Transparent motives
The Clinton Foundation is transparent. You can tell who talked to Hillary Clinton, who gave donations, where the money goes, etc.
Donald Trump refuses to show his income taxes for any years. How transparent is that? By the way, Donald Trump has donated to the Clinton Foundation. Maybe we should investigate what he got in return.
How about this: He agrees to run for president as a Republican, destroys the party and loses the election to Hillary on purpose. How about that for a conspiracy theory?
ED PARKS
Rogers
Lesson of Depression
It seems the Republican Party mainly represents the rich and their business interests. The Democratic Party represents the rest of us.
When I was young, Arkansas was Democratic. My grandfather, Frank DuVall, was the head saw-filer at the sawmill in Huttig. In November of 1952, my mother proudly announced that she had just voted for Dwight Eisenhower because he said he would end the war in Korea. My grandmother had a heart attack that very day and died.
She still had small children in 1919. Suddenly the mills and factories closed. Towns were boarded up. There was no money, no food and no jobs. Then the banks closed. Depression turned into the Great Depression. The Republican Congress, 1929-1933, then as now, did nothing to alleviate the suffering of millions. President Roosevelt and the Democrats saved us in 1933, but it took the spending of World War II to get us out of the Great Depression.
From 1945 to 1980, our GDP grew 12 times with mostly Democratic Congresses. From 1980 to 2015, our GDP grew only six times due to trickle-down economics. The Clinton administration raised taxes on the rich, added 22 million new jobs and left us with a $236 billion surplus. Bush II gave it away in tax cuts, mostly for the rich. Now Republicans want to cut taxes and spending and balance the budget.
I believe a Republican Congress with a Republican president will surely bring on another Great Depression. Don't give them a chance. Give Hillary Clinton a Democratic Congress or nothing will change. We learned this lesson in 1932.
RUUD DuVALL
Fayetteville
Amendment working
In his recent letter, Ted Zabel suggests that the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right of citizens to own firearms for lawful purposes, made sense in an age of so-called wild Indians and outlaws, but is obsolete in modern-day America.
Experienced law enforcement officers would likely tell him that such marauders from bygone eras can't compare with today's violent criminal element in terms of viciousness and mayhem.
What he really seems to be saying is "Will you gun-owning Second Amendment supporters kindly fork over your right to be safe and secure from criminal attacks?
I would say, "No way!"
ELWIN GAMMEL
Hector
Ransom? Not really
I share the Republicans' distaste concerning the $400 million payment to Iran but, unlike them, I realize that the United States was acknowledging a debt that we owed.
I think that their assertion that the payment constitutes a ransom is highly nefarious. They ignore the fact that the payment was made to settle our obligation to Iran and that a "real" ransom usually means that the payment is made specifically to gain the release of a person or persons, and that the ransom is paid from the funds belonging to the abductee's nation and not the abductor's nation.
Iran, knowing that the payment was going to be made anyway, did not need to hold the "hostages" in order to get that payment. Iran released them because they had agreed to do so. Republicans see our insistence on getting the prisoners out prior to their receiving the money as proof of ransom; I see it as a healthy mistrust of Iran's intentions.
The payment's critics have been eager to point out that some Iranian officials have referred to the payment as "ransom." I view that as a positive development; even though we can't believe anything else the Iranians tell us, critics assert that Iran is truthful about that particular point.
My view is that the "ransom" controversy is nothing more than an attempt to discredit the Obama administration and the Democratic Party in an election year and therefore should not be taken seriously by anyone other than Republicans and Fox News.
ED CHESS
Little Rock
Put the notion to rest
I wish the silly notion, perpetuated by a recent Hollywood film and the spurious Gospel of Thomas, that Jesus was able to perform miracles prior to becoming an adult could be put to rest. The Bible does not say when he acquired this power, but it seems to me that the most logical point in time for him to have done so was following his baptism by John when the Holy Spirit descended upon him. He then went into the desert, like many before him (the desert being a fine place to do such things), to sort things out, to decide how he was going to use this newly acquired power.
While there he formulated three great guiding principles for the rest of his life. First, he would not use this power to benefit himself (only others), demonstrated by refusing to turn stones into bread to ease his hunger. Secondly, he would not use his power simply to perform stunts to attract attention, demonstrated by refusing to jump safely from the pinnacle of the temple. Why the temple? Because there would be crowds of people there to observe. Thirdly, he would refuse to use his power to set up an earthly kingdom that would only last until his death, or interfere in any way in the affairs of men except by changing the hearts and minds of individuals.
Jesus the carpenter's son went into the desert; Jesus the Christ came out. Simple as that.
JOHN McPHERSON
Searcy
Editorial on 08/29/2016