Since the election, Congressman Bill Flores has ignored and even blocked many of his constituents who have dared to ask hard-hitting questions on social media. It seems that he prefers to live in an echo chamber.
Just this morning (Feb. 3), Flores used his verified Twitter account to brush aside a constituent’s open letter regarding the travel ban, saying: “My decisions are based upon facts. Facts based upon briefings from Homeland Security, FBI, IC, classified briefings, etc.”
So you can imagine my surprise when I clicked a link he had posted a few days earlier labeled “Fact Check: YES, Terrorists Have Come From Countries on President Trump’s Travel Ban” and found that the article our dear congressman cited was “written” by Walter White, crystal-meth kingpin from AMC’s smash hit “Breaking Bad.” Flores might as well have cited an article by Harry Potter.
The rest of the website in question (www.thepoliticalinsider.com) is littered with clickbait and propaganda that reads like castoffs from the National Enquirer. Had Flores dug a little deeper, he might have learned that “Duck Dynasty’s Sadie Robertson Just Made a MAJOR Announcement . . . This Changes EVERYTHING” and “WikilLeaks CONFIRMS Hillary Sold Weapons to ISIS . . . Then Drops Another BOMBSHELL!”
My question is this: Should a man who can’t discern real information from fake even be privy to classified briefings, let alone be allowed to weigh in on matters of national security?
Bethany Grones, Waco
To ask, to answer
Is there no distance too far to go; no amount of your own or George Soros’ money too much to be squandered; no amount of time too precious to be wasted; no school day or class that can’t be skipped by teacher and student; no family responsibility, career or job so vital that it can’t be forsaken — just to give the new president a sourpuss welcome into office by protesting, carrying disrespectful signs, wearing vulgar costumes or rioting, breaking and burning other people’s property and physically attacking his supporters?
Is there no distortion, lie, absurdity, inanity, curse, threat, vulgarity, insult, taunt, no derogatory name or expletive that will not be uttered by his rabble-rousing opponents? No executive order, appointment, nomination, assignment or proposal that will not be opposed, protested, boycotted, litigated, abrogated, wept over or filibustered by the disloyal opposition in Congress or by disgruntled Democratic political appointees still in positions of authority in executive branch departments and agencies? Is there no sense of embarrassment or pettiness in a former president upon shattering tradition, just days after leaving office, by criticizing the lawful and constitutional actions of his successor?
Rhetorical questions, y’all. To ask is to answer them.
Sammy McLarty, Waco