Last gaffes

Dear Editor,

Joe Biden offended some Americans in several ways prior to leaving office. Here are several.

He awarded a Medal of Honor to George Soros. Soros is a left-wing billionaire who has contributed to the campaigns of “soft on crime” prosecutors and district attorneys such as George Gascon (Los Angeles), Kim Foxx (Chicago) and Alvin Bragg (New York); the latter was the prosecutor in the sham trial against President Trump.

A medal was also awarded to Hillary Clinton. As Secretary of State,she used personal devices for government business, clearly breaking rules. More than 100 classified documents were found on her devices. She was not prosecuted. Her campaign participated in the “Russian Collusion Hoax” proven in Congress to be a dishonest slander of Trump.

In addition, Clinton was Secretary of State when our Libyan Embassy was attacked. This resulted in four deaths including Ambassador Chris Stevens. The incident was investigated by a House Select Committee supervised by Trey Gowdy. The White House learned quickly of the attack. President Obama and the Secretary of Defense gave a direct order to deploy a rescue mission. Why were the available forces not immediately sent? Hillary’s State Department, apparently in the chain of command, stated: “Any deployment of U.S. forces into Libya needed approval of the government of Libya.” The delay was deadly. Apparently, the department obstructed a direct order from the Commander-in-Chief. But she has a Medal of Honor.

Complete write-ups of the incident are found on, among other sources, The Hill.

In his last weeks in office, Biden put huge tracts of ocean off limits for oil and gas drilling.

He also attempted to sell off border wall materials the new administration would use to continue the border wall. A Texas judge forced a delay to that sale. The latter two misdeeds were a direct opposition to restoring our energy independence and securing our violated border.

Reverend Mariann Budde, an Episcopal D.C. bishop, was out of line sermonizing to President Trump at the post-inaugural Prayer Service. So, too, was Pope Francis by calling Trump’s deportation plan a ‘disgrace’.

Both Budde and Francis ignore, or are naively unaware of, the valid goals of the President: the protection of American citizens, legal migrants and American sovereignty.

They seem stunningly ignorant of migrant crime, foreign gangs, fentanyl and the overloading of municipalities and schools. Trump’s worthy actions would be less urgent if Biden, Kamala Harris and Alejandro Mayorkas hadn’t ruined the border.

Over the years, a few Protestant websites have shown similar irresponsible views of the border.

The generally worthy Biblical call to “welcome the stranger” must not sacrifice the safety of loved ones, fellow citizens and national sovereignty.

Welcome back, Mr. President.

Terry D. Hallock,

Warren

A difficult mix

Dear Editor,

I am writing in response to the recent argument advocating for the use of selective religious texts, including the Bible, to shape public policy on immigration. While the discussion intertwines faith and governance in an intriguing way, I vehemently oppose the conclusions drawn and the proposed implications.

First, using religious texts as a policy manual for a pluralistic society such as ours is inherently problematic. Our Constitution upholds the separation of church and state, ensuring that no single religious perspective dominates our laws. Selectively citing passages from the Bible, the Quran, the Torah, the Vedas, or other sacred texts to influence immigration policy not only disregards this foundational principle but risks alienating those who adhere to different faiths — or no faith at all.

Second, the argument presents a dangerously oversimplified interpretation of scripture. While texts like Deuteronomy 10:18-19, teachings from the Quran that emphasize hospitality to strangers, or similar principles found in Buddhism and Hinduism emphasize compassion and justice for foreigners, these teachings exist in a spiritual and moral context, not a legislative one. They call for personal kindness, not the suspension of national sovereignty or immigration regulations.

Furthermore, invoking figures such as Mary, Joseph, Jesus, the Prophet Muhammad during his migration (Hijra), or historical accounts of exile and refuge in other religions to argue against lawful immigration enforcement is a misapplication of their historical and spiritual context to modern policy debates.

It is also essential to address the claim that certain religious teachings on hypocrisy should guide policy. While many sacred texts, including the Bible and Quran, preach against hypocrisy, selectively applying religious principles is itself hypocritical. If we are to consider these verses as binding for immigration policy, why stop there? Why not enforce every commandment, law, or teaching found in these texts, including dietary restrictions, ceremonial laws, or other practices? Such inconsistency reveals the selective and politicized use of religion.

Finally, as a nation built on laws, we must address immigration with a balance of compassion and pragmatism. Open borders, unregulated entry, or the wholesale rejection of immigration enforcement is neither sustainable nor fair to those who seek to immigrate legally. Compassion does not require abandoning the rule of law but rather crafting policies that respect human dignity while maintaining order and security.

In conclusion, while religious teachings may inspire individual morality, they are neither appropriate nor effective as a legislative blueprint in a diverse and secular society. Immigration is a complex issue that demands thoughtful, inclusive, and practical solutions – rooted in law, not selective religious interpretation.

Thank you for considering my perspective. I urge those shaping public discourse to resist reducing this critical issue to oversimplified arguments and instead engage in constructive dialogue that reflects the diverse principles of our nation.

Kenneth Means,

Warren