Letters to the Editor | March 20, 2024

In her recent column on COVID-19 shutdowns, Jennifer Stefano criticized the government’s negative response to the Great Barrington Declaration, which was published in October 2020, three months before COVID vaccines became available and during the deadliest phase of the pandemic. She fails to mention that the declaration (an open letter) was sponsored by the American Institute for Economic Research, a libertarian think tank associated with climate change denial.

The declaration’s central thesis was “focused protection,” which theorized that herd immunity against COVID could be achieved in three months, a theory widely debunked by most epidemiologists, virologists, and public health organizations. It was a theory that one epidemiologist called “a dangerous mix of pixie dust and pseudoscience.” William Haseltine, Harvard professor and cancer and HIV researcher, said that “herd immunity is another word for mass murder. If you allow this virus to spread ... we are looking at two to six million Americans dead. Not just this year, but every year.” There has never been a human virus infection that has been controlled with herd immunity alone without effective vaccination, and immunity from a COVID infection lasts only about four to six months.

Bernard A. Mason, Philadelphia

As someone from Philadelphia who unfortunately voted for Donald Trump in 2016, I have come to see him as an existential threat to American democracy that must be rejected at all costs. Trump’s lies about a “stolen election,” both before and after 2020, are not just despicable, they are outright dangerous. His actions on Jan. 6, 2021, turned us into a global laughingstock as we witnessed an attempted coup unfold in real time at his direction.

Trump has proven he has no care for our democratic institutions, our country, or anyone apart from himself and his family. His very float of “terminating the Constitution” is abhorrent and means the death of the nation as we know it. A second Trump term would inevitably mean further disintegration into violent authoritarianism and civil unrest as he solidifies an autocratic one-party system. As a patriot, I have no choice but to vote for whoever opposes him in 2024. Our country depends on it. Any rational American must recognize Trump as the unprecedented danger to our republic that he is. Rebuking his antidemocratic movement is a necessity we cannot ignore if we wish to keep our civil liberties and freedoms intact.

Robert Nix, Philadelphia, RNix@myphillylawyer.com

In December 1994, Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear weapons. In the so-called Budapest Memorandum, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States pledge security assurances to Ukraine in return. Article 1 reaffirms their commitment to Ukraine to respect its independence, sovereignty, and existing borders. Russia obviously has violated this treaty by its invasion. Russia’s threat to use nuclear weapons also violates Article 2 of the agreement. Article 4 requires parties to aid Ukraine should it become a victim of an act of aggression (or the object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used). In accordance with this treaty, Ukraine could request the military forces of the U.S. and Great Britain to join in defending Ukraine. So far, Kyiv has requested military equipment and financial aid to defend itself. Speaker Mike Johnson refuses to allow a vote in the House of Representatives on providing desperately needed ammunition and air defense weapons to Ukraine. The obligation of this treaty requires the U.S. to send the assistance requested — now.

Willam Garvey, Medford Lakes, garveywaml@gmail.com

I applaud Mayor Cherelle L. Parker for her bold, visionary budget proposal. As a member of her transition team, I had a firsthand preview of her $6.2 billion budget priorities, and believe City Council and city residents should fully support the plan. Parker’s primary focus on public safety is indisputable. There’s a deadly epidemic of guns on our streets. Every public poll cites safety as our citizenry’s top concern. It’s no wonder, then, that Philadelphia’s population declined for the third consecutive year. People don’t want to live where they don’t feel safe. To rein in the lawlessness, the mayor proposes assigning 100 police officers to community policing, a proven strategy in other cities.

I also agree with her plan to shut down Kensington’s notorious open-air drug markets. IBEW Local 98 witnesses the human devastation there up close when we provide food and critical supplies to Pastor Buddy Osborn’s Rock Ministries. In fulfillment of her pledge to clean up “Filthadelphia,” she will take 10,000 abandoned cars off the streets, crack down on illegal dumping, increase trash pickups to twice weekly, hire 100 new sanitation workers, and assign a dedicated “trash team” to every Council district. The most exciting aspect of her education plan is the creation of a municipal employment college in partnership with Community College of Philadelphia, in which students are trained for family-sustaining city jobs.

Mark Lynch Jr., business manager, IBEW Local 98

Columnist Kyle Sammin should be aware that the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment is hardly “a fringe theory” regarding Donald Trump, and was put in place after a violent civil war in which the Confederate states (insurrectionists) attempted to withdraw from our United States in violation of the Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent insurrection clause opinion warrants criticism and should be closely scrutinized. The clause clearly prohibits insurrectionists from federal and state office after taking an oath of office and then engaging in such conduct. The Colorado Supreme Court decided that an insurrection had occurred and that finding was not overruled by the Supreme Court. The majority held, in error, that the clause applies only to state office. How the court came to such a decision is a mystery.

Harvard law professor Laurence H. Tribe is not “a liberal,” but an internationally recognized constitutional law expert. The “patchwork” rationale mentioned is also problematic. Please review Ralph Nader’s lawful runs for president in 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008, when he was placed on some state ballots but not on all state ballots. Other examples include the Reform, Libertarian, and Green political parties and their presidential candidates, who have been lawfully placed on some but not all state ballots in recent presidential elections. This is the Constitution at work, as nowhere in the Constitution is a mandate for a two-party political system.

Thomas M. Lynch, Voorhees

As bold as Kelly Harris’ op-ed stance against gun violence was, I wish he had gone further. Only when the sale and possession of bullets and their components are outlawed by Washington will we see the universally demanded decrease in gun violence. Does this mean overturning the Second Amendment? So be it. We overturned the 18th Amendment with the 21st Amendment. Many more civilized nations have long done this. Law enforcement from federal to municipal levels would simultaneously seize munition supplies from the shelves of every gun emporium from Maine to Guam, with compensation via eminent domain. Munitions makers would be compelled to sell their products only to the military and the police. Drastic? Absurd? No more than our continually being satisfied with “thoughts and prayers” after the latest massacre. If criminals had to cobble their own ammunition, great. Let those worried about personal safety have Tasers. Hunters could buy meat the way the rest of us do.

The Rev. Robert J. Gregorio, Glassboro

Join the conversation: Send letters to letters@inquirer.com. Limit length to 200 words and include home address and day and evening phone number. Letters run in The Inquirer six days a week on the editorial pages and online.