International news

U.S. takes out major terrorist

Ayman al-Zawahiri never obtained the same high-profile notoriety as his international terrorist predecessor, Osama bin Laden.

However, as of today, the two terrorists share an important trait. They both are dead! Al-Zawahiri is just as dead as bin Laden.

The news today marks a significant victory for U.S. intelligence officials who located al-Zawahiri in Afghanistan and then launched a drone strike to take the bad guy out.

I want to make an important point that, yes, is going to remind readers of this blog about a pledge that President Biden made a year ago when he announced the sudden withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan.

He told us that the United States would not relent in its hunt for international terrorists, even as we removed our troops from the battlefield in Afghanistan.

Ayman al-Zawahiri happened to be bin Laden’s successor as the leader of al-Qaeda, the monstrous terrorist organization that carried out the 9/11 attack on our nation and dragged us into a global war against those who would seek to do us harm.

President Barack Obama ordered the SEAL team strike that killed bin Laden in May 2011. It was a huge moment of victory for this nation’s war on terror. Many of us cautioned, though, in real time that someone would emerge to take bin Laden’s place.

That someone proved to be al-Zawahiri.

Now a new president, Joe Biden, gave the OK to launch a drone aircraft into Afghanistan, where it killed al-Zawahiri.

Does this mean the end of al-Qaeda? Hardly. We can expect another hideous animal to take the reins of the terror network.

All of this also illustrates what many of us have said since the immediate aftermath of 9/11, which is that we are likely entering an endless conflict against the forces of evil.

As Politico reports:

“The strike that killed al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri is a major success of U.S. counter-terrorism efforts. A result of countless hours of intelligence collection over many years,” said Mick Mulroy, a former Pentagon official and retired CIA paramilitary operations officer. “The message for all al-Qaeda and its affiliates should be that the U.S. will never relent in its mission to hold those accountable who would seek to harm the United States and its people.“

I’m all in.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

national news, national security

Domestic terrorist gets 7 years in prison … yes!

1 Comment

Guy Reffitt can now join an infamous — and likely growing — list of Americans who have been sent to the Big House for working to overturn the results of a free, fair and legal presidential election.

Reffitt lives just across Lake Lavon from your friendly blogger in Wylie, Texas. Today, he got slightly more than seven years in a federal prison for his role in whipping up the 1/6 insurrection attackers.

Reffitt didn’t actually enter the Capitol Building during the attack. He just whipped the crowd into a frenzy from outside the halls of power.

Texan Guy Reffitt sentenced to 7 1/4 years in prison for Jan. 6 riot | The Texas Tribune

His sentence, by the way, is the longest prison term handed out, so far, by a trial jury. So, this terrorist has set a record I am sure he would rather not possess. That is just too damn bad.

The Texas Tribune reported: “Reffitt sought not just to stop Congress, but also to physically attack, remove, and replace the legislators who were serving in Congress. This is a quintessential example of an intent to both influence and retaliate against government conduct through intimidation or coercion,” prosecutors wrote in a sentencing memo.

It is good to see the wheels of justice continuing to grind along.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Donald Trump

Cheney appears doomed

Liz Cheney is facing the mother of all conundrums as she seeks re-election to another term in the U.S. House of Representatives from Wyoming.

You see, Cheney serves on that select House committee searching for the truth behind the 1/6 insurrection. She has been highly critical of Donald J. Trump and his role in revving up the crowd to assault the nation’s Capitol Building on the day Congress was certifying the Electoral College results from the 2020 presidential election.

Cheney has managed, therefore, to anger many of her constituents for simply speaking truth to power.

I fear we are going to witness in a few days a political bloodletting that will occur for all the wrong reasons.

Cheney appears headed for defeat in the GOP primary in Wyoming. Trump has endorsed a fellow cultist to defeat Cheney. Never mind that Cheney voted with the Trump administration more than 90% of the time during Trump’s term in office. Or never mind that she remains as fervently conservative in her views as ever.

Her “sin” is that she believes Trump was wrong to rile up the crowd, sending them into battle to take down our government on 1/6.

“She’s done us dirty,” said Sharon Tuggle, who identified to CNN as a Trump supporter. “Look at how she’s done Trump.” Tuggle added that Cheney lost her vote because of the congresswoman’s work on the Jan. 6 committee.

“She’s supposed to be supporting him,” said Tuggle. “She’s a Republican for crying out loud.”

“I find her work on the Jan. 6 committee just repulsive,” said another female voter.

OK. Let me spell this out one more time. Cheney’s oath didn’t mention Trump. She took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, not Trump. That is what she is doing. She isn’t loyal to Trump. It’s the Constitution that deserves the undivided attention of all 535 members of Congress.

Be strong, Rep. Cheney. You have plenty of allies — such as yours truly — out here beyond your state’s borders.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

economic news

Don’t redefine recession

Here’s a bit of unsolicited advice for President Biden’s team of advisers and economic gurus.

Do not seek to redefine what constitutes an economic recession.

The feds this past week reported that the nation’s Gross Domestic Product fell for the second consecutive quarter. Isn’t that metric usually what economists call a recession?

We now hear Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen say that it’s not necessarily preordained that we’re in a recession. President Biden won’t acknowledge the inevitable, either.

In truth, any declaration on the health of the economy is supposed to come from an independent, bipartisan group of economists. That group will meet very soon to issue its proclamation.

I realize that Joe Biden wants the economy to keep humming along. We’re going to get a Labor Department jobs report at the end of the week. Those numbers will tell us a good bit more about whether we’re in a recession … which I believe is the case.

And that will be the case no matter how the administration might seek to spin it.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

State news

MAGA takes new form

So … you think you know what MAGA means, yes?

It has become sort of a term of art, an acronym for Make America Great Again. But when you use the acronym form it becomes an adjective, as in “MAGA voter,” or “MAGA policy.”

Ah, yes. Now comes the newest MAGA, which is one that I would be inclined heavily to support. The new form stands for Mothers Against Greg Abbott.

This MAGA’s unofficial godmother is Austin resident Nancy Thompson, who told Sharon Grigsby of the Dallas Morning News that she has grown tired of Gov. Abbott’s miserable performance on gun violence, on COVID protocols, on abortion rights and the Republican Party’s “general assault on public education and kids.”

She wants to form a movement. Thompson says her Facebook page has more than 50,000 members. Local chapters are forming across Texas.

Grigsby reports that Thompson “describes the group as ordinary Texans fighting for their children’s future. ‘This isn’t about Republican or Democratic families,’ she said. ‘It’s about fighting for what’s right to keep all families safe and healthy.'”

Grigsby said she isn’t willing to wager on MAGA’s effort moving the political needle in Texas, particularly as it regards Abbott’s campaign against Democratic challenger Beto O’Rourke. I believe she is right to hold back on any thought that this MAGA group is going to make any sort of dent in Abbott’s standing.

Whatever, this potential movement appears to be one more chink in the armor that has shielded Abbott and Texas Republicans quite well for the past 30 years.

Read Grisby’s essay here: How one Texas woman’s protest led to Mothers Against Greg Abbott and its viral abortion ad (dallasnews.com)

Grigsby asks: “Does Mothers Against Greg Abbott create a huge shift? Don’t count on it. But does it make a consequential dent? As one mother in its video campaign says, ‘They say nothing changes in Texas politics — until it does.'”

I am hoping for a change.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

environmental news

Small, but weighty difference

I want to mention a small but significant point I have sought to make since the moment I learned that Joe Biden had been elected president of the United States.

Given the context of the mood set by his immediate predecessor, I believe it’s important.

President Biden this past week issued a disaster declaration for the residents of Kentucky who’ve been ravaged by rampaging floodwaters. The deluge has killed at least 26 Kentuckians. The president was quick to unleash federal assistance to help the beleaguered state cope with mounting misery.

In 2019, wildfires torched many thousands of acres of timberland in California. What was Donald Trump’s response in the moment? It was to scold California forestry officials for “poor management policies” relating to the forests.

Biden offered the disaster declaration for a state he lost big-time to Trump in the 2020 election. Trump decided to single out California, which he lost in 2016 to Hillary Clinton, for alleged mismanagement.

Do you get the picture?

Joe Biden understands that when disaster strikes the nation should rally behind its citizens. Donald Trump sought in the moment to use a similar opportunity to stick his finger in the eye of his political foes.

Therein lies one of the many reasons I am glad that Joe Biden is the president of the United States.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

environmental news

Panhandle spoiled us!

2 Comments

My wife and I started a new life with our sons when we moved from the Pacific Northwest to the Golden Triangle region of Texas in the spring of 1984.

It was there that we got acquainted with the legendary Texas heat and humidity. We got acclimated — eventually! — and lived in Beaumont for nearly 11 years before my wife and I (the boys had since gone off to college) relocated again, this time settling in the faraway High Plains of the Panhandle.

It was the Panhandle where we discovered something else about this wonderful place we now call home. It is that the Caprock of West Texas has four distinct seasons … and that the summer, which can get brutally hot, does bring relief on occasion, even during the hottest period of the year.

It spoiled us. We grew accustomed to the lack of humidity in Amarillo, with its 3,676-foot elevation above sea level and its proximity to the Rocky Mountains.

We stayed in Amarillo for 23 years, which is the longest stint we ever have completed during our nearly 51 years of marriage.

Then we moved to the Metroplex in late 2018. We settled in Princeton, which is about 30 miles northeast of Dallas and, more importantly, is about nine miles NE of our granddaughter, who lives in Allen with her Mommy, Daddy and her two brothers.

It has been in Princeton where we’ve been reacquainted with the Texas humidity that accompanies the heat.

It’s been hot, man! We’ve had more than 30 days this summer of 100-degree-plus days. It’s not the hottest on record. For us, though, it’s been too hot, given that we are still feeling spoiled by all those years up yonder on the Caprock.

This is my way of reminding my bride and me that we’ll just need to suck it up and settle in every year for the Dog Days of summer … and remember what it was like when we first arrived in Texas those many years ago.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

national news

Trumpkins may save Democrats

I will get right to the point. Senate Democratic candidates might have an easier time winning their midterm election contests than originally thought.

Their secret weapon? It well might be the quality of their Republican Party opponents.

Democrat Tim Ryan is facing off against a GOP foe endorsed by Donald Trump. J.D. Vance is digging himself into a deeper hole almost daily with his goofy pronouncements; the men are competing for an Ohio U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Republican Rob Portman.

John Fetterman is running against Mehmet Oz for the U.S. Senate seat that Pennsylvania GOP Sen. Pat Toomey is leaving behind. Oz is another Trumpkin. Fetterman is making a whole lot of hay over the fact that Oz doesn’t live in Pennsylvania. He is making wise use of social media to whittle away at Oz.

Sen. Raphael Warnock is a Democrat seeking re-election to his office. His GOP challenger, another Trumpkin, is Herschel Walker, whom I have dubbed the No. 1 dumbass of the 2022 midterm election.

These are three notable examples. It might be — and I won’t predict it — that Democrats can perhaps gain a bit of an advantage over the GOP in the Senate races this year.

The goofballs anointed by Donald J. Trump give me reason to smile.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Term limits for SCOTUS justices? Oh, c’mon!

You are entitled officially now to consider your friendly blogger to be a constitutional originalist, meaning that the founders got it right when they established lifetime appointments for members of the federal judiciary.

Oh, but let’s hold on.

Some congressional Democrats want to rewrite the Constitution by establishing that Supreme Court justices are limited to serving just 18 years on the nation’s highest court. They don’t like the makeup of the current court and they want to shake things up in a way that, to my way of thinking, well could bring the framers jumping out of their graves.

This is a preposterous solution to an issue that is the result of the electoral process.

This term-limit idea comes from Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga. His bill also would require presidents to nominate two justices to the court during his or her term in office.

Oh, sigh.

In a statement accompanying the legislation, Johnson attacked the current makeup of the Supreme Court, saying that the Court is “facing a legitimacy crisis” because of its conservative majority, and because five of six conservatives were appointed by Presidents who did not win a majority of the popular vote.”

“This Supreme Court is increasingly facing a legitimacy crisis,” Johnson said. “Five of the six conservative justices on the bench were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote, and they are now racing to impose their out-of-touch agenda on the American people, who do not want it.  Term limits are a necessary step toward restoring balance to this radical, unrestrained majority on the court.”

Democrat Bill Would Impose Term Limits On SCOTUS Justices, Mandatory Replacements Every Two Years | The Daily Wire

Let me make this point one more time. Donald Trump did not win the popular vote in 2016. President George W. Bush, though, did win the popular vote in 2004 prior to nominating Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito to the court. However, that misses a fundamental point: Both Trump and Bush won election to the presidency because they garnered more Electoral College votes than their opponents. Their elections were legal, yes, even though many of us detested the result.

The founders sought to de-politicize the federal judiciary by granting judges lifetime appointments. I will acknowledge freely that the courts have become political, however. As for the argument that Rep. Johnson and other Democrats have said about the court lacking “legitimacy,” that argument falls most directly on the head of conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, who should recuse himself from any decision involving Trump’s Big Lie.

Again, is that a sufficient reason to rewrite the Constitution? No. It isn’t.

The best way to bring needed reform in the selection of our federal judiciary is to elect presidents and members of Congress who will nominate and then approve federal judges more to their liking.

The system never has been perfect. Then again, the framers only vowed to create a “more perfect Union.”

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

national news

No church-state separation? Ridiculous!

For the life of me I cannot understand how anyone with half a noodle in their noggin and with a poker face can question what the nation’s founders intended when they separated “the church” from “the state.”

The argument rages on and on. To my way of thinking, there is no argument to be made against the idea that the First Amendment separates the two.

I once had a colleague at the Amarillo Globe-News who would declare — stupidly, I should add — that the Constitution doesn’t declare in so many words that there is a “church-state separation.” Well, no, it doesn’t. Nor does it declare straight out that we shouldn’t murder other human beings.

The founders created a secular government run by a document that expressly forbids any mention of any specific religion. There’s no mention of Christianity, or of Judaism, or Islam, or Shinto,, or Buddha. Nothing, man!

All it says rests in the First Amendment, where it stipulates in plain English that “Congress shall make no law” that establishes a state religion.

Period. Full stop.

Now we have individuals, such as the distinguished Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, referring to the “so-called separation of … church and state.” There are members of Congress, the law-writing body, saying that church-state separation is a “myth.” It’s a “hoax.” That this is a Christian nation.

These nimrods make me want to scream from the depth of my lungs.

It is true that the founders argued among themselves over whether there should be a religious clause written into the Constitution. Ultimately, though, they decided against it. They believed that government must not be hidebound to theology in writing and enforcing the laws of the land.

And yet we have rubbish being spewed by the likes of Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., who said, “I’m tired of the separation of church and state junk that’s not in the Constitution. It was in a stinking letter, and it means nothing like what they say it does.”

Actually, young lady, you are wrong on this, as you are wrong on most things. Read my lips: Church-state separation most certainly is in the Constitution.

One final point. The founders were so intent on keeping religion out of our government, they wrote in Article VI: ” … no religious Test ever shall be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” 

Are we clear? Good! So, let’s quit having his idiotic debate.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience