage took place on those very steps where Trump declared it would stop. The insurrection against the government involved the beat-down of Capitol Police officers by a mob of traitors seeking to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

Hey, it’s a whole lot more than just another of Donald Trump’s unkept promises. I just find the irony of the location of the insurrection and Trump’s bold assertion to be too much compelling to ignore.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

crime news

Is this the tipping point?

U.S. senators from both parties are actually saying something few of us thought possible, which is that there might be some legislation coming forward that could impose some limits on gun purchases.

A gunman killed 10 shoppers at a supermarket in Buffalo, N.Y. Then just a few days later another gunman slaughtered 19 fourth-graders and two teachers.

Americans have taken to the streets in protest. They are demanding something be done. President Biden has joined the chorus for gun reform.

Republicans in the Senate aren’t budging on a couple of key points: raising the age limit to purchase a firearm and extended universal background checks.

But … there appears to be some movement. Something might come forth. There could be a “red flag law” enacted allowing states to withhold possession of a firearm if a buyer comes up suspicious.

I guess I am heartened only a little by the apparent change of heart among some lawmakers. Get a load of this: Some Republican senators, such as Mitt Romney of Utah, said he now supports raising the age limit from 18 to 21 years of age to buy a firearm.

I won’t call this a tipping point. Indeed, many of us thought that the Sandy Hook Elementary School (Conn.) tragedy a decade ago — when 20 second-graders and six teachers were massacred — would have spurred some action. It didn’t.

Some in the Senate, naturally, are blaming reformers of “politicizing” events such as Buffalo and Uvalde. What an utter crock! Their refusal to act in the wake of this senseless violence in itself is a highly political demonstration. Therefore, they can cease the “politicization” argument … OK?

A little bit of movement, though, toward a legislative remedy — no matter how timid — is far better than what we’ve had so far. It gives me a glimmer of hope.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

DC riot

House panel sets table nicely

Members of the House select committee examining the 1/6 insurrection and assault on the Capitol Building have set the table nicely for the rest of the televised hearings we’re going to watch.

Oh, and make no mistake: I will watch them all … if I can.

Committee Vice Chair Liz Cheney — one of two Republicans serving on the panel — has set the stage for a possible recommendation of criminal indictments against Donald J. Trump. Chairman Bennie Thompson said as much, too, suggesting that the evidence the committee has seen to date present a planned, orchestrated plot conducted from within the Oval Office to overturn the 2020 presidential election results and keep Trump in power.

From my perch in the cheap seats, that is an illegal act. Trump broke the law. Attorney General Merrick Garland well might find he has no choice but to send this matter to a grand jury, which then could indict the 45th president of the United States on federal felony charges.

I guess a quick word of thanks is in order to Chairman Thompson for letting us see this investigation play out in our living rooms.

Not that I need convincing. I am learning a bit more about the Constitution and the protection it provides against the kind of lawlessness we witnessed unfolding in that attack on our democratic process.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

DC riot

Waiting now to see what AG will do

We are all going to know in due course — but it won’t occur within the next few days — what lurks inside the head and the heart of the U.S. attorney general, Merrick Garland.

The House select committee examining the insurrection that occurred on 1/6 is going to make a decision after it concludes its testimony-taking from witnesses who saw what happened in the White House on that hideous day.

Committee Vice Chair Liz Cheney more or less let it be known what the panel is thinking, which is that Donald J. Trump was criminally liable for what he did to provoke the traitorous mob into attacking the Capitol Building. What Trump did that day, Cheney said, was “illegal” and “immoral.” The illegal part lies at the crux of what Garland is facing.

If the committee determines that the 45th POTUS committed an illegal act, then it falls onto Garland to decide whether the Justice Department should charge him with committing a felony.

It’s never been done before. Thus, AG Garland is facing an unprecedented quandary. Garland has declared he will follow the facts wherever they lead. If they lead his legal team into the Oval Office that day, well, that means an indictment is a cinch.

Garland strikes many of as a careful, thoughtful man, one who is not prone to embark on half-baked fishing expeditions just to make a political point.

You know what I want to see happen. In truth, though, the desires of the public should mean nothing to Garland as he ponders what he should do.

I just want to remind everyone about a fundamental truth that has been repeated publicly to the point of it becoming almost cliche. It is that “no one — not even the president of the United States — is above the law.”

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

DC riot

How will GOP defend this?

Americans are likely to witness one of the most artful dodges in the nation’s political history.

My only hope is that most Americans will see it for what it is: an effort to cover the backside of a corrupt, immoral and ignorant president who endorsed an insurrection and didn’t lift a finger to stop it when it occurred.

We’ve just seen Day One of the televised hearings of the House of Representatives select committee examining the 1/6 insurrection.

Donald Trump was responsible for inciting the assault on our nation’s capital and our democratic process. I reached that conclusion long ago.

We are going to hear recordings of Republican congressional leaders condemn the president’s non-response to the insurrection. They will tell us once again that Trump provoked the attack. That he is singularly responsible for the effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

Now, though, they stand with the criminal who masqueraded as our commander in chief. How are they going to defend what clearly is the indefensible conduct of a man possessed with the burning desire to cling to power.

The former POTUS’s daughter has said she endorses the view of then-Attorney General William Barr, who said Trump’s claim of “widespread voter fraud” in the 2020 election is nothing but “bullsh**.”

Now we have learned that The Donald actually endorsed the chant of “Hang Mike Pence!” that came from the traitorous mob, telling aides that the former vice president of the United States deserved to be hanged. Incredible!

So, again comes the question: How in the name of democracy do the Trump toadies in government and across the land defend this individual? 

Well, there will be an effort made to deflect what we have heard and seen with our ears and our eyes. Americans of conscience must not let this deflection succeed.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

DC riot

Disqualification … maybe?

A good friend brought something to my attention while responding to an earlier blog post wondering about how to keep Donald Trump from ever holding public office for as long as he lives.

He cited Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states the following: No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

The U.S. House select 1/6 committee is examining whether Donald J. Trump committed an act of insurrection against the government on 1/6 by inciting the assault on Capitol Hill by the mob of traitors who sought to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election … the one that Trump lost to Joe Biden.

What does any of this mean? Consider what could occur.

The Justice Department, after hearing all the evidence — which to my mind is pretty damning already — could indict Trump for citing an insurrection. Trump could go to trial. A jury could convict the former POTUS of deliberately seeking to overturn the election results.

Then Congress — with a conviction in hand — could vote, under the Constitution’s rules, bar Trump from ever seeking public office.

Few things in life would make me happier than to see that occur.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

DC riot

Can we ban this guy from public office?

I cannot possibly presume to know more than the legal eagles who work for Congress and its assorted committees, but this question is worth pondering as we digest what we are going to learn from the 1/6 House select committee’s televised hearings.

Is it legally possible to ban Donald J. Trump from serving in any public office, even though the ex-POTUS survived two impeachment trials in the U.S. Senate?

Had he been convicted and booted from office, there was a clause in the proceedings that allowed Congress to ban this moron from ever seeking public office for the rest of his life.

After one evening of public testimony broadcast around the world about the 1/6 insurrection that sought to overturn the 2020 presidential election result, this much is crystal clear to me: Donald Trump was hideously derelict in his duty as commander in chief, as chief executive of the federal government and as our head of state by his refusal to stop the violence that was unfolding on Capitol Hill.

By any reasonable measure, this lying, self-serving narcissist has no business ever darkening the doors of the White House ever again. Under no circumstance should he be allowed into the People’s House. To think that there are serious political analysts who believe he actually has a chance at returning as POTUS simply makes me shudder. I do not believe he will run in 2024 … but that’s just me and as you know already, I am wrong far more frequently than I am right.

However, I am not wrong about my belief that this idiot ever should be allowed to run for public office based on what we have heard all along about his conduct on 1/6 and what we are likely to hear in the weeks to come.

Again, I need to know whether there is a way to stop this dangerous fool from re-entering the public political arena.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

national news

Rage mounts hourly

I have said all along that the 1/6 insurrection is difficult to watch and it gets more difficult as time marches on, reminding me a bit of the 9/11 attack’s effect on my emotions.

Still, the House select committee’s hearing that came to prime time this evening has been riveting, even as it fills me with rage over what happened that day during the siege on Capitol Hill.

There will be more to learn and more to discern from the hearings that will continue over the course of several weeks.

I am left to wonder how in the name of governmental integrity those who dismiss what occurred on 1/6 can continue to deny what the rest of us witnessed yet again tonight.

It was not a “routine Capitol tour.” It was not a part of “normal political discourse.” It was not a “peaceful demonstration.”

Good grief, man! It was an insurrection against our democratic process! We have been told in the clearest terms possible that Donald Trump orchestrated it. He did nothing to stop in real time. Trump sought to cling to power and do something that no previous president ever had attempted, which was to commit an act of sedition against the government he took an oath to protect.

I am even angrier than ever at the man who masqueraded as the nation’s chief executive. I thought I had maxed out by anger.

Silly me. I need to get ready to get even angrier.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

economic news

Shall we slow down to reduce fuel prices?

Of all the possible remedies being discussed on how to deal with the skyrocketing price of motor fuel, I have yet to hear one notion that got a lot of attention in the 1970s when we experienced an earlier form of sticker shock at the gas pump.

Those of us old folks recall when the Middle East oil embargo forced prices to zoom out of sight. Our response then in real time? It was to slow motorists down to 55 mph. Do you recall that? Sure you do!

Congress acted with relative dispatch.

The slowdown on our interstate highways lasted until the mid-1990s when Republicans took control of Congress and then lifted the mandated speed restrictions. We’ve been zooming along ever since.

I want to offer that as a possible talking point in the current climate.

It is clear that slowing down our motor vehicles from 75 and 80 mph to something a good bit less than that results in significant fuel savings. So, if you play that out just a bit you come up with a notion that greater supply and diminished demand on a commodity — such as gasoline or diesel fuel — could drive the price of that product down to more reasonable levels.

I was a huge proponent of slowing motorists in the 1970s. I received plenty of grief from my West Texas friends about my desire to drive more slowly.

Well, I don’t expect anyone to take this seriously. Perhaps the current price spikes are far beyond simple remedies such as what we enacted in an earlier time.

I just would like to see this talking point introduced once again in the public debate on energy policy. Let’s all remember this indisputable fact: Fossil fuels will not last forever.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

DC riot

Waiting for bomb blast

I am awaiting the start of televised testimony tonight into the insurrection that sought to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

I’ll admit to having made up my mind long ago about what happened, who is responsible and what should occur. Still, I await the testimony tonight and in subsequent 1/6 House select committee hearings with a bit of eager anticipation.

I know that Donald Trump incited the riot. I also know that he did nothing to stop it. I know he hasn’t expressed the slightest shred of public regret or sadness at the loss of life and the injuries suffered that day. I also believe the Justice Department should indict the ex-POTUS on charges of conspiring to commit sedition.

My mind will not change as a result of these hearings. Indeed, it might harden. I well might feel more inclined the believe the very worst about a man I have despised long before he became a politician.

But … I intend to watch. You’ll be hearing from me in the days to come. Honest.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com