Sobran's --
The Real News of the Month
January 2000
Volume 7, No. 1
Editor: Joe Sobran
Publisher: Fran Griffin (Griffin Communications)
Managing Editor: Ronald N. Neff
Subscription Rates (print version): $59.95 per
year; $100 for 2 years. Trial subscription
available for $19.95 (5 issues). E-mail
subscriptions: $75 per year. Payment should be
made to The Vere Company.
Address: Sobran's, P.O. Box 183,
Vienna, VA 22183-1383
Fax: 703-281-6617
Publisher's Office: 703-255-2211
Foreign Subscriptions: Add $1.25 per issue for
Canada and Mexico; all other foreign countries, add
$1.75 per issue).
Credit Card Orders: Call 1-800-493-3348. Allow
4-6 weeks for delivery of your first issue.
The columns on pages 7-12 are reprinted with permission
of the
Griffin Internet Syndicate
THE MOVING PICTURE
(pages 1-2)
George Double-U Bush remains the front-runner among the
countless (they are as the sands of the seashore)
Republican presidential candidates, despite several signs
that he has inherited a good deal of George H.W. Bush's
slight goofiness. Needless to say, he appears never to
have heard of the U.S. Constitution. Not that this
separates him from the rest of the pack.
* * *
In the first Republican "debate" in New
Hampshire, Steve Forbes accused Bush of planning to raise
the age requirement for Social Security benefits. In
reply, Bush quoted Forbes's own statement that the age
requirement should be raised. Forbes retorted that he'd
written that proposal more than 20 years ago. Neither
mentioned that the Social Security program is not only
unsound but unconstitutional. The best Republican, as it
appears, is he who would most vigorously preserve
entitlement programs passed by the Democrats of yore. And
the competition is fierce.
* * *
The media prefer the blunt, "straight-shooting"
John McCain to Bush. Why? Because McCain has given even
stronger signals than Bush that he won't oppose legal
abortion. And because he favors campaign finance
"reform," meaning limits on the amount of money
candidates may spend reaching the voters -- a "reform"
which, by curbing the equalizing power of money, would
not only strengthen incumbents against their challengers,
but magnify the unlimited power of the media as a factor
in elections.
* * *
I recall a news item about an indignant middle-
class Frenchwoman some years ago, during the presidency
of the Socialist Francois Mitterand. "Mitterand told us
he was going to tax the rich," she complained. "Now he
tells us that we are the rich!" It's called the
"slippery slope," madame. If you set fire to your
neighbor's house, the flames may spread to your own home.
And once you support violations of your neighbor's
rights, your own rights may become the next target.
* * *
Odd that those who see a "slippery slope" in
censorship ("If we ban pornography, we may wind up
banning ULYSSES!") rarely foresee any danger in giving
the state the power to take our income. Considering the
way the average taxpayer is now looted at rates
originally aimed at "the rich," the wonder is that the
Sixteenth Amendment hasn't gone the way of the
Eighteenth. Of course Prohibition was repealed in large
part so that the states could tax liquor along with
everything else; the Twenty-First Amendment was by no
means an unambiguous victory for liberty.
* * *
Allow me to remind you that the first priority
of the Constitution Party would be the abolition of the
personal income tax. The Phillips-Sobran administration
won't settle for "supply-side" half-measures, which have
only enabled the federal government to increase its
revenues and more than double its spending since 1982.
The feds could finance their legitimate constitutional
powers with a small fraction of their current booty.
* * *
The first federal budget was about $4 million;
in the 1830s, it reached $35 million (and ran
surpluses!). It didn't reach $1 billion until World War
I; today, in peacetime, it approaches $2 *trillion,*
with a debt more than double that amount. A child born
this morning will pay $100,000 in taxes (i.e., one-
fortieth of the first budget for the entire country!)
just on the interest on the federal debt, even if every
federal budget is balanced from now on. In what sense is
a child who comes into the world owing $100,000 born
"free"?
* * *
Hillary Clinton continues to flounder in New
York. She has announced her *intention* to run for the
U.S. Senate, but she hasn't yet announced that she is
*actually* running, thus leaving herself a Clintonian
loophole if she drops out. In the meantime she's
campaigning on the weariest sort of liberal boilerplate,
attacking her likely opponent, New York City's Mayor Rudy
Giuliani, for ordering the arrests of "homeless people"
after a street thug put a young woman in a coma with a
brick to the skull. Said Hillary: "Our political leaders
must be judged on how they treat everyone, including the
least fortunate." In Hillary's compassionate reckoning,
the homeless, not the girl with the smashed skull, are
"the least fortunate."
* * *
Hillary also noted that Christmas celebrated
"the birth of a homeless child." Wrong again. Joseph and
Mary had a home in Nazareth, but had to go to Bethlehem
(where the rooms were all taken) at the order of Caesar
Augustus, who was taxing the entire Roman Empire. Hillary
and her hubby have more in common with Augustus than with
the Holy Family, but at least she has the guts to refer
to the New Testament in New York.
* * *
A Jewish columnist in the DETROIT NEWS
complains that at Hillsdale College, most students are
"white and Christian." It's okay for Jews to say a little
college is disproportionately Christian; but it would be
anti-Semitic for a Christian to suggest that the media,
Hollywood, the law schools, and the medical profession
are disproportionately Jewish.
* * *
I'm so weary of hearing Jesse Jackson referred
to as a "civil rights leader." He is in fact a racial
partisan (not that there's anything wrong with racial
partisans -- unless, of course, they are white) who wants
to abridge white people's freedoms, chiefly the freedom
of association. The more he succeeds, the fewer civil
rights we actually retain.
* * *
In abnormal times, normal things have to be
given invidious new names. We now have a special term for
the shrinking breed of normal human beings: "Clinton-
haters."
* * *
(THE FOLLOWING MOVING PICTURE ITEMS ARE EXCLUSIVE
TO THE ELECTRONIC VERSION OF SOBRAN'S MOVING PICTURE)
Maryland's indictment of Linda Tripp for illegally
taping her girl-chats with Monica Lewinsky shows the need
for a new federal program: a witness protection plan for
those who supply evidence of Bill Clinton's crimes.
* * *
Speaking of which, Al Gore was asked in New
Hampshire whether he believed Clinton had raped Juanita
Broaddrick. Any previous vice president (supposing the
question could have arisen about any previous president)
would have bellowed an indignant denial. Gore, however,
stammered a long, noncommittal answer and spoke of
"mistakes [Clinton] made in his personal life." Get that:
if your state's attorney general rapes a woman, he's just
making a mistake in his personal life.
Created Equal
(pages 3-6)
The United States was founded in the republican
conviction that heredity shouldn't be destiny. This
doctrine has many ramifications, not all of them strictly
logical or mutually consistent. The Declaration of
Independence declares that all men are created equal; the
Constitution forbids titles of nobility; it eventually
outlawed chattel slavery; "civil rights" has come to mean
that even private employers must not hire according to
ethnic criteria; racial prejudice, "racism," has become a
social taboo; and even generalizations about ethnic
groups are frowned on (unless they flatter the
"contributions" of this or that group). The only trait
it's now safe to ascribe to whole races is victimhood.
And yet common sense tells us that groups and
nations do have distinct characters, with characteristic
vices as well as virtues. When we aren't on our guard
against the thought police, we may discuss such things
freely. American individualism is balanced by the earthy
sociology of stereotypes, which, as the great sociologist
John Murray Cuddihy assures us, "are more or less
accurate." Obviously what is true of the group may not
apply to this or that member, but the group still has its
own habits and ways, maybe even its own culture (or
"subculture," to use a word my generation learned in
college). The individual may show the group's traits for
the same reason he speaks in the accents of his native
place: from early childhood he imitates those around him,
often without even realizing it.
How does a group get a reputation that lasts
over centuries? Is any such reputation a "prejudice"? A
"prejudice" need not be a prejudgment; it may be the
settled conclusion of long experience. In Europe Jews and
gypsies were unpopular for centuries. Many Jews blame
this fact, which they call "anti-Semitism," on
Christianity, which they consider superstition, thereby
denying any empirical foundation to the gentiles'
distrust. The word "anti-Semitism" itself implies that
all frictions between Jews and gentiles must be blamed on
the gentiles. Hence the campaign to tar Pope Pius XII and
the Catholic Church as "anti-Semitic."
But the slang words "jew" and "gyp" tell
another story: the bad reputations of both groups have
less to do with religion than with practical experience
and word-of-mouth tradition. Notice that the unpopularity
of such groups has more to do with distrust than with
simple hatred. The verbs "jew" and "gyp" imply sharp
dealing and low ethics. The Middle East bears witness
that the Jews may be unpopular even where most of the
population is non-Christian. They haven't endeared
themselves to Muslim Arabs; just as they were unpopular
in the ancient pagan world. As a matter of fact, most of
the world's Jews have chosen to live in Christian
countries. Would they have done so if Christians were
always hostile to Jews?
Majority populations sometimes explode in
violence against these minorities, but that has always
been the exception. And of course our ethnic etiquette
forbids us to ask the obvious question: Have the
minorities ever done anything to exasperate the majority?
A government can launch a hate campaign and
excite the population to violence; this sort of top-down
hatred has been a frequent feature of modern states. But
most prejudices aren't created by official doctrines;
they result from popular experience and the slow
spreading of a group's reputation. The first gypsy I ever
met -- on a street in Rome -- grabbed a wad of money out
of my hand. I'd been too naive to be wary of her, though
my companions had warned me against her.
Hilaire Belloc's book THE JEWS, published in
1922, should be required reading for anyone who wants to
understand what used to be frankly called (even by Jews)
"the Jewish problem." Belloc addressed the problem from
the Christian point of view, but he did it in an even-
handed way, acknowledging that the vices of the Jews are
often the obverse of their virtues. He wrote at a time
when "Jewish Bolshevism," based in Russia, menaced
Christendom. The Jewish Communists in every country
seemed to embody, in extreme form, every bad trait
ascribed to the Jews: hatred of the majority and its
religion, duplicity, materialism, lust for power.
The Jews' long survival is often called
"miraculous." It would seem so -- literally. Judaism is
based on divine revelation, and the highly tribal and
patriarchal Mosaic law, so contrary to every precept of
modern liberalism, has created a race of people who have
refused assimilation to their surrounding populations
over many centuries.
Moreover, the Jews have preserved as their holy
books (which Christians call the "Old Testament")
writings which portray them in a very unfavorable light.
They repeatedly stray from the Law and God has to keep
rebuking the "stiff-necked people" and punishing them
with terrible severity, even allowing their enemies to
conquer them. In all this the Jews are in striking
contrast to the ancient Romans, for example, who
glorified themselves and developed a self-congratulatory
mythology (as in Virgil's AENEID). Today the mighty
Roman Empire is long gone; the Jews are still here,
thanks in large part to their capacity for spiritual
self-criticism. "Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth." The
Jews, to their glory, took his chastenings to heart.
Jews who adhere to their religion also believe
that moral laws are as objective as physical laws. Their
moral sense is stern, vigorous, and realistic, without
the sentimental Christian tendency to turn morality into
mush, with every sinner getting an infinite number of
second chances. In that respect, early Christianity was
much closer to Judaism than to modern watered-down
Christianity.
Of course most Jews no longer believe in
Judaism; many are hostile to any religion, including
their own. In substituting Zionism for Judaism they have
adopted a self-exalting modern nationalism, rejecting all
criticism as "anti-Semitism." The state of Israel
practices every form of discrimination against non-Jews
that secularized Jews reject when they are a minority
anywhere else in the world. But this obvious fact is
mentioned publicly at one's own risk. The idea of the
Chosen People is separated both from the Mosaic Law and
from any sense of a transcendent mission to the goyim --
"the nations." And Zionist jingoism, forever casting Jews
as innocent victims, has taken its toll on the ancient
Jewish capacity for rigorous self-criticism. Just as
gentile criticism of Jews has become "anti-Semitism,"
Jewish self-criticism has become "self-hatred."
Modern Jewry violently resented the 1975 United
Nations declaration (later rescinded) that Zionism is "a
form of racism and racial discrimination," but that is
what Jews would rightly call any state based on similar
laws consigning Jews to inferior status. Israeli laws on
intermarriage and residence (92 per cent of the land of
Israel is for Jewish residence only) recall Southern Jim
Crow laws and Germany's Nuremberg laws. But only a few
bold critics have pointed out this double standard.
Actually, it goes beyond normal double standards: it's
the application of standards that are directly
*opposite* to those the modern, more or less "liberal"
Jews insist on elsewhere.
"Israel's right to exist" really means the
right of Jews to dominate non-Jews. That is the
foundation -- the virtual constitution -- of the Jewish
state, and Jewish courts have ruled that non-Jews may not
claim the same rights as Jews. Under the "right of
return," any Jew in the world may "return" to Israel
(even if none of his ancestors ever lived there) and
immediately claim rights denied to Palestinians whose
ancestors have lived there for untold centuries.
Such facts, along with Israel's heavy
dependence on American aid, confirm the very stereotypes
Jews constantly protest: of Jews as duplicitous
"parasites" who recognize no moral obligations of Jews
toward gentiles. So do Israeli espionage and technology
theft against this country. The convicted spy Jonathan
Pollard is widely celebrated as a national hero in
Israel. And yet we are told, not only by Jews but by our
own native prostitute politicians, that Israel is our
"reliable ally" as well as a model of "democracy."
Before Zionism seemed to have any prospect of
success, many Jews thought Communism was "good for the
Jews." Of course they also insisted that Communism was
good for "the proletariat." Russia under the tsars didn't
have much of a proletariat, but when it became the Soviet
Union it was transformed into "the workers' paradise."
Until the heroic Alexander Solzhenitsyn published his
great trilogy, THE GULAG ARCHIPELAGO, in the 1970s
(excerpts of which, be it noted, were carried in the NEW
YORK TIMES under its Zionist editor Abe Rosenthal), the
heavily-Jewish U.S. liberal media still maintained that
the Russian people were far better off under Communism
than under the despotic tsars.
In Germany, especially after Jewish-led
Communist insurrections there and in Hungary and Romania,
Hitler could argue plausibly that Soviet Communism showed
what the Jews meant to do to other countries. Traditional
suspicion was easily raised to a hysteria that found
persecution not only permissible, but prudent. In
America, Father Charles Coughlin, the radio priest,
warned of Jewish Bolshevism too, cataloguing the real
Jewish names of the Soviet ruling circles and accusing
the Soviet regime of murdering 20 million Christians (a
figure that later turned out to be far too low, according
to Solzhenitsyn and others). Nevertheless, Stalin enjoyed
widespread support from Jews around the world, even after
his bloody purge of most Jewish members of the Soviet
hierarchy.
Is there a "Jewish problem" in the United
States today? In the media age, Jews prevail in the media
-- in television news, punditry, major newspapers, and
Hollywood entertainment. They also constitute a powerful
lobby, devoted to a range of liberal causes: feminism,
"civil rights," legal abortion, banning religion from
public places -- whatever seems to irritate the Christian
population. Many ethnic Jews (as well as many nominal but
effectively apostate Christians) still carry what might
be called the Bolshevik gene code.
But Jews are so powerful in this country that
any mention of the Jewish angle in liberalism is taboo,
whereas the interests of "the Christian Right" are freely
reported, often with scornful overtones. As I have reason
to know, a journalist may endanger his career by
discussing Jewish interests in any light except a highly
favorable one. An especially vivid illustration is
provided by the media's concerted hate campaign against
Pat Buchanan. Jewish power is such that even Jews in the
media are themselves afraid of it.
To some extent this is merely the result of the
Jews' success in a free society. They have enormous
wealth and power, but they also have enormous talent and
determination. They are "overachievers" from the cradle,
and if there is one trait they surely have, it's the
ability to focus on a long-term purpose. Despite an
occasional Sandy Koufax, Jews are notoriously unathletic;
but not necessarily because they lack physical ability.
The chief reason is that they are serious. As the great
Jewish polemicist Maurice Samuel explained, Jews have a
general contempt for sports and games and don't waste
their time on these gentile frivolities. Try to imagine a
Jewish couch potato sitting in front of the television
with a six-pack watching three football games in a row!
It's hard to picture.
But their seriousness also shows in their
vindictiveness. People who don't hate the Jews are
nevertheless afraid of them, afraid of crossing them.
Believing the mythology of their own eternal victimhood,
the Jews (by and large) feel that criticism of them means
persecution, and they are quick to paint swastikas on
their critics. Given their inordinate power in the media,
this means that the general public hears very little
criticism of them, even when they deserve it. It amounts
to private censorship. Jewish power inhibits free speech
even when the press is absolutely free from government
control.
Of course the Jews are only exercising their
rights as property owners when they bar their critics
from their networks and newspapers, but the result is
still a severe curtailment of full public discussion. The
news media not only inform, but "disinform" the public by
suppressing both facts themselves and comment on those
facts.
The general public has become accustomed to
judging everything from a Jewish point of view. This is
most striking -- to me, anyway -- in the constant harping
on World War II, which has long since ceased revolving
around Pearl Harbor and Japan and now centers obsessively
on the "Holocaust" -- a word never used during the war
itself. We are taught that it is good that the United
States won, because Hitler was destroyed. In fact, the
real victor was Stalin, who quickly took ten Christian
countries under Communist rule; but since Communism
enjoyed a good deal of Jewish support and most of its
victims were Christians, its role in the war is barely
acknowledged. Even Jewish anti-Communists (of whom there
are now many) say next to nothing about the savage
Communist persecution of Christians. In contrast to the
endless hunt for old Nazis, there has been no campaign to
find and punish aging Communist criminals, or to exact
reparations for the cruelty and suffering they inflicted.
Until recently, Jews passionately supported
(and, to a large extent, controlled) the "civil rights
movement," which was really a socialist campaign to
extend the power of centralized government over private
individuals and institutions. The unadmitted premise of
the movement, ironically enough, was white supremacy and
black inferiority. It was assumed that black children
couldn't get a proper education in segregated schools;
only if they sat in classrooms with whites could they
become achievers. But public schools, once integrated,
didn't remain integrated long; whites fled as soon as
they could.
Again, the alleged reason was "prejudice" -- or
what Bill Clinton would homiletically call "fear of those
who are different," as in "the color of their skin." But
whites weren't afraid of skin pigment; they were afraid
of violence. They went to great lengths and great expense
to escape it. Even liberals notoriously put their
children in safe, i.e., mostly white, schools. If sheer,
irrational racial prejudice motivated "white flight" from
black-dominated cities, it should also have made whites
equally fearful of Orientals and other nonwhites.
There is an obvious difference between
defensive and aggressive prejudices -- a distinction
liberalism doesn't acknowledge. When one group sees
another group as threatening and is actually willing to
pay a high price to avoid close contact with it, the
prejudice would seem to have at least some foundation.
The liberal response to this market judgment is to outlaw
the market, making contact compulsory, without asking why
such a policy is necessary. When such policies fail,
liberals conclude that even more drastic policies must be
imposed.
Even today, black "leaders" like Jesse Jackson
appear to be white supremacists. Jackson admits that
blacks pose a certain crime problem; he once confessed
that when he hears footsteps behind him on a dark street,
he is relieved if he turns and sees a white man. The huge
disparity between interracial crime committed by blacks
and that committed by whites -- the ratio is about 50 to
1 -- causes no comment; a violent crime committed by a
white against a black makes national headlines.
The forbidden prejudice against blacks makes
its appearance indirectly, in the low expectations
everyone has of blacks (contrast the high expectations of
Jews). Jackson and others, in making demands on whites,
always imply that blacks are incapable of achievement on
their own, outside the areas of sports, entertainment,
and the performing arts; they can't even envision blacks
as creators, inventors, innovators. They can see them
only as recipients of white largess, cogs in the white
man's economic machinery. Though they complain about the
injustice of casting the black man in menial roles in the
white man's world, they seem unable to conceive him as a
builder of civilizations.
Jackson and his ilk may not realize it, but
they constantly reinforce the idea that blacks aren't
even capable of moral responsibility. By blaming the
white man for everything, they teach that only the white
man is morally autonomous, and that blacks can be only
what the white man chooses to make them. The white man
becomes the Superman -- the black man's excuse for
failure. Whatever Jackson's words say, this is what his
actions mean. Nor do many others seem to disagree. As
Bernard Shaw remarked, a man's deepest beliefs are to be
inferred not from the creed he professes, but from the
assumptions on which he habitually acts.
Outside of sports -- where the black man is as
secure in his domain as the Jew in his -- most of the
blacks who are celebrated for their "achievements" are
political. That is what black "leaders" do: they fight to
enlarge the power of the state, narrowing the white man's
freedom and taking his money for racial purposes. The
state is of course a coercive and parasitic institution,
creating and producing nothing, dispensing to some only
what it takes from others -- "organized plunder," as
Bastiat called it. Success in politics is nothing to be
proud of.
Demands for "reparations" for blacks, for the
"lingering effects" of slavery, overlook the fact that
slavery is the one institution this country ever imported
from Africa. Moreover, when slavery came here it was far
more humane than the African kind: American slaves
weren't mutilated or castrated as in the African
"homeland." Since black leaders sentimentalize Africa
(they now want to be called "African-Americans"), no
reparations are demanded of the descendants of African
slave merchants, while American whites are assigned total
responsibility for the problems of today's blacks.
Nobody should be surprised if disreputable
"stereotypes" continue to persist, since they often have
the unintended but implicit sanction of the very people
who deplore them. But a stereotype of any group is by its
nature based on an external and usually unsympathetic
view of that group. Despite liberal denials, the
stereotype has some empirical validity; but it overlooks
the internal life of the group -- the variety, divisions,
and arguments that make it impossible for the group to be
monolithic. Every group bound by a set of traditions is
also riven by bitterly conflicting interpretations of its
traditions. Its members, keenly conscious of this, may
justifiably feel that its critics don't really understand
the complications that underlie the behavior that
outsiders find objectionable.
By the same token, minorities have their own
prejudices and stereotypes, also with some basis in
experience of majority behavior. The success of so many
black and Jewish comedians is largely due to their
perspective as members of outnumbered and culturally
overwhelmed races who have kept their ability to see the
absurdities of which members of the majority are
unconscious. It's a happy comment on human nature that
the majority itself often finds such caricatures of
itself hilarious.
Of course stereotypes can also be favorable,
respectful, and even affectionate. Jews are universally
respected for their intelligence, and Jewish celebrities
are often loved precisely for the qualities that make
them seem "Jewish." Blacks in movies were often portrayed
as earthy, warm, dignified, and wise, at least until
fashion decided that benevolence toward whites was Uncle
Tommish, with "black pride" prescribing an attitude of
rancor and menace. Most whites still see Orientals as
polite and industrious. The Irish and Italians, formerly
typed as drunks and mafiosi, are now the subjects of
benign stereotypes. Yet in their day, the old stereotypes
probably had their measure of truth and utility.
According to Bill Clinton's mantra, "Diversity
is our greatest strength." Though Clinton has made a
career of pandering to minorities (including sexual
deviants), it is still true that we should delight in
human variety. But there are limits; society also needs
unity and an orthodoxy more solid than liberal bromides.
Boxed Copy
HONEST AL: Recognizing my limitations, I usually
refrain from attempting art criticism; but when some
innocent billionaire shells out $49.5 million for a
Picasso, it's time for common sense to roll up its
sleeves and assert itself. To say that Picasso remains
one of the greatest frauds of the century (especially now
that Freud is fading) is not so much art criticism as
sartorial criticism of the emperor. A far superior
artist, to name only one, is the peerless caricaturist
Al Hirschfeld of the NEW YORK TIMES, better than ever
in his nineties, who can capture a face with the simplest
and strongest of lines. In fact, he can make you feel you
recognize a face even if you've never seen it before.
That's genius. How ironic that Hirschfeld should be
featured in the Picasso-worshipping TIMES! (page 9)
WELL? A year ago the Democrats admitted that Clinton had
committed crimes but denied that these "rose to the level
of impeachable offenses." They also denied that they were
putting him above the law; after he left office, they
pointed out, he could -- and should! -- answer for his
deeds in a criminal court. Anyone want to bet he'll be
tried? (page 10)
MISSING PERSONS: The anti-Communist but Zionist
columnist Charles Krauthammer praises "heroic dissidents
like Natan Sharansky and Vaclev Havel and Lech Walesa"
for their brave protests against Communism. He's right,
but note that he begins his list with Sharansky, now a
right-wing Zionist in Israel, and somehow omits the
greatest of Christian dissidents: Alexander Solzhenitsyn,
whose trilogy, THE GULAG ARCHIPELAGO, written at great
personal risk, was the literary earthquake of the
century. Was this omission accidental? Or does
Krauthammer resent the fact that the Russian Christian --
who estimated that the Soviets had murdered 50 million
people -- knocked the Holocaust off the front page of
history? (page 11)
Reprinted columns (pages 7-12)
* Score One for Jesse (October 28, 1999)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/991028.shtml
* In Defense of Microsoft (November 9, 1999)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/991109.shtml
* Tragedy in Paradise (November 11, 1999)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/991111.shtml
* Hillsdale: The Moral (November 16, 1999)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/991116.shtml
* The "General Welfare" (November 23, 1999)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/991123.shtml
* Giving Away the Game (November 25, 1999)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/991125.shtml
All articles are written by Joe Sobran
This publication is for private use only.
Copyright (c) 2000 by The Vere Company. All rights
reserved.
Distributed with permission by the Griffin Internet
Syndicate
(fran@griffnews.com).