Readers seize Enter Stage Right

Write today!Got a bone to pick with us? Did we get something really wrong? Did we get something right? Need to vent?

Then write a letter to ESR for publication! Names withheld by request and all letters are subject to editing for length, clarity or language. Letters from anywhere on the political spectrum are welcome and will be printed. Please state whether you wish your name to appear with the email.

Send your hate-filled vitriol or love-filled praise to

web posted September 27 2004

Re: John Kerry's military records

Where is the cry for Kerry to release all his service records? It's very easy sign SF180. We are entitled to know what actually happened in Vietnam by seeing his records. Is there something to hide? Why the secrecy? I thought he was the candidate for openness? The mass media action on this important issue is nil. There are to many questions being asked and no answers forthcoming from the Kerry absorbers. The actual truth would be nice to know. Rather can't help anymore as no one would believe him. Hopefully the stain of memogate is kept to a minimums we need honest unbiased media to help us sort out the questions we have. Give a big shout for SF180. Thanks!

Bill Duffy

Re: The evil of socialized medicine

That Bill Clinton could get the emergency heart care his survival required within 3 days underscores a life-and-death difference between medicine under capitalism and under socialism.

Under the system of socialized medicine in Canada and Europe, people die because waiting lists to see doctors are too long to permit them to receive cardiac care in time to save their lives. In Canada, for example, a patient typically must wait 24 days for an appointment with a cardiologist--and 15 additional days for the type of emergency bypass surgery that saved Bill Clinton's life. Similarly, a Swedish government survey showed that Swedes can be forced to wait as long as 11 months for a diagnostic heart X-ray and up to 8 months for essential heart surgery. The upshot, according to one research cardiologist, is that at least 1,000 Swedes die each year for lack of heart treatment.

The moral belief in the right to health care beyond what an individual can afford--health care at other people's expense--leads inevitably to demand for unnecessary or superficial care that clogs doctors' offices, overfills hospitals and tasks the health care system beyond its capacities. The predictable result is the endless waiting lists of socialized medicine.

The choice facing Americans is stark: the rights-respecting free market of capitalism, where goods and services are produced in abundance, including health care--or the chronic disasters of socialism, where thousands die because of continuous shortages.

Dr. Andrew Bernstein,
Ayn Rand Institute

web posted September 20, 2004

Re: Re-electing the same old faces

As geared up as I feel about this years' presidential election, it does bother me to think that many people will go to the polls across America, and return the same bunch of good-for-nothings to both the U.S. House and Senate. Why does this happen?

If you look into the history of the USA, we are supposed to be a "constitutional republic", with a form of government in which every individual is accountable for their actions. This would include all private citizens, notable persons (such as film and television personalities, singers, writers and the like), business-persons at all financial levels; and even our elected and appointed officials.

Still, the persons with the greatest responsibility are the American voters. Do citizens of this nation honestly think about what is best for our land? If so, then why do some elected officials keep getting voted back into office, time and time again?

Think about it......the people of Massachussetts have repeatedly elected Ted Kennedy into the U.S. Senate ever since the 1960's; and voters in other states have done the exact same thing with their own senators or representatives. This is fair and honest representation for all Americans? Voting is not just a "right", it is a responsibility.

I feel deep inside that our forefathers would be disgusted at what this country has become, simply because their descendants were too ignorant, indifferent, or uncaring to choose respectable persons to lead this land which said forefathers; as well as succeeding generations of soldiers; gave their very lives to free or protect from the ravages of those who foster tyranny in other nations which have not been as blessed as the United States of America.

In closing, while shopping at a convenience store here in Lancaster, PA; several military vehicles were lined up in the front area of the drive, as soldiers stopped to get a cup of coffee or other refreshments before heading off for whatever duties they were to perform. Perhaps it was the spirit of "Patriots' Day" (9/11), but something inside made me want to approach the group, and just say "Thank you!", to which one of the soldiers said "You're welcome!"

Something like that really gets to you, if one truly appreciates the sacrifice these men and women make for all of us.

William G. Smith
Lancaster, PA.

Re: Unconstitutionality of abortion


Our courts have established the woman as a dictator type leadership over her sovereign territory which is clearly defined by the borders of her skin.  The current laws seem to establish this irrevocable leadership position as though it is a birthright - not replaceable by elections, impeachment, revolution, invasion, or any other means.


However, our courts have simply touched on this issue by merely establishing the leader, but failed to develop laws of that sovereignty.  It has left a leadership of unaccountability and has created a society of non-citizens who are highly susceptible to human rights violations.  As a nation, would we dream of invading Iraq, overthrowing Sadam Hussein, and establishing leadership without setting up the laws of that sovereignty?  If not, then with all fairness why are we not consistent in setting up the Rights of Sovereign Leadership in all cases?  We ha! ve established fundamental freedoms to the leader and failed to address the inhabitant/s of the sovereign territory.  We have created a void by failing to establish formal legal rules of this leadership position.  This failure is discriminatory in nature granting preferential treatment to a single exclusive category of leaders. 


We have seen leaders like Attila the Hun, Ivan "the Impaler", King Herod, Adolph Hitler, and Sadam Hussein all kill inhabitants of their sovereignty, or that of another's, for whatever reasons.  In all cases, these actions are not socially acceptable.  But worse yet, in the case of a woman, we see a leader taking a conscience action to bring an inhabitant into her sovereign territory only to have her selectively terminate their existence.  This leadership practice is, by far, worst than any socially unacceptable behavior from human history's most gruesome leaders.  We should not make allowances for this gross misrepresentation and the injustices of female practices. 


 In the case of a woman, we establish, empower, and assist this leader without ever questioning the character of that leader.  This failure, also, is discriminatory in nature granting favoritism to an exclusive category of leaders.  As a nation, corporation, organization, club, or family we would never dream of doing so in the case of its individual leaders.  How have we come to legalize and accept such prejudice as that of the woman over her sovereignty?    Because this nation did not fully trust people's judgment, checks and balances exist mainly for preventing people from abusing their power, except in the case of the woman.  We have set up a leader and allow her to behave with tyrannizing practices that would never be tolerated in any other sovereignty.  We've set up the leader, but failed to set up a means of providing direction and acceptable rules of order to her particular administration. Democracy should yield democracy.  Does a Democracy have the right to establish Dictatorships?  Does a society of elected leadership have the right to establish a Monarch?  Have we overstepped our authority by establishing this uncontested irrevocable leader?  Have we discriminated by protecting the leader only?  I would say that we have created something that we have little understanding of. 


Our Constitution is for every generation - past, present, and future.  However, our courts seem to have created a void only for the generation in the "pipe line" caught between the present and future by de-humanizing the inhabitant/s of a woman's sovereign territory.  Have the courts ruled that our imminent generation does not exist in impregnated women?  How have we convinced ourselves to selectively discriminate excluding our imminent generation from all other generations?  Because they are still in the pipe line, we establish leaders who can exclude them from free speech, civil liberties, and justice for all.  If the government can't destroy these unalienable rights, how can! it in-turn establish a leader who can, while still remaining a constitutional government?   How can it empower someone else with a power that it itself does not have?

Carolyn Dorroh

web posted September 13, 2004

Re: Tinkering with the Electoral College vote by Marion Edwyn Harrison (September 6, 2004)

I would like to correct Marion Edwyn Harrison's editorial on the electoral reform initiative in Colorado. Amendment 36 would divide Colorado's electors based on each candidate's share of the statewide popular vote - not the popular vote in each congressional district. As the editorial suggests, dividing electors via congressional districts would disenfranchise Republicans in Denver and Democrats in Grand Junction. Amendment 36 will ensure that every vote counts equally. Further, while Maine and Nebraska have never split their electors, it is very possible that there will be a split in Maine this year.

Finally, I would also like to say a word on the simultaneous nature of the initiative. Amendment 36 would not be the first constitutional amendment in Colorado to apply "retroactively". The Taxpayers Bill of Rights Amendment also went into effect immediately and it was upheld by the Colorado Supreme Court. While this may not be common in other states, it is not uncommon in Colorado.


Julie Brown
Campaign Director
Make Your Vote Count/Yes on Amendment 36

Re: How will you get on the plane if you're not Ted Kennedy? by Tom DeWeese (September 6, 2004)

There's a number of details DeWeese gets wrong in the story. First; Kennedy's name was not on the "no-fly" was on a "selectee list," meaning he would have been subjected to extraordinary screening, not been prevented from boarding a flight (another incorrect assertion). The no-fly/selectee list is not new, in fact it's been in place since before 9/11...they've simply jumped the rails with it; adding names related to inflight disturbances like those associated with excessive drinking, rather than keeping it populated with known and suspected terrorists. Would anyone argue the governments need to prevent these type people [known and suspected terrorists] from boarding commercial flights?

DeWeese also claims that a dutiful employee entered Kennedy's name into a database. This is also not true, insofar as the system is automated. While this may be a small point, it's not...the same automation prevents airport agents from overridding with good judgement what they see in front of them: a bloated, liver-spotted old Irish Senator from Mass. And, it is here, we all should be in favor of ole uncle Ted getting jacked-up at the airport; how will names unassociated with terrorism ever get off the list, unless our legislators get caught in this trap? The real story here is that the lists need to be strictly for purposes of detecting and preventing terrorists from boarding commercial airline flights, not routine law enforcement actions.

What is all this "...getting on the wrong list can cost you your bank account, your driver's license, your job, or even your home all because of a typo from a minimum wage, apathetic worker" stuff? Isn't the "big brother" threat getting a little hackneyed?

Mark Vorzimmer

web posted September 6, 2004

Re: The imploding John Kerry (August 23, 2004)

Thank you for offering your opinion on John Kerry and the Swift Boat Ads. I consider myself an independent thinker. I am not impressed with either the Democratic or Republican Party. I was concerned when reading your piece. I understand that Kerry is putting himself out there by campaigning on his war campaign. However legitimate your points, I think it is really important that you recognize that he fought and put his life on the line for our country. Criticize him all you want but understand that there are Democrats and Republicans and Independents dieing right now in Iraq for your right to free speech. Your tone undermines their morale.

Gabriel Mott

Re: Do We Stand United With Lady Liberty?

"United We Stand" is the war cry that we patriotically display on our homes, automobiles, and clothing. Historically evident, the intent behind national unity was not always honorable. Although their freedoms had been taken, the citizens of Nazi Germany were patriots who stood united with a dictator for the "Fatherland" purpose of world enslavement. The oppressed yet patriotic people of "Motherland" Russia also united with their tyrannical leaders in order to force a single ideology upon the weaker of nations. For what purpose do we stand united? Do we stand united with honor and courage, as patriots in defense of our liberties and the American way, or as a terrified mob with cowardly intent, blind to the corrupting leaders of our "Homeland"?

Lady Liberty once inspired freedom in our daily lives and within the very fabric of our unique and wholesome nation. Resulting from the deceptively labeled "USA Patriot Act" and our unreasoned fear, we now look upon her as a threat and an enabler of terrorism. Her promise of liberty frightens us; there are too many hazards and complications when we are a free society. Responsibility for our own lives is now widely perceived as a calamitous prerequisite to freedom.

In contrast to the dignified deportment of our Founding Fathers when intimidated, we disgracefully surrendered our fundamental rights (1st, 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendments within the Bill of Rights) to George Bush and John Ashcroft for their assurances of security. Along with the President and Congress, we betrayed the founding principles of our free nation. Given the prevalent renunciation our precious freedoms, will we remain as a nation of patriots with honorable intent? Obviously not! We have failed to stand united with Lady Liberty. Indeed, with the folly of mass hysteria we lynched Lady Liberty. Our sublime Lady--who once beheld this nation as worthy of her keeping--will truly be missed. I have a deep sense of loss and foreboding.

Sergei Borglum Hoff 
Olympia, W



Site Map

Email ESR

Conservative Site of the Day




1996 - 2005, Enter Stage Right and/or its creators. All rights reserved.

You've seen the banner, now order the gear!
Visit ESR's anti-gun control gear web site for T-shirts, mugs and mousepads!