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 editor@enterstageright.com

web posted October 27, 2003

Re: Seat belt laws

Seat belt laws represent unabated tyranny on the march as each year law enforcement is expanded. Such laws infringe on a person’s rights as guaranteed in the Fourth, Fifth, and the Ninth Amendments, and the Civil Rights section of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Seat belt laws are an unwarranted intrusion by government into the personal lives of citizens; they deny through prior restraint the right to determine a person’s own safety standard for his/her own body, the ultimate private property. Not using a seat belt is a victimless, state-created crime that does not hurt or threaten anyone.

While seat belt use might save some people, there is ample proof that other people have been more seriously injured and even killed because of seat belt use. Also, some people have been saved because a seat belt was not used. In the latter case, the insidious nature of seat belt laws mandates that the victim is subject to a fine and possible arrest and jail for not dying in the accident using a so-called safety device chosen arbitrarily by politicians.

The government has no constitutional authority to knowingly maim and kill some people just because the government hopes to save others merely by chance. The government has no right to take chances with a person’s body: play Russian roulette with a person’s life.

Also, the millions of tax dollars spent annually in support of seat belt laws has never prevented even one traffic accident, the real cause of traffic fatalities—not non-seat belt use. Also, because some people feel safer wearing seat belts, studies have shown that they tend to drive more recklessly. This is known as "risk compensation," which is covered in more detail in the 1995 book, "Risk" by Dr. John Adams, University College London, England. Also, there are other professionals who have published well documented research which clearly discredits the so-called benefit of seat belt laws, but key members of the national news media refuse to inform the public of such truth.

We do not need to spend millions of dollars for more seat belt law enforcement, for more forced seat belt use, for more traffic accidents. Tax dollars spent for traffic safety should focus on achieving more responsibly educated drivers, and more safer-built roads and vehicles in order to prevent accidents. Preventing accidents will not only save lives but will save the cost of property damage and, most importantly, save our freedom.

There certainly is nothing wrong with voluntary seat belt use, as it is with all other personal safety and health care decisions in life; however, there is a great deal wrong with all seat belt laws. Such laws must be repealed in order to restore true liberty in the U.S.

Anyone who wants more facts why seat belt laws are wrong for America should visit www.seatbeltchoice.com, www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/holdorf1.html, and www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/holdorf2.html.

Sincerely
William J. Holdorf
Chicago, IL

web posted October 13, 2003

Re: On the pleasure of reading old magazines By Samuel L. Blumenfeld (October 6, 2003)

Please tell Mr Blumenfeld that he is so right! I own several years of the Graphic newspaper from London - they're well over 100 years old and they are a joy to read.

Moses Lambert

Re: Jobs and the economy

There have been a lot of comments in the news, during both the Clinton administrations, and that of President George W. Bush, concerning jobs either created, or lost.

First of all, and Rush Limbaugh said this several years ago, and he happened to be correct; politicians do not create jobs. Entrepreneurs, idea men/women, and those with a dream and the drive to put that dream into action; these are the ones who create jobs, opportunities, and hope for the future.

The only thing that any politician, especially those of the "liberal" mindset, have ever been any "good" at is raising the tax burdens onto the backs of the American working class, all the while launching into the same old song about the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer. In other words, the old "class envy" scheme.

I have often wondered just why the American people have not called all of their U.S. Senators and Representatives on the carpet for this constant tax increasing, and ridiculously foolish spending; all the while raising their own salaries and granting themselves retirement benefits from out of the pockets of all U.S. citizens and legal working aliens.

Of course, many of those who bother to vote have repeatedly elected into office those self-serving politicians who grab for every last dollar they can get to line their own pockets with, and who then vote to send billions of our tax dollars overseas to finance some two-bit nation or up and coming dictator or abusive slime, not caring at all about the fact that these foreign individuals hate the USA. Think I'm kidding? Does the name Osama bin Laden ring a bell?

There are elderly and middle-aged Americans who cannot afford to live in the houses they either own or rent; nor can many of them afford the medications they need to maintain their own health; yet our leaders support themselves, and America's enemies; all at our expense. Social Security and 401K plans are a joke. The only thing that could live on those sorry pittances is a parakeet; and they would probably take the seed from out of their mouths as well.

Yes, this is some "representative government" we have here in America. Think about that the next time your mortgage/rent, or medical bills/medications are due, or need refilled.

William G. Smith
Lancaster, PA

web posted September 29, 2003

Re: Deicide and The Passion by Jeff Snyder (September 22, 2003)

I couldn't help but notice mention of the controversy surrounding Mel Gibson's film about the life and death of Jesus Christ. It seems there is some argument, which actually has gone on for centuries, about just who is responsible for Jesus Christ being put to death.

If I'm not mistaken, Christ came to earth for the very purpose of dying and shedding His blood as the atoning sacrifice for the sins of all mankind. After all, it is written "For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God".

Any civilization, country, or religious affiliation which seeks to place the blame for Jesus Christ being put to death on the cross solely upon the Jews is a religion of lies, darkness, and deceit. In truth, every man, woman, and child of an age whereby they can be held accountable for their actions; all of these are responsible for Christ dying that terrible and torturous death; but the story does not end at that; for there is the fact that Christ is risen from the grave, and even now, sits on the right hand of His Father in the kingdom of Heaven; and awaiting the time when He shall return to earth for His redeemed people; meaning all who put their faith, trust, and hope in Him.

So, if anyone has a problem with Gibson's film, first examine your own heart, soul, mind, and purpose before casting aspersions on the efforts and motives of a fellow human being and sinner in need of God's grace. Remember, "Whosoever will may come."

William Smith
Lancaster, Pa.

Re: What to do about Yasser Arafat

Now that the Left's favorite hero, Arafat, has been targeted for possible expulsion, perhaps its time to clarify a few points: 1) He's been in charge of the vanguard of Arab militancy for so long that killing him would make him a martyr (like Che is for radicalists everywhere) 2) Expelling him would allow him to roam free and mastermind terror from wherever he wants (like bin Laden) 3) Leaving him in place would allow him to continue to incite terror.

In my opinion, the best solution would be for some third party to arrest him, try, convict, and incarcerate him in solitary confinement indefinitely (perhaps in a military tribunal that is not a joke like the ICC). Keeping him alive but incarcerated in solitary confinement would preclude martyrdom and his continuation of terror tactics. Most importantly, having a third party do it would not only take the heat off of Israel but may also hold the possibility of humiliating him in the eyes of his followers.

Those are just my thoughts, I could be wrong, but my gut tells me its the Right (in more ways than one) thing to do.

Mike Menzel
Calgary, Canada

Home

Site Map

Email ESR

Conservative Site of the Day

Home