AL#7 DEMOCRATS; Environmentalism; Poverty


This is the seventh in a series of emails on abortion and related subjects. To be removed from this mailing list please send an empty email from the account in which it was received with the subject line "REMOVE." If you find the materials you will be receiving worthwhile you are encouraged to forward them to your own email lists. If you missed any of the other emails (AL#1..., AL#2..., etc.) and would like to receive them, please let me know.




[ 2/3/04 - This email was the last composed before the 2002 elections although it probably didn't get sent in time to be read or forwarded by many recipients. It was by far the most political of the entire project. If the principles discussed are review for you, I hope you'll at least read the introduction to "holistic environmentalism" near the end and in the more detailed attachment. The October 29, 2000 letter to the editor also says a lot.

Many principled conservatives may be feeling a bit perplexed with the spending spree in Washington. I've added an attachment that wasn't in the original 2002 mailing which does a pretty good job of explaining the real meaning of "trickle-down" economics.

Al Lemmo ]




This email, like the one before it, is intended more for the non-activist readers on the mailing list although the activists may still find it useful.

For those who came in late, a Birthist Abortionite is someone who believes in "aborting" the fundamental human rights of others (discriminating against them), even to the point of rationalizing their destruction, on the basis of prenatal developmental characteristics, just as a Racist Abortionite believes in aborting the rights of others on the basis of ethnicity. Birthists and Racists are two sects of the same destructive cult which worships the human intellect as competent to choose criteria for exclusion from the recognition and protection of the human community. They differ only in their criteria for choice.

Much of this email will be an attack on the Democratic Party because it has been taken over by Birthist Abortionites and has become a launching pad for their destructive agenda. If that's likely to offend you, please don't read it. On the other hand, if it's likely to offend you, you may be the kind of person who needs to read it most. I can truthfully tell you that I and many other Americans are deeply offended by what the Democratic Party has done and continues to do to advance the Birthist Abortionite cause and obstruct the cause of life.

Most pro-life organizations have adopted a non-partisan approach, realizing that abortion and related issues cut across party lines. But it's also true that the Abortionite agenda predominates in the Democratic Party, especially at the national level, and the pro-life agenda predominates in the Republican Party. I stated at the start of this series of emails that I was a serious Catholic and an elected Republican precinct delegate. So be advised that I plan to wave the flag to some extent on behalf of both of those affiliations in this email. Unlike those pro-life organizations, I have no qualms about being partisan.

I will be liberally mixing politics and religion in this email (who says I can't be liberal?) because to my way of thinking they are largely the same thing. Apart from belief in God, both deal to a large extent with the ordering of our relationships, both among ourselves and with God (for those who are believers). Our politics are very much informed by our religion. It is for this reason that I believe we have a national consensus to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves. It is based in what we call our Judeo-Christian tradition.

One of the great divides in our national political culture is the question of what we owe each other. I part company with those who believe we are simply obliged to stay out of each other's way. That approach to politics in my view is based on apathy, the opposite of love. In the context of being true to the fundamental law to love our neighbor as ourselves, love means to do what is right and good and just with respect to our neighbors. It is an active thing, not a feeling. And it certainly does not mean mentally aborting our neighbors in order to rationalize having our way with them. The main thing I hope to address in this email is the concerns of many good and decent people who feel conflicted in choosing our leaders because pro-life candidates often seem to fall short of their desires with respect to providing for the poor and protecting our environment. At the very least they may gain some better appreciation of those who feel differently. From my perspective, the Democrats come up woefully short in every respect.

I believe that where we differ in our approaches to providing for those less fortunate is in three areas: (1) how we determine who is unable to provide for themselves, (2) at what level or standard of living we will provide for those we've determined cannot provide for themselves, and (3) how to go about providing for them.

I'm no expert on our social welfare system but I would like to make some general comments. We seem to have made some positive changes with respect to the first area noted above by instituting welfare reforms which put many people back to work. I will address the second area shortly, but with respect to the third it seems to me that many people feel that unless we enact some kind of government program we are neglecting our obligations to the poor. I do not doubt anyone's motives -- the vast majority of people want to do what is good -- but I want to say a few things to help them understand why these government-based approaches are often opposed. It's not just a matter of not having to pay additional taxes.

First, there is a Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. It is the last article of the Bill of Rights and reads in its entirety as follows: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The list of legislative powers of Congress is found in Article I, Section 8. Under the Tenth Amendment, which is still in force, anything not listed in Article I Section 8 is not something about which the federal government is authorized to pass legislation. Among the things not mentioned in this section are agriculture, housing, education, health, welfare, national retirement plans and many other things that the federal government routinely involves itself in today. The Tenth Amendment has been completely ignored. Many people find it very troubling to expand federal powers still more outside the scope of Article I Section 8 because to do so is a violation of the rule of law. (I am attaching to this email an article by Joseph Farah which deals with this. While I disagree with some of his remarks, his main two points are excellent and I'll deal with the second shortly. The article can also be accessed at )

We have become accustomed to the unconstitutional actions of the federal government, and many of these things have broad popular support and are undoubtedly very beneficial. It has been suggested that we propose one or more amendments to the states that would incorporate these spheres of activity within the scope of Article I Section 8 to make them constitutional and consistent with the rule of law. It would be interesting to see if the states would actually approve such amendments to the Constitution.

The state governments may have the constitutional authority to do many things the federal government is supposedly prohibited from doing. But let's stop for a moment and think about the nature of government. In my view, every form of government (dictatorship, monarchy, democracy, etc.) shares one characteristic in common: it claims a legal monopoly on the use of force and coercion. That's what it means to govern. If you don't accept this, try declining -- politely, of course -- to pay your taxes and see what happens.

Many decent people seem inclined to make government their first resort -- if not their only resort -- to meeting our social obligations to provide for the poor. Let me suggest that there are many other avenues such as churches, foundations, cooperatives, corporate sponsored programs and many other types of non-profit organizations. The pro-life crisis pregnancy centers are an excellent example. Even one of the "liberal" pastors I addressed in the informal talk on war that was attached to email AL#4 believed that the primary obligation to provide for the poor belonged to the church -- meaning the entire Christian church. I believe that if those of us who belong to faith communities which espouse tithing or almsgiving took those obligations seriously the need for government involvement in programs to provide for the poor would be drastically reduced if not eliminated. Given the nature of government we should be very reluctant to impose on our neighbors by force of law an obligation that we should be meeting ourselves.

Returning to the second area where I believe we differ -- the level or standard of living we will provide for the poor -- I suspect I will run into more resistance when I say that I don't feel obliged to provide the same standard of living for others that I am able or willing to provide for myself. The basics of food, clothing and shelter are seemingly unarguable, but even something like shelter can be provided in a great variety of ways that may be far less than middle class standards. For example, there was a TV news segment on a community that provided small enclosures -- huts really -- for homeless men, which included a means for heating and possibly cooking. They weren't much but they were a lot better than living in a cardboard box or an abandoned building and resorting to dangerous practices to stay warm. And a lot more of these people could be served this way than with traditional housing because the huts were comparatively inexpensive.


Let's not forget that only about a century ago even the rich had out-houses. There is no reason we should apply the middle class standards of today to providing the basics for the poor. Cost matters when we're talking about forcing taxpayers to provide for the needs of some. And I don't buy the argument that it's a matter of dignity. Most taxpayers aren't wealthy and having to fork over more and more of their earnings in taxes can result in some real indignities.

Another example of foolish standards involved some nuns (I think it was Mother Teresa's order) who wanted to open some kind of health care facility in New York or some other American city. They were told they had to install an elevator to meet legal requirements, which would blow the cost out of reach. They offered to carry anyone who needed assistance up and down the stairways. The offer was refused and the whole project had to be dropped. That's downright stupid (on the part of the authorities) but all too typical of how we approach meeting the needs of the poor.

I strongly believe in helping the poor but I want us to be smart about it and lawful about it. I also take issue with some so-called conservatives who seem to believe that the free market will take care of everything. Under supply and demand (if I understand it correctly), if you don't have money (demand) -- or in the case of someone like myself (I'm excruciatingly cheap) the willingness to spend it -- the market will not serve (supply) your needs. To my way of thinking, putting total faith in market mechanisms borders on idolatry.


There was an old joke about an insane asylum inmate who was observed to be banging his head against a wall. When asked why he was doing it, the reply was "because it feels so good when I stop." There's also a saying that "if you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got." The Democrats have been banging all our heads against the welfare state wall for so long that we've forgotten what good feels like. They've shown little or no inclination to address the structural issues of poverty, preferring to continue the same old approaches that have wrecked the lives of individuals and families for several generations in continuing manifestations of the law of unintended consequences. Their formula for success is to promise every kind of benefit to everyone who wants one and never mention who will pay for it. That will always be done by some unidentified someone else. Higher taxes are seldom associated with any particular benefit. And so the party of unblemished heroes marches on.


I've heard that half our population now pays no federal income taxes. If true, that's a prescription for social disaster. It means that there's virtually no down side for half our people to vote themselves larger and larger shares of other people's wealth. It means the enshrinement of theft by ballot box.


The Democrats have cultivated an image of being the champions of the poor. But I believe they may actually be the worst enemies of the poor, and in fact profit from poverty. It's become an industry for them. An old and rather cynical joke says that "broke is a temporary condition but poor is a state of mind." There's a lot of truth to that and the Democrats have profited greatly from nurturing that state of mind.


It's an ongoing, amazing phenomenon that people can come to this country from all over the world with nothing -- including no knowledge of our language, customs and laws -- and succeed beyond their wildest dreams. Why is it that so many people who have grown up here and have plenty of such knowledge are "locked in the cycle of poverty"?


Any student of human behavior can tell you that we live up or down to our expectations of ourselves. High expectations yield high accomplishment, low expectations yield low accomplishment. President Bush knows this and has spoken of the "soft bias of low expectations." Is it any wonder that the constituency most closely tied to the Democrats, the African-American community, is so far behind most others? They are fed a steady diet of negativism, defeatism and victimhood. If it were simply a matter of racism the African-Americans with Caribbean roots would also lag behind but they don't. They don't have the same psychological and social baggage that the Demogogic Party finds it so profitable to cultivate and exploit. In the slash and burn politics of the so-called "Democrats" the Party harvests the votes and reaps the short-term, windfall profits of political power by destroying the self-reliance, self-confidence, self-esteem, initiative, hopes and dreams of the people they claim to be the saviors of. They are the party of grievance, the party of discontent, the party of whines, excuses and paranoia. The message is "you don't have a prayer without us." The message is "You can't." They preach the gospel of failure.



An excellent website dealing with the effect of prenatal child-slaying on the African-American community is (link updated 2015). It also traces the connections between Birthist Abortionism and Racist Abortionism (although it doesn't use those terms).



I realized before the 2000 elections that the question of prenatal child-slaying was not going to sway that many voters, so I decided that the best thing I could do to help the pro-life cause was to attack the Democrats. I sent the letter below nationwide by mass fax. Bear in mind as you read this that Democrats like Jennifer Granholm (gubernatorial candidate in Michigan) are fond of accusing Republicans of "dividing us."

October 29, 2000

To the Editor:

The so-called Democrats practice "divide and conquer." They have divided us by class, sex, race, religion, generations, language groups and financial interests into multiple constituencies, each bought by some typically unconstitutional government entitlement that Democrats can stay in power by defending. They have corrupted the electorate, subverted our democratic system and undermined the foundations of our republic. They have divided income from work, knowledge from schooling, certification from achievement, advancement from merit, benefits from fiscal realities, morality from law, power from accountability, legislation from constitutional authority (read Article I, section 8 and the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution), voting from citizenship (recently adding illegal aliens to such traditional constituencies as the deceased), individuals from responsibility (preferring to bury it in groups), responsibilities from freedoms, punishment from crime, the right to life from prenatal lives (so much for the "little guy"), children from parental authority, fatherhood from family, religion from moral development, and sex from love, commitment and marriage.

The Democrats' success at dividing consequences from behavior has built a nation of broken lives and a culture of dependency. Their socialist vision of utopia is a society of equal outcomes regardless of talent, effort, drive or virtue with all authority vested in an all-knowing central government - God, church and family having been eradicated. Their idea of democracy is voting the sticky-fingered, heavy hand of government deeper into one's neighbors' pockets.

Want to destroy America? Just elect this party of division, destruction and death.


[End of letter]


I received more than twice the reader feedback on this letter (the majority positive) than on any of the letters I've sent nationwide on abortion, which I thought was the most controversial issue going. If it swung a significant number of votes in Florida it was well worth the couple of hundred dollars it cost me. I would have referred to the "Demagogic" or even "Dummycrap" Party if I had thought any editor would print it. However, lest I offend anyone by my language I will instead use this acronym: DEMOCRATS. It stands for Demagogic and Extreme Misfits (or Malcontents) Organized to Corrupt the Republic by Attacking Traditions and Standards. (I had a really tough time settling on the "D" since there were so many pertinent alternatives: Death-Dealing, Deceitful, Dangerous, Destructive, Disordered, Deranged, Deviant, Dysfunctional, Depraved, Demented, Deplorable, Decadent, etc.) Among the traditions and standards I'm speaking of are self-reliance, personal virtue, private initiative, the rule of law and the sanctity of life. The DEMOCRATS are actively working to destroy all of them.


This brings me to the second point of Joseph Farah's article (attached) which I referenced earlier. Quoting Farah, "the framers of that Constitution spoke eloquently about the fact that only a moral people - a nation of Godly people with common spiritual and social values - were capable of self-government. They could not have envisioned the depths of depravity, licentiousness and vice to which our society has fallen - yet they warned about it." By actively working to destroy the virtues of our people, the DEMOCRATS are destroying our freedoms and our republic. The Clinton impeachment trial provided a clear look at how these reprobates think. It was a Dummycrap carnival.


It is testimony to how far we have fallen that a known serial adulterer could have even been nominated (actually, that's not too hard to understand coming from DEMOCRATS), much less elected to the presidency. What kind of people would trust someone, who couldn't or wouldn't abide by his own marriage vows, to show any more respect for the presidential oath of office? Clinton wasn't elected in spite of his sleaziness, as some would have us believe. He was elected because of it. He was elected because so many Americans felt the need to prove that someone as sleazy as themselves could be elected president, thereby demonstrating that sleaziness didn't matter. Well, they proved such a person could be elected but they didn't prove that sleaziness didn't matter. They proved the opposite.


The editor of a senior citizen publication in Arizona called me, quite irate about the above letter. But I engaged the gentleman respectfully and he ended up describing me as "thoughtful." One of the things I suggested to him was that the Democratic Party that he had grown up with and felt some affection for or allegiance to was not the same as the Democratic Party of today. An old, strongly pro-life friend of mine, now deceased, who had been a life-long Democrat until the 1970s expressed this by saying, "I didn't leave the Party. The Party left me."


I could have made the list of divisions the DEMOCRATS engage in much longer. Some examples might include "the people from their Second Amendment rights" (or other rights such as property rights) and "perception from reality." The last item is a standard operating procedure for DEMOCRATS. For example, they commonly apply euphemistic labels suggesting popular and beneficial content (such as environmental protection or civil rights -- things no decent person would oppose) to highly objectionable legislation. Another example is evident in an attack ad by Jennifer Granholm here in Michigan. The ad claims that legislation passed many years ago which her opponent voted for "protected CEOs" in an attempt to smear him with the current corporate scandal. It neglects to mention that her own running mate voted for it as did many other DEMOCRATS, including now U.S. Senator Debbie Stab-'em-now (as in "stab-'em-in-the-back-of-the-head-and-suck-their-brains-out"). Even though her opponent pointed this out in a televised but not widely viewed debate, the ad continued running because DEMOCRATS know that perception is reality, regardless of how false. This also qualifies as demagogery.


Granholm's candidacy has caused quite a stir among lay Catholics in Michigan because she is openly defying the teaching of the Catholic Church with her virulent Birthist Abortionite stance while still claiming to be a loyal member of the Church. Lay Catholics have established a website at, mainly to educate other Catholics, but it may be of interest to others in races where a devout Birthist is involved. Another website specific to Granholm is


Four years ago the DEMOCRATS offered us an openly anti-Catholic bigot as their "candidate" for governor in the person of Jack Kevorkian's egomaniacal lawyer. Today, in addition to the Granholm insult, they have posted on the website of the Democratic National Committee a link to Frances Kissling, the impostor who heads a shell organization called Catholics for a Free Choice (to Slay Prenatal Babies) and who has openly declared her goal of destroying the Church.


Just what is the "Democratic" Party trying to tell Catholics?


The Party's actions are just a small part of an ongoing campaign on the part of the far Left to destroy the influence of the Catholic Church. Birthist Abortionites in particular, especially those in the media, long ago recognized that the only institution that rivaled them in terms of its power to win the hearts and minds of Americans, Catholic or not, was the Catholic Church. The Church and Catholics in general are the only minority in this country that can be openly mocked and ridiculed without fear of consequences. Even our most sacred practices are routinely profaned in various media. If any other minority were similarly treated the media would recoil in revulsion. But it's open season on Catholics and always has been.


For documentation of the cultural warfare against Catholics and to assist in the campaign to stop it, please check into the website of The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. The organization is devoted to protecting the religious freedom of all of us and is open to anyone. It is looking for new members. The link is:


Maybe you've observed the phenomenon of someone who claims to be a Catholic and then disclaims any influence of the Church's teaching on the way they think or act. "I think for myself" or "I believe in separation of church and state" are typical statements when rationalizing such things as voting for Birthist Abortionites, an act which is doing the work of the devil. If the "candidate" were clearly a Racist Abortionite the situation would be totally different because opposing racial discrimination receives the approval of everyone. But these people have been intimidated by the cultural warfare waged against the Church and now feel embarrassed to be associated with it. They still want to call themselves Catholics because at some level they understand the Church's connection with the historical roots of Christianity and want to be part of it. But as far as being practicing Catholics -- forget it. The Church has made it clear, especially in the current Granholm scandal, that it's more than just doctrines and beliefs that matter -- there are also standards of behavior. Knowingly choosing for our lawmakers and policymakers people who would permit the unrestricted slaughter of the most innocent and helpless members of the human family is a serious sin.


I recently attended a pro-life legislative breakfast where I was seated beside a pro-life Democrat who was running for a state representative position. I told him that at this point I was reluctant even to vote for a pro-life Democrat because it could give control of a legislative chamber to the anti-life party. What's been going on lately in the United States Senate provides many examples of why such a situation must be avoided. In addition to blocking the appointments of two of President Bush's highly qualified judicial nominees along straight party lines in the Judiciary Committee, because they had made some pro-life rulings, the Birthist Abortionite "leadership" has blocked consideration of a great deal of pro-life legislation. These bills include the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (H.R. 4965), the human cloning ban (H.R. 2505, S. 1899), The Unborn Victims of Violence Act (H.R. 503) which would recognize as a legal victim any unborn child who is injured or killed during the commission of a federal crime, The Child Custody Protection Act (H.R. 476) which would make it a crime to take a minor across state lines for a secret abortion if it abridged her parents' right to be involved under their home state law, and The Abortion Non-Discrimination Act (H.R. 4691) to prohibit state and local governments from discriminating against hospitals and other health care providers for refusing to participate in abortions.


[The above information was taken from the National Right to Life News, the newspaper of the National Right to Life Committee. It is an excellent source of detailed information on what's going on in the ongoing war against Birthist Abortionism. NRL News is published approximately 22 times per year. Additional information is available at the website You can also sign up for email alerts.]


Even the last bill I mentioned, which is a conscience protection measure, is fiercely opposed by Birthist Abortionites. Since prenatal children don't exist to them, they consider any attempt to abridge the fictitious right to abortion to be as morally objectionable as racial discrimination, and behave accordingly. Even Catholic hospitals have no right to refuse to commit abortions by this grotesquely distorted way of thinking and these fanatics want to force those that don't do abortions now to become involved with it.


I've already gone on too long but I feel the need to address the issue of environmentalism because Republicans tend to have a poor public image in this area and it's a major reason why many otherwise decent people will choose Birthist Abortionite DEMOCRATS over pro-life REPUBLICANS (Responsible, Enterprising People Upholding Basic Liberties and Innovating Constructive and Affirmative National Solutions). It's unfortunate but true that the one-dimensional "the economy, stupid" types on the right of our political spectrum tend to hide behind the free market principles of the Republican Party. It doesn't help matters when a high profile mouthpiece like Rush Limbaugh, who in most other respects has done a world of good in articulating conservative causes, routinely bashes "environmental wackos." But the vast majority of REPUBLICANS want a clean and healthy natural environment. What sane person wouldn't? To us, it's more a matter of balancing environmental concerns with other human needs whereas the alternative we usually are offered is what an article referenced below called "the anti-scientific utopianism of hysterical mainstream environmentalism." It's all or nothing and all too typical of the approach of DEMOCRATS to grandstand as our heroes.


A friend sent me an article from a recent issue of National Review which dealt with environmentally conscious conservatives or "Crunchy (as in crunchy granola) Cons" and what that meant. Most REPUBLICANS want very much to preserve all aspects of our heritage. The article identifies "four basic areas that are touchstones for crunchy conservatives: Religion, the Natural World, Beauty, and Family." I might add a few things to that list such as tradition and history. The article also notes that "In previous generations, it was taken for granted among conservatives that cultivating taste was a worthwhile, even necessary pursuit in building civilization" and that "One's sensitivity to and desire for beauty, and its edifying qualities of order, harmony, 'sweetness and light,' has consequences for the character of individuals and ultimately for civilization. It's perilous to forget that." It is for these reasons that this Republican is going to vote Tuesday to spend taxpayers' money on cultural and artistic institutions. I'm simply sick of seeing things like the calling cards of Joe Sixpack along our waterways when I go canoeing. Our people need this.


What I think we need most of all is an approach I call "holistic environmentalism." I touched on this at the end of an article about why so-called animal rights activists often support abortion (attached) which is also accessible at Under this concept we live in a number of environments, all of which are important to sustaining life to the fullest. These include the internal environments of our own physical bodies, minds and spiritual natures, our ethical and moral environments, our political and social environments and our overall cultural environment which encompasses most of the others. There is a good deal of overlap since most of these environments affect the others. If we were to adopt a holistic environmental ethic we would begin by refusing to pollute our own physical bodies with foreign substances, including what I call somewhat jokingly "microbial excrement" (alcohol). The drug abuse problem would disappear if this were universally taken to heart. We would likewise refuse to pollute our minds with images and ideas that are detrimental to healthy relationships with ourselves, others and God. These are perhaps the most important things we take with us through life. If this idea were to take hold, the pornography problem and all the problems that spring from it would all but disappear. Our moral and ethical environments have been severely polluted by Abortionism and its various practices: prenatal child-slaying, cloning, euthanasia, assisted suicide, etc. Our political environment has been terribly polluted by DEMOCRATS and other Abortionites as they have thwarted the democratic process through the usurpations of the judiciary, Balkanized our people for political gain, trashed the rule of law by ignoring constitutional constraints (and in many other ways) and made election fraud a time-honored tradition.


I could go on but I think you've got the idea. The most persistent and egregious polluters of most of the environments mentioned above have been the DEMOCRATS. It is no accident that porn king Larry Flynt is solidly with the DEMOCRATS. These people have polluted our people and our culture and continue to pollute them in nearly every way imaginable. When are we going to say we've had enough?


There was a time I thought that Pope John Paul II was being a bit melodramatic by talking about a culture of death. It seemed to me it was more of a culture of control where we were obssessed with being in control of every aspect of life, including its beginning and end. But I've reconsidered. The first abortion committed by every Abortionite is the aborting of the authority of the Creator. The story of the world's first two Abortionites in the Book of Genesis tells us that they were tempted by the prospect of being "as gods." This is the desire and motivation of every Abortionite. They want to appoint themselves gods, to make the Creator irrelevant, to decide for themselves who belongs and who matters, to be totally in control. But if a definition of sin is separation from God and the wages of sin are death, the first act of the Abortionite is the establishment of a culture of death. John Paul II had it right.


I believe that the concept of holistic environmentalism as outlined above is completely consistent with the ethic of a culture of life. By contrast, Abortionism in any or all of its forms is the embodiment of the culture of death. It needs to be rejected and repudiated at every opportunity. We have an opportunity to do that in this week's elections and it is my hope that the political party in which the destructive and death-dealing cult of Abortionism has found a home will be soundly rejected by the people of this country.




This will be the last email in this series for a while. I need a break and I suspect you may also. There are only about three or four more that I plan to send at this point but they may be stretched out over time with as much as a few weeks in between them. I only regret that I got too late a start to do a better job of this. I lost a week and most of two weekends to an unexpected business trip and Murphy gave me fits for most of the first week. I'm a pretty slow writer so time to get it right makes a big difference. You may have noticed that much of what I've sent you was written over a period of years where the necessary investment of time had already been made. Now you understand why.


Thanks again for staying with me this far. I hope it has been meaningful to you.


Al Lemmo

Republican Delegate

Precinct 44

Dearborn, Michigan

November 3, 2002