The front-page story (“Democrats revive talks of using 25th Amendment,” April 20) reported that Democrats are exploring possible modalities, including impeachment and/or the 25th Amendment, to remove President Donald Trump. These appear to be futile attempts to bypass the election process.
Furthermore, letters in Monday’s edition claim that the conflict with Iran is unjust and immoral. These views overlook the 47-year history of the “Death to America” chanting by the Iranian regime, which has been responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans and its own citizens while funding terror proxies globally.
With Iran working on nuclear-tipped long-range ballistic missiles and possessing enriched uranium for potential dirty bombs, the situation poses a threat greater than that of a nuclear North Korea.
Trump is demonstrating necessary courage by attempting to bring the regime back to the negotiating table. Using forceful terms on Truth Social — in language the Iranians understand — he is addressing a regime that has historically used deception and lies with no intention of capitulation at any level.
After all, the now-degraded Iranian regime is a sponsor of terrorism, via Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis.
— David N. Simon, Chicago
Nightmare inflicted by US
My gratitude to Elynne Chaplik-Aleskow for her letter (“May the world forgive the US,” April 20) asking forgiveness for the nightmare inflicted by the United States of America on Canada, Greenland and so many other countries for the insults they have had to bear, countries that most Americans respect and cherish. She goes on to say so much else in such a dignified way about how we Americans are suffering many indignities under the current political leadership.
I cannot do justice to her intelligent words of wisdom. But I quote her last sentence: “We ask the world’s forgiveness until we can save our country and offer you our respect once again.”
— Mary Cavalier, Winnetka
A ploy destined to backfire
An April 20 op-ed (“The federal government is framing Illinois nonprofits like criminals. They’re anything but”) accuses our federal government under President Donald Trump of aiming to treat Illinois nonprofits like criminals by threatening to withhold customary financial support from them for disagreeing with his party, which is a violation of protected free speech and of funding obligation.
Clearly, this is unacceptable on its face. A right is a right. What’s due is due. Even assuming Trump’s people are bluffing, this is a dangerous attempt to muzzle public pushback against how Trump wants to rule America (like a dictator?), notwithstanding that challenges to a settled constitutional matter cannot prevail. At best, it is theater of the absurd: entertaining but dead on arrival.
Federal funding must not be at the whim of whoever occupies the White House, as this effort implies. The standing free speech rules apply no matter who was last elected to public office at any level. It should not be necessary to go to court to win rights already constitutionally assured, just because the opposing party decides to question it by bluffing.
The Republicans know better, but in this instance, they seem to want to be difficult for its own sake, which is liable to backfire come the next election, if not before, which makes the ploy just that much more puzzling.
The rules are the rules. It also questions voter support for any politician or party unwilling to obey standing rules of political propriety in seeking or occupying any office. What is unfolding in this set-to seems to be a Republican attempt at winning by bullying, which itself backfires in American politics.
— Ted Z. Manuel, Chicago
Return money to consumers
The Tribune recently reported in its Nation & World section that companies are being allowed to apply for reimbursement for President Donald Trump’s illegal tariffs (“Tariff refund system,” in print April 20). Everyone knows that these costs were already passed on to the consumer. Therefore, it is the consumer who needs to be reimbursed.
How do these companies intend to repay the consumer?
— Greg Maxwell, Bartlett
A nation full of meanness
Thanks to Heidi Stevens for her column “We never should have gotten to this point” (April 19). I hear a restrained primal scream at the absurdity of executive office posturing, a gentle rebuke of the electorate that cast the deciding votes and an imperative for choosing character in future elections.
Otherwise, Mary Oliver warns in her poem “Of The Empire,” we will become a nation full of meanness.
Seems like we’re well on the way there.
— Jerry Levy, Deerfield
Boundary Waters in danger
With all of the chaos and confusion that has become normal in our news cycle, something may have gotten by most people’s radar. The Senate on Thursday voted 50-49 to use the Congressional Review Act to reverse a Federal Land Management Policy Act ban.
Not only is this a dangerous precedent in general, but when the Senate voted to pass House Joint Resolution 140, it removed the mineral withdrawal that prohibited copper-nickel mining in the Duluth Complex of the Iron Range in Minnesota. That clears the way for a subsidiary of the Chilean mining giant Antofagasta to extract copper from this area, which is in direct contact with the headwaters leading into the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness watershed.
Similar copper mines in Colorado have already demonstrated how sulfuric acid leeches into the water table as a result of this mining method. It contaminates the water with its sulfuric acid byproduct, causing irreversible damage to the water and wildlife in the effected areas.
Minnesota U.S. Sen. Tina Smith spoke passionately for hours to an empty Senate chamber Wednesday night, reminding her Senate colleagues she and her fellow Minnesotans are certainly not against mining in her state — just mining in locations like this one, when it is going to eventually destroy one of the most pristine wildernesses in the world.
Anyone who has been able to travel through these beautiful Boundary Waters and the adjacent Quetico Provincial Park in Canada knows how precious this territory is. To sacrifice this public land to the interests of a foreign company that is rumored to have a deal in place with China, which would smelt the mined copper at no cost, is a travesty.
Hopefully there is consideration for another vote or enough legal resistance to slow this process down until a new administration is in place to reverse this decision.
I’d like to escort anyone who approved Resolution 140 on a guided canoe trip to these Boundary Waters, which I have traveled many times. Maybe if that inspired the wonder in them that everyone else feels when they travel through this incredible wilderness area, they would reconsider their position.
In the meantime, we are left to wonder what is really going on here behind this vote, which is certainly not putting “America first.”
— Mike Dillon, Chicago
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
