Letters to the Editor | Dec. 8, 2025

I take issue with Rann Miller’s recent op-ed questioning the efficacy of the “No Kings” protests. I agree with Mr. Miller’s statement that in order for demonstrations to have impact, there have to be demands and real follow-through. However, I disagree that the “No Kings” protest lacked those elements.

Millions of people took to the streets to demand that the U.S. have no king. The fact that there was fun and joy in these protests should not take away from that demand. In other words, we wanted to restore the balance of powers between the three federal branches of government and between the states and the federal government.

The action that followed was a national rejection of our wannabe king in the election. From coast to coast, Democratic candidates in November did significantly better than the polls indicated they would. We need only look across the Delaware River to see this. The polls indicated the New Jersey governor’s race would be close. Instead, Mikie Sherrill, the Democrat, won in a landslide against Jack Ciattarelli, a Republican who pledged his loyalty to our wannabe king. Or, in Miller’s terminology, we boycotted those candidates who supported the wannabe king.

As far as putting our bodies on the line, how many people have been assaulted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents or other federal officials in trying to stop ICE from disappearing people without a warrant for their arrest?

These messages seem to be working with some elected officials. Witness that the wannabe king had to surrender to those who passed the law to release the Jeffrey Epstein files. Witness that the bipartisan leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees had a telephone call with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff about the “integrity and legality” of the boat strikes. Witness the number of supporters of the wannabe king announcing their retirement from Congress rather than face the voters.

The importance of the “No Kings” protests should not be discounted just because there was joy and fun during them.

Jules Mermelstein, Dresher

As part of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s war on science, the Food and Drug Administration now claims — without citing any evidence at all — that COVID-19 vaccines “had contributed to the deaths of at least 10 children” and should be rethought. As part of this diktat, Vinay Prasad, the FDA official who issued it, said he remains “open to vigorous discussions and debate” of the new policy. Then, without a hint of embarrassment or self-awareness, added that “staff who did not agree with the core principles of his new approach should submit their resignations.” Which is it, Mr. Prasad? “Open to vigorous debate”? Or “My way or the highway”? Of course, I should realize that it’s foolish to expect logical consistency from a cabal of anti-science extremists who choose to ignore the effectiveness of vaccines that have spared hundreds of millions of people from devastating diseases like smallpox, polio, typhoid, tetanus, diphtheria, mumps, measles, yellow fever, cholera, and plague, in favor of “doing their own research.”

I should add that the vaccines I just listed were those that I, along with every other Army recruit in 1967, queued up to get, in assembly-line style, one right after another. Of course, there were some pretty nasty side effects. These included: push-ups, KP, long walks with rifles and backpacks, predawn calisthenics, crawling through mud, and drill sergeants loudly hurling obscene insults inches from your face.

Isaac Segal, Cherry Hill

Join the conversation: Send letters to letters@inquirer.com. Limit length to 150 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.