President Donald Trump's weekend tweets provided us all with the final proof that Trump, by his own words, is a racist ("Trump: 'Why don't they go back?' " July 15).
He has told four nonwhite women who are elected members of Congress to go back to where they came from.
We cannot change Trump. What we can try to change are those elected Republican officials who, shamelessly, continue to support him. For those who have or might vote Republican, now is the time to take a stand. Continue to remain silent, or demand that those who represent you in government do what's right and publicly reject Trump.
Neil Fagerhaugh, Hugo
• • •
The president has called out four new members of Congress that they should apologize to him and our country for trying to tell us how to run our government. How ironic! This president has no idea how our government works or the jobs of the people in the government that make it run. He doesn't know the history of this country and what laws and customs have come about to make this the greatest country well before him. He is a salesman/dictator who plays to his base only and doesn't listen to anyone who disagrees with him about people, foreign policy and allies. He only thinks of himself and his re-election. Letting him rant and rave about everything only gives him all the attention he wants.
Get down to business, Congress, and stand up for the government and ideals so many have died for.
Mary Dosan, Eveleth, Minn.
• • •
Trump cannot see that the members of Congress he criticized are already helping to "fix the totally broken and crime infested places" where three of them were born — the United States. And together they already "show us how it is done."
Stan Kaufman, New Brighton
• • •
Why the constant amazement at outrageous events caused by the president? It's like Captain Renault in the movie "Casablanca" being shocked to learn there is gambling at Rick's Cafe. Trump commands the press, and it reports the heinous treatment of immigrants. He wants that. The border concentration camps, and separating children and infants from parents, are designed to discourage illegal immigration. That's pretty clear. Just as we waterboarded overseas, we are torturing at the southern border. The real tragedy is the willingness of a significant group of U.S. voters to endorse these policies, which provides aid and comfort to white supremacists and racists.
We have met the enemy, and it is us.
Richard Breitman, Minneapolis
• • •
The July 15 Star Tribune headline "Trump: 'Why don't they go back?'" and the summary "His tweet was about four congresswomen of color" perfectly gave your readers the strong impression (albeit, false impression) that the president was telling these congresswomen to go back to their countries because they're not white. Perfect.
But did you really find it necessary to mention in the bowels of the article that what Trump actually told them was legitimate advice: "Why don't they go back and fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done"?
Remember, we never want to miss an opportunity to twist Trump's words to make him look bad. After all, we are trying to secure the future of our country.
Doug Daggett, Minneapolis
ILHAN OMAR
I'm on her side, but I want the truth
No, J. Patrick Coolican ("What the Post said about Omar," July 14): Fiction is not an accepted tool in all national discourse. U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar's fuzzy grasp of fact and source is appalling to me, as it is to many other Democrats. While she may be doing some good in Congress, Omar deserves much of the criticism she is receiving for her toxic and uninformed comments. Being a Democrat (and, as Coolican put it, a "storyteller" of my "clan") doesn't let her off the hook for the responsibility to be factual and thoughtful in front of her microphone.
Mary Cummings, St. Paul
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
St. Louis Park doesn't need it
While all are welcome in St. Louis Park, hate is not. We will not let hate hijack patriotism by bowing to hate-filled agitators who do not even live here ("Sparks fly over pledge removal," July 9). Ours is a diverse, progressive community; that's why many of us choose to live here. I love my country, my city and my community. I believe in our Constitution and our history of welcoming refugees and acting as a leader in doing what is right around the world.
I have nothing against the Pledge of Allegiance, but I believe our City Council did the right thing by eliminating it from council meetings. It is, in essence, a citizenship pledge, and not all of our community members are citizens, and noncitizen residents pay taxes, too. Some may be in the process of seeking citizenship. Others may be here for school and will return to their homeland in the future; perhaps she is an engineering student who will return to her home to build infrastructure for clean drinking water. Still others may have broken hearts knowing that they cannot stay here. All of them are members of our community and deserve a seat at our community table where they are welcomed and comfortable. We don't know everyone's story, and our City Council's actions showed understanding, recognition and compassion in regard to that.
Hate, stay out of St. Louis Park!
Meg McCormick, St. Louis Park
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Here's Trump's chance to be great
With a president who claims to be the greatest deal maker of all time, one could only hope he would use those negotiating skills in following a legal requirement to combat one of the existential threats to human life on this planet.
In 2020, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons will be 50 years old. Article VI of that treaty requires parties to the treaty to "pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control." The five countries with the overwhelming preponderance of those nuclear weapons — China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States — have all ratified that treaty.
It's been nearly half of a century now. Have these countries been negotiating in good faith? If not, what an opportunity this is for a president who is intent on following the law and who happens to possess such remarkable negotiating skills.
Mr. President: Do your thing, follow the law, shame past administrations — both Democratic and Republican — and create a truly worthy legacy.
Chuck Turchick, Minneapolis
CHARITABLE GIVING
'Dirty' money can be used for good
In Saturday's article about Jeffrey Epstein's charitable giving ("Epstein's giving questioned," July 13), three organizations were noted for giving back the money they received.
I don't get it. Why take money away from an organization that helps children and young people and give it back to someone who has harmed them? What is considered acceptable money, anyway? Does a murderer, or someone who commits domestic assault, have money good to take? How about a convicted drunken driver who wants to donate to Mothers Against Drunk Driving? If people's past and morals are going to determine whether their money is good to take, I think funds could start drying up quickly. I understand it looks good to be righteous, but if the money is legal tender, I say use it and do good with it!
Christopher Bradshaw, Columbus
Want to see your thoughts here? Submit a letter to the editor.
