Masterson's high praise
of Trump misplaced
I applaud Mike Masterson's dogged (and much needed) defense of our Buffalo River. But his [Feb. 27] paean to Trump is laughable.
He cites Trump's "full-Monty transparency." What about his refusal to release his tax returns? His hush-money payments to porn stars and Playmates? His refusal to divest himself fully from his businesses?
Mike calls Trump "brash, egocentric and unafraid to call out by name" people who displease him. He certainly knows how to hurl insults (Crooked Hillary, Little Marco, Lying Ted, etc.). He can also demean women with the best of them (Access Hollywood, "she'd do ANYTHING for my endorsement!" etc.) But what in God's name is presidential about any of that?
And citing Andrew Jackson by comparison? Remember the Indian Displacement Act? The Trail of Tears? And you're still doing Old Hickory a disservice by mentioning him in the same sentence with Trump.
Trump's candor, according to Mike, "makes him seem far more genuine and honest than other presidents." Really? According to most fact-checking sites, Trump is clocking in at five lies a day. He started his political career on a huge lie, Obama's birthplace, and he hasn't slowed down since.
He's "not controlled by calculating, wealthy handlers." Well, maybe not American ones, anyway, right? Who knows about the Russian ones since his "transparency" won't let us see what he's been up to for the last 15 years.
"A man who gave up a cushy life" to be president "because he cared about the nation?" He sacrificed his salary "for the good of the country?" As far as lifestyle, the only change I see is that he gets to play a lot more golf and stick the country with the bill for transportation and lodging. And his salary is small change compared what he's making off the "Trump brand" as president.
I believe history will judge him to be the biggest mistake this country has ever made (so far) in electing a president. Mike should stick to local issues. That's what he's good at.
Tim Buckley
Fayetteville
If guns are really at fault,
why send soldiers to war?
Why is it that we always blame the gun and the NRA and not the shooter? If a drunk driver kills a family, we don't blame Budweiser or Chevy or even the bar or liquor store? We blame the idiot that got drunk and decided to drive.
In the 1990s there was a ban on assault-style weapons, and the murder rate didn't drop. In fact, in some areas, it even went up. Now, let's look at the dreaded AR-15. AR stands for Armalite; 15 is the model number. It was first built in America in 1959 as a civilian semiautomatic sport shooting rifle. Armalite sold the rights to Colt. Colt then modified the AR-15 to full auto, and marketed it to the military as the M16, which went into production in 1964. Colt still made the AR-15 in semi-auto only and marketed it to civilians and law enforcement. Now many gun makers use the AR-15 platform. So it was designed for civilian use and adopted by the military.
Now one more fact that the media and the Left won't admit is that all these mass killings happened in "gun-free zones." Someone who is willing to kill another person doesn't care about laws. When we can keep drugs out of schools, then I'll believe gun laws work.
So, if the guns are killing people, why are we sending young men to war? Why not just send the guns, instead?
Marvin Bair
Rogers
NW News on 03/17/2018