Letter to a Democrat friend, January 2, 2001

It's amazing what turns up in old e-mails. Sometimes I can't get them to open. But the one I'm using for this "memory" was copied to a Word Document. If you remember the millennium scare when the experts thought all computers would fail because no one had programmed them to turn over to 2000, you'll understand why I sometimes don't know what year these were sent unless there are events to which I can connect. The computers continued to work, but didn't record the dates!

About this letter/e-mail. This reply was written January 2, 2001, I know because I mentioned the death of my mom (January 2000) and the December visit of my father. Also we discussed the election of George W. Bush. I was answering a note from a friend I hadn't seen for a long time who was about 30 years younger and had been in our small group from church.  From the context it had been about 5 years since we'd been together. We were both Democrats, although I had voted for Bush in November 2000 because of the abortion issue. I remember we went to her wedding a few years before; I heard years later that they were divorced. She apparently had said something in her letter, which I don't have,  that triggered these comments from me--still a registered Democrat, but ready to leave the party. In the letter below, if something is in parentheses, it's in the original, but something in brackets means I added it today to clarify. Also, I've changed personal names to letters.  Also, one more thing.  When I told my husband about finding this e-mail, he had no recollection of Barbara or our attending her wedding.

Dear Barbara,

It was good to get your e-mail of December 5 and find out what is going on in your lives. I'm happy you've found a believers' church. The Mill Run church opened a year ago [New Year's Eve 2000], but we still attend Lytham. [Comments followed about her deciding not to have children--she was adopted, and her adoptive parents had divorced--I think it was not a happy family.]

You may recall that I am also a registered Democrat--even voted for Clinton/Gore in 1992--mainly because Gore was on the ticket. Notice in my x-mas letter I didn't say which party was stealing the election, but you seemed to know--hmmm.) But I've voted Republican in the last 2 elections [1996, 2000] because they more closely represent what I think is important--human lives, not human lifestyle. I believe abortion is the defining issue of our time as was slavery 150 years ago. Each era has its problems it needs to solve. The difference is 150 years ago Christians (particularly women) were in the forefront trying to reverse a terrible crime against humanity, now women are the great perpetrators. The church just falls in line and tries to pretend it will go away if no one speaks out. The ethical standards of Christians seem to be no different than the rest of society.

The other day on the Rush Limbaugh program I heard a Republican woman complaining about "one issue" Republicans (she was pro-choice), and Rush said he didn't think there was such a thing, but where else could a pro-life person like me go? Four years of a Republican president might save many lives--maybe more if he gets the right people on the Supreme Court and partial birth abortion goes back to the slime pits where it belongs.

Bush has said he is against partial birth abortion and we hope he follows through. Where else could your vote save lives? That Clinton and Gore are Christians (and I believe they are) meant nothing once in office. Gore used to be pro-life (and he seemed to be capable of telling the truth before he became vice president) and he flip flopped for political power--maybe Bush will do the same, but for now I think he sees that wing of the party--those one-issue folks--still has some clout. In just the year 2000, we got partial birth abortion, research on human embryos and the abortion drug RU-486. So there is definitely a slippery slope and it's getting steeper. I think "death" is Clinton's legacy that he's been looking for--more deaths than a major war. Assisted suicide and euthanasia are coming down the pike, and if the Christians' stand on abortion is any indication, it is the gateway to new ways to "make choices."

You said you were thinking of leaving the country if Bush was elected. I don't remember Republicans threatening to leave if Clinton won in 1992 but perhaps they did (some Perot supporters may have in the next election), and Bush got a higher percentage of the popular vote than Clinton ever did. Democrats had the power for 40 years in the legislature, and I think the Republicans stuck it out. If you believe the Democrats are right about the Microsoft suit and it was necessary to hamstring our technology growth, and they were right to strangle our power sources so we have rolling brown-outs and gasoline shortages, and they were right to weaken U.S. by diminishing and demoralizing the military, then you should stick around and fight for your principles. Then maybe in 4 years you can have it all back--but in the meanwhile, if there are layoffs in technology or gasoline shortages, or power outages, remember those were your guys.

Our group keeps on going--like the energizer bunny--but sometimes I think we are the halt and the lame. But it keeps us on our knees! We have 14, 2 widows and 6 couples. X and Y still struggle but they come. Y suffers from a mental illness but is on medication. S continues to have small strokes--her daughter got married this past year. We thought perhaps J had Alzheimer's, but he had brain surgery to relieve some kind of pressure and is now OK. We took in a new couple about 3 years ago, and another new couple this year. N and D, our graduates, still come to special events. J and L and G and P moved out of town. N's dad died in the fall at 104--he was also X's grandfather.

We had a wonderful visit with my 87 y/o Dad in early December. I miss Mom, but have really enjoyed getting to know him better this past year. She was so easy to love and we all enjoyed her wisdom, counsel and love. He's a bit more difficult, but I've been so impressed with his bravery this past year.

I'll close now, and wait to hear from you in five years. I'll send you my family's story [not sure what I was referring to] in snail mail. Hope this doesn't clog your mailbox!

Norma

Will the real Nazis please stand up

Why did the Democrats, and some of your liberal friends on Facebook and Twitter call our President a Nazi and Fascist? Next to racist, it was their most popular word. Probably because they know most people don't know what that is, or only associate it with camps for Jews as they saw in old WWII movies. The fact that his grandchildren are Jews and his closest advisor is a Jew is just not important for those liars.

Why didn't they call him a Communist? Those governments were far more powerful than Hitler and killed 10x the number of people. They are both forms of socialism--Nazi is just short for National Socialism. They are hoping you are ignorant. Fascism is when the government controls private industry to enlarge its power and control the people. Communism is a little different--the government owns the businesses as well as controlling them after extracting all the wealth from the owners. That fits our current situation of Big Tech which has flipped that--controlling our government, with the power to shut down our President because he believes in election fraud. It's not as though Democrats have never claimed a stolen election or fraud or questioned the electoral votes. We hear it each time their candidate doesn't get the WH or a governorship (Stacy Abrams still preaches that she won Georgia; Hillary Clinton spent 4 years claiming fraud because the Electoral College didn't work for her). Were their Twitter accounts or platforms shut down?

Big Tech is also controlling major businesses pushing them to outer Wokeland. Academe can't exist without Big Tech. With the lockdown, even your child's education and future is being controlled by Big Tech and the food you put on the table. Nazi Germany NEVER had the kind of control over their people that Big Tech with cooperation of the government has over us.

Reviewing the 2000 election

Some history on accepting the election results. Although Al Gore was gracious when Bush finally won the 2000 election (law suits were being prepared in other states about their dead and displaced voters).  Jesse Jackson certainly didn't accept the results. Nor did Dick Gephardt.  The Democrats fought President Bush viciously for 8 years. It extended to back stabbing our soldiers in Iraq after supporting the war their own intelligence on WMD demanded. Al Gore went on climate change tirades to lick his wounds.

For those too young to remember, Democrats thought they owned black voters in a certain district in Florida and refused to accept the count, and instead tried to determine intent from "hanging chads." I had really liked Al Gore, but changed my mind late in the election season due to his Clinton connection--but I guess that must be white privilege, and blacks can't do that. Democrats pay a lot of money to control their voters, and know them well.  In 2004 when Kerry lost to Bush by about 100,000 in Ohio, some Democrats refused to accept the results, although Kerry did. Just imagine the mischief now with machine voting and Democrat 501c4s admitting they've been corrupting the vote for 50 years!

Facebook and Twitter weren't a factor in 2000, but Democrats contracted a disease called the "Bush Derangement Syndrome" BDS, which was very apparent in blogs and he was flogged constantly, insulted, ridiculed, called illegal, blamed for Hurricane Katrina and 9/11 tragedy, and probably the temporary disappearance of some queen bees, etc. by Democrats who never accepted that decision.

When you hear our media rehashing Trump's comments about accepting results, go talk to some elderly Democrats who still don't accept 2000.

Yes, George W. Bush was a better president

But he wasn't a Conservative.  Many of the things the left complains about as failures of Republicans were already taken care of when Bush became president, or had Republican support. Millions who didn't have Medicaid or sCHIP were eligible for those government health programs, and didn't sign up. Millions of healthy young adults passed on employer based insurance, preferring more pizza and beer rather than a co-pay. Obama saw that loophole to total government control and solved it by threatening fines and jail if a citizen didn't have health insurance.

 

Obama has given us ISIS and a Middle East in total collapse and a renewed Russian Bear. All presidents inherit the problems of the previous one.  Bush was handed a complicated mountain of intelligence from the Clinton administration guaranteeing there absolutely were WMD; that's why when we went to war, he had such strong backing from Democrats. Even Pelosi and Reid. They'd all seen the intelligence, too. Edwards and Kerry and Gore ran on that belief in the 2000 campaign. Bush had no access to that stuff and said little during the campaign, preferring domestic issues and education (until Obama, he was the biggest spender).

 

Obama wins in 2008 and inherits a war that is essentially over (and would have been over years before if Democrats hadn’t turned tail and run), but since he ran on that, he had to  muck up the withdrawal. His sympathies are often with the Muslims, although the Shiia and Sunni sure don't seem to care much for each other. Under Obama's watch, religious minorities in the middle east have all but been wiped out—100 years ago Christians were about 20% of Iran, Iraq, Syria and others, but there were many others, too, including Samaritans, Zoroastrians, Yazidi--yes, and Jews who’d been there for thousands of years--but he doesn't want them to come to the USA, preferring instead Muslims fleeing Muslims who believe in Sharia, and letting the fundamentalist Muslims forcibly “convert” them. 

 

Obama wants to punish and change America, and and you never saw that with Bush for all his faults.  What better way to accomplish this than importing people who hate western values and standards? Killing gays and oppressing women is OK with those who scream sexism and homophobia, except in the face of Islam. Bake a cake and go to jail; but kill gay lovers, and it will just be a cultural practice if you are an immigrant.

Thinking about how it might have been different for the Gores--and us

When the news came out about the Gores separating, I started thinking about the election of 2000. I liked Al Gore back then, and wouldn't have been sorry if he won although I did vote for George Bush, having just registered as a Republican. Gore won the popular vote, but not the electoral vote. And he would have won that if even his own state had gone for him. But let's imagine he'd won.

1) The bitterness he felt toward the Clintons for not supporting his candidacy probably would have eventually melted away, but he would have made sure Bill Clinton, and possibly even Hillary sat on the sidelines for his 8 years.

2) We still would have had the 9/11 attack, and because the WMD drum beat had been building primarily by the Democrats (go back and look at Kerry, Clinton, and Kennedy) in the late 90s I'm guessing . . .

3) we would have been at war in Afghanistan and Iraq just the same--and maybe even more quickly and with no opposition from any Democrats, since Gore was their man . . . not even that young, inexperienced Senator from Illinois. President Clinton had missed an opportunity to capture Osama, so Gore would have been gleefully going after him. What a prize that would have been for him.

4) It's possible the war may have come to an agreeable end because it would have had full support of his party, giving less reason for the enemy to keep fighting.

5) But possibly it could have dragged on and on, due to bad intelligence, mismanagement of resources, etc., stronger al-Qaeda. That doesn't change with presidencies. Our current president has hardly paid any attention to it after making it a campaign issue.

6) We still would have had Hurricaine Katrina in 2005, and since all the disaster planning and red tape were directly in the lap of NOLA's mayor and the state governor, there would have been no difference there--not even in the billions of aid received afterward.

7) And if the long war continued, by the election of 2008, the country would have been so sick of "Gore's War," it would have elected a Republican--probably not McCain--and we never would have heard of Sarah Palin and she could have finished her term as governor of Alaska. Maybe Tom Tancredo or Fred Thompson.

8) The whole global warming fiasco would have proceded on a much more scientific, less hysterical routes, with Al Gore busy elsewhere, and no school child or college student would have been forced to sit through that dumb film. He probably wouldn't have been investing in carbon exchange businesses--serious conflict of interest for a president.

9) We still would have had the current recession because that was brought on by pushing people into mortgages (CRA) who really couldn't afford them, and then bundling and selling the bad debt, and that began in the Carter years, and was completely bi-partisan, badly thought out politics. Although the recession of 2000-02 might have lasted longer if Gore had been president--Democrats are reluctant to cut taxes to goose the economy.

10) John Edwards wouldn't have been a v.p. candidate in 2004, nor a presidential candidate in 2008 (would have been Leiberman), so he wouldn't have been messing around with and impregnating the videographer. So perhaps his marriage could have been saved, too.

11) No one would have heard of Barack Obama, in fact, Illinois might not have even reelected him to another term. I don't know who the Republican president would have been in 2010, but I know he would be making a lot of trips down to the Gulf and would not have hastily stopped all drilling with no information on the current problem, he wouldn't have been having show trials of CEOs, there wouldn't have been a deficit building stimulus package, and although like all Republicans he would have thrown more money at social programs, he wouldn't have taken over private health care. In short, if Al Gore had won in 2000, we wouldn't have the Obama years.

12) And finally, the Gores' marriage would have survived--at least I can't think of any presidential couple who divorced after 8 years in the White House--not even the Clintons who had good reason.

The change line from 2000 campaign

This morning on WOSU I watched a rehash of past presidential debates--Dole and Clinton, Gore and Bush, and I think there were references to others, but by then I was in the shower. It's interesting to listen to the Bush campaign promises of 2000--he was promising change, and was running as an outsider. Also he and Gore agreed on what to do if the U.S. were attacked--retaliate. So I looked at the transcript of the Oct. 11, 2000 debate, and see that Bush stayed with his vision for the Middle East, even if you don't think declaring war to preserve peace makes sense (it's a common theme through out history). Both men were equally firm about defending Israel and "friends." It was interesting how often they agreed on the Persian Gulf, Rwanda and Saddam. They could have easily been running together instead of on separate tickets.

Bush: Peace in the Middle East is in our nation's interests. Having a hemisphere that is free for trade and peaceful is in our nation's interests. Strong relations in Europe is in our nation's interest. I've thought a lot about what it means to be the president. I also understand that an administration is not one person, but an administration is dedicated citizens who are called by the president to serve the country, to serve a cause greater than self, and so I've thought about an administration of people who represent all America, but people who understand my compassionate and conservative philosophy." Gore: "We need to insist that Arafat send out instructions to halt some of the provocative acts of violence that have been going on. I think that we also have to keep a weather eye toward Saddam Hussein because he is taking advantage of this situation to once again make threats, and he needs to understand that he's not only dealing with Israel, he is dealing -- he's dealing with us if he is making the kind of threats that he's talking about there." Bush: "I think it's important to reach out to moderate Arab nations, like Jordan and Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. It's important to be friends with people when you don't need each other so that when you do there's a strong bond of friendship. And that's going to be particularly important in dealing not only with situations such as now occurring in Israel, but with Saddam Hussein. The coalition against Saddam has fallen apart or it's unraveling, let's put it that way. The sanctions are being violated. We don't know whether he's developing weapons of mass destruction. He better not be or there's going to be a consequence should I be the president." MODERATOR: People watching here tonight are very interested in Middle East policy, and they are so interested they want to base their vote on differences between the two of you as president how you would handle Middle East policy. Is there any difference? GORE: I haven't heard a big difference in the last few exchanges. BUSH: That's hard to tell. I think that, you know, I would hope to be able to convince people I could handle the Iraqi situation better. MODERATOR: Saddam Hussein, you mean, get him out of there? GORE: " . . . I was one of the few members of my political party to support former President Bush in the Persian Gulf War resolution, and at the end of that war, for whatever reason, it was not finished in a way that removed Saddam Hussein from power. I know there are all kinds of circumstances and explanations. But the fact is that that's the situation that was left when I got there. And we have maintained the sanctions. Now I want to go further. I want to give robust support to the groups that are trying to overthrow Saddam Hussein, . . ."