Why is Nunes still on the run?
During the runup to the 2018 election, Congressman Devin Nunes was on the run. He hid from his opponent, from journalists, and even from voters. What is he doing now? Devin is still on the run.
He’s on the run from his imagined enemies, voters in his own district and journalists, who would like to ask him straightforward questions about what he is actually doing for his constituents. He hides away in the cozy confines of friendly talk shows, chirps from his Twitter perch, maintains a façade of a Facebook presence by blocking critical comments (1st Amendment violation), and last but not least, he separates “fact from fiction” and “keeps us informed” through his weekly podcasts.
Does Congressman Nunes really think the people in his district are fools? His sanitized and censored charade doesn’t cut it. We need to remember that he has not held a single town hall meeting since 2010. That is one of the reasons he nearly lost the 2018 election to Andrew Janz. What’s so wrong with holding annual town hall meetings throughout California’s sprawling 22nd district? What are you afraid of, Rep. Nunes? To paraphrase recent congressional testimony by Jon Stewart, “Do your job.”
Patrick A. Kelly, Clovis
Hypocrisy of Democrats is visible
Lately, I’ve been reading comments by Democratic politicians and letters to the editor attacking Trump’s policy of migrant detention, er “concentration,” camps, and demanding that they be closed. I wonder where all these people were when the Obama administration was operating essentially the same facilities. I don’t recall a single letter of protest in The Bee or anywhere else at the time.
For that matter, the news media generally declined to criticize the camps as well, or even talk about them. Maybe they didn’t know, but it now seems probable that they didn’t want to embarrass Obama by shedding light on a dark side of his presidency.
One of the reasons that I have problems with Democrats is that if they do something of dubious legality or morality, it’s OK, but then it’s not OK for anyone else to do it. By any definition, they’re engaging in a double standard. If they say the camps are wrong, they should have said so from the very beginning. They’re plain hypocrites, and that’s the bottom line.
Larry Parmeter, Fresno
Citizenship ends illegal invasions
Finally an issue that offended many people, including me, is a national topic for discussion — census citizenship query (The Bee, July 9).
For years I refused to answer questions, “Are you African American … Latina … Hispanic White… Hawaii Island …White?” Instead, I wrote back reminding them about MLK Dream. Then added, “Are you U.S. Citizen?” mast asked as part of federal, state and civic employment applications. I also refused to answer the same questions on the end of each phone survey. (What would happen if someone in private sector asks the same questions before hiring people?)
I was shocked to hear Ms. Pelosi very emotionally shared her view about this matter. Really, census citizenship query is “racist,” or it unites us under big umbrella and stops dividing our nation into many groups.
These elected officials must wake up from their 30-years dream world — Americans are not living in “stone age” anymore. Thanks to the geniuses who created the internet, the real news travels fast. It’s accurate, trustworthy and transparent. It makes electrodes to see how their elected officials act, talk and lie from the people’s house.
Therefore, the census citizenship query isn’t racist; it unifies Americans as one nation and will help stop illegal invasions.
Astine Zadourian, Fowler
Pay attention to Mueller testimony
Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his team spent 22 months investigating the efforts by Russia to manipulate the 2016 presidential election, interviewing approximately 500 witnesses and reviewing thousands of pieces of evidence. A majority of Americans, rather than independently reviewing the report’s findings, relied on the attorney general or the president to summarize for them what the investigation revealed.
Their summary —no collusion, no obstruction — is not at all what the actual report said. The report stated “the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.” That sounds to me like collusion.
On the subject of obstruction, the report reads “our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigation.” Mueller will testify publicly before Congress on July 17. I suggest that everyone should be interested in what he has to say.
Richard Thurman, Fresno