What makes us great

Donald Trump's campaign slogan is "Make America great again." I wonder if he truly understands what makes America great. It is our Constitution, rooted in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, which grants human rights irrespective of religion, race, ethnicity, and country of origin.

Trump continually disrespects our Constitution and the value of religious tolerance on which our great country was built ("Trump backlash on Muslim ban," Wednesday). He is promising to "make America great again" while making statements that undermine the very values that do so.

|Nasir Ahmad, M.D., Tinton Falls, N.J.,

Know your enemy

"Muslims not the enemy," says the headline of an Inquirer editorial (Wednesday). But among Muslims, many enemies wait to strike. Among Syrian refugees fleeing war travel young men who are not fleeing war. Like it or not, Donald Trump is closer to the truth than President Obama.

|Dale T. Van Ness, Coatesville,

Lifting the veil

All these Republican hypocrites who made a career out of thinly veiled bigotry and are suddenly rising up in righteous indignation over Donald Trump's recent remarks on Muslim immigration ought to be ashamed of themselves.

|Marc Gold'e, Merion Station


Rushmore revisited

If Woodrow Wilson doesn't deserve honors, as a letter writer argues (Dec. 3), let's not overlook Theodore Roosevelt's egregious record. True, Roosevelt deserves credit for national parks and wildlife conservation programs, but these are outweighed by numerous photos of him gloating over large-animal kills.

Worse, he was a warmonger who helped push the country into the pointless 1898 war with Spain. Worse still, his war advocacy helped push Wilson into World War I, with disastrous consequences leading to destructive monetary inflation in Germany, the Holocaust, and World War II.

|Donald J. Middleman, Haverford


Inquirer's inequality edition

Readers of Sunday's Inquirer must be confused about where the economy has been and where it's going. Economist Joel Naroff wrote that "the outlook is for the economy to strengthen even more in 2016" ("Predicting Growth"). But in the same editions, a front-page special report on "The Wageless Recovery" revealed an economy riddled with pockets of sharp income declines ("Where Have All the Wages Gone?").

The economist wearing rose-tinted glasses will dwell on the rising gross domestic product - ignoring the inability of many to sustain current consumption - and conclude that the economy is OK. The economist wearing clear glasses, on the other hand, will decry the erosion of the personal incomes and well-being of Americans.

This is far more than the difference between an optimist and a pessimist. It's the difference between seeking the well-being only of high income earners and considering the well-being of everyone.

|Presley R. Brown, Langhorne,

Wages: Lost and found

Where have all the wages gone (Sunday)? Not from one of our hardworking neighborhoods to another, but out of our homes and communities and into the pockets of a handful of billionaires who are making money from money by the truckload. With America's 20 richest people now owning more wealth than the entire bottom half of the American population - a total of 152 million people - we need to be asking some big questions about whom our economy is for.

|Pamela Haines, Philadelphia,


Not so judicious

If Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice J. Michael Eakin worked for any large business, upon the discovery of emails such as his, he would have been summarily fired, handed a cardboard box to clear out his personal items, and marched to the door, all under the watchful eye of security ("Justice on trial," Thursday).

The women of Pennsylvania are entitled to respect from a justice of the Supreme Court. He's a disgrace. That he doesn't seem to understand the magnitude of his misconduct only emphasizes what should be obvious: Eakin has to go.

If he had any judgment at all, he'd resign. But then, if he had any judgment, he wouldn't have sent those emails.

|Cathy A. Wilson, attorney, West Chester

Math for journalists

The Inquirer is so down on Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane, but can't all her troubles be traced to "porngate"? The state Supreme Court wanted her gone before she publicly outed the guilty ones. Why else was her law license suspended?

Anyone who thinks the criminal charges against Kane would have been filed if she were a Republican is naive. I think it's time for The Inquirer to add 2 and 2 and get 4!

|Harry F. Nuss, Newtown Square