Sobran's --
The Real News of the Month
MAY 2000
Volume 7, No. 5
Editor: Joe Sobran
Publisher: Fran Griffin (Griffin Communications)
Managing Editor: Ronald N. Neff
Subscription Rates (print version): $19.98 for six months;
$59.95 per year; $100 for 2 years. Trial subscription
available for $19.95 (6 issues). E-mail subscriptions:
$39.95 for 1 year ($25 with a 12-month subscription to
the print edition); $65 for 2 years ($45 with a 2-year
subscription to the print edition). Payment should be
made to The Vere Company.
Address: Sobran's, P.O. Box 1383,
Vienna, VA 22183-1383
Fax: 703-281-6617
Publisher's Office: 703-255-2211
Foreign Subscriptions (print version only): 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
Features
THE MOVING PICTURE
(page 1)
I regret to announce that I won't be the next vice
president. I've resigned from the Constitution Party ticket.
Writing and campaigning don't mix as easily as I had thought;
in fact -- if it doesn't sound self-pitying to say so -- they
turned out to be a surprisingly stressful combination. I found
that I was either implicating my running mate and the entire
party in my personal views or watering those views down in
order to avoid doing so. But with or without yours truly on
the ticket, the Constitution Party remains the only party that
stands for undiluted constitutional principle.
* * *
Several Oscars this year went to AMERICAN BEAUTY, the
latest daring expose of the dark underside of American
suburban life, and THE CIDER HOUSE RULES, the story of a
kindly abortionist who initiates a youngster into the
mysteries of his trade. Everyone agreed that it took
incredible courage to make these breakthrough films, proving
once more that Hollywood is the safest place to be courageous.
* * *
I confess I'm addicted to VANITY FAIR, the high-toned
gossip mag. I spend about half an hour just finding the table
of contents, but I can't resist the dirt about Hollywood,
especially in the old days -- such as a couple of recent
pieces about Judy Garland (her rocky marriage to the
homosexual director Vincente Minelli, Liza's dad) and Natalie
Wood's suspicious drowning. It helps me understand why movies
have gotten so awful: these folks want to pull the whole
country down to their own level. It helps them feel normal.
* * *
David Irving has lost his libel suit against Deborah
Lipstadt. The judge played it safe, declaring Irving a racist
anti-Semitic Holocaust-denying liar and ruling that he must
pay more than $3 million in expenses to the high-powered
defense team he faced himself, without the aid of a single
lawyer. Irving took a huge gamble and lost. But I honor his
courage, and he did expose the methods of the international
Jewish thought-police, about which more next month.
* * *
Garry Wills's forthcoming book is titled PAPAL SIN.
Somehow I'm not surprised.
* * *
Those of us who urge conservatives to leave the
Republican Party are often charged with ensuring the election
of Al Gore and especially with helping see to it that Gore
will name the next few Supreme Court justices. But recent
Republican nominees to the Court -- Souter, Kennedy, and
O'Connor -- have saved Roe v. Wade; worse yet, Republicans in
the Senate have voted overwhelmingly to confirm Clinton's
nominees, Ginzburg and Breyer, and would no doubt do the same
for Gore's picks. Both parties show approximately equal
respect for constitutional law. That is, approximately none.
Put otherwise, both parties -- and both candidates -- would
support a continuation of lawless government. A moment of
peace and prosperity is the ideal time to build a new party.
* * *
In giving the press Kathleen Willey's personal letters to
him, Bill Clinton argues, he didn't violate the 1974 Privacy
Act -- *couldn't* have violated it -- because the act doesn't
apply to the White House. Another bit of Clintonian audacity,
this, since, as John Fund of the WALL STREET JOURNAL reminds
us, the law was passed in response to White House shenanigans
during the Watergate scandals. How simple, straightforward,
and earnest Clinton makes the Nixon era seem.
* * *
(Exclusive to the electronic version): The Republican-led
House of Representatives has appropriated $100 million in
federal subsidies for local fire departments. The Republican-
sponsored measure drew sarcastic praise from Barney Frank, the
original Massachusetts Democrat: "I congratulate the
Republican Party on sloughing off that old notion that the
federal government was something whose influence should be
restricted and resisted. Having the Republican Party bring
forward a new federal program, putting the federal government
into a new area where it had not previously been, helping
local firefighting, shows a degree of intellectual growth on
which I congratulate them."
IMPERFECT CONTRITION
(pages 2-5)
The Pope's recent "apology" for the sins of Catholics
seems to be having the direct opposite of the effect he
intended. There must be a way to oppose anti-Semitism without
fostering anti-Catholicism.
Catholics should, and do, regret many things their
ancestors have done over the centuries. But our forebears --
including Popes -- have to do their own repenting, just as we
do. Their sins are not necessarily ours, and their offenses
against non-Catholics, however deplorable by today's
standards, weren't necessarily sins in their own minds. In the
Middle Ages and long afterward, just about everyone regarded
atheism, heresy, and apostasy as criminal; rulers were
expected, as a matter of course, to protect the religion of
the community. The "great religions," as we now call them,
regarded each other as enemies -- *God's* enemies -- not as
brothers under the skin or valid alternative lifestyles.
The New Testament condemns "those of the synagogue of
Satan, who say they are Jews and are not"; these words and
others like them are ascribed to Christ, who apparently said
nothing about "pluralism," "tolerance," "dialogue," or "the
Judaeo-Christian tradition." The Jews are bluntly accused of
crucifying Christ and persecuting Christians, and are warned
that they must repent and convert. The Talmud is no more
ecumenical, condemning all gentiles and Christians in
particular, with obscene curses against Christ and the Blessed
Virgin. Islam merely brought another fighting faith into the
world, which sought to impose itself wherever it could: that,
everyone agreed in principle, was what the True Religion was
supposed to do. Immortal souls were at stake. Of course
persuasion was the ideal, but, since human nature was
obstinate, force was sometimes necessary. The early
Protestants saw it the same way and acted accordingly.
Is the Pope "repenting" because twelfth-century men
weren't twentieth-century men? (As if we can safely assume
that that would have been an improvement.) And his penitence
seems to extend only to those putative sins that the twentieth
century condemns, ignoring all manner of other things that are
sinful by traditional Catholic standards. This is very much in
the spirit of modern man, who condemns earlier generations for
not having been modern men.
So the papal statement, far from correcting the sins of
the modern world, had the effect of seeming to justify every
modern prejudice against Catholicism. Of course the Pope
distinguished carefully between the Church as the Mystical
Body of Christ, which can never sin, and the Church as a human
institution. But since only Catholics accept this distinction
-- anyone who does accept it is almost by definition a
believing Catholic -- the qualification seemed Pickwickian to
non-Catholics, who generally took the view that the Catholic
Church had finally, belatedly, though imperfectly, admitted
that it is, after all, the source of most of the great evils
of history.
In short, the Pope seemed to be validating every familiar
anti-Catholic canard. Even ordinary Catholics of this
generation, who are woefully weak in theological and
historical understanding (a fact for which the hierarchy of
today's Church really *should* repent), took the impression
that the modern calumnies must be true after all. Since John
Paul II is a man of considerable intellect and diplomatic
skill, it's amazing that he didn't foresee this natural and
predictable interpretation of his gesture. His successors will
have a lot of explaining to do.
The reaction was fascinating. To a purely rational
unbeliever, it might be as if the current mayor of Athens had
apologized for the execution of Socrates, or as if the House
of Windsor had apologized for the depredations of Henry VIII
(without, however, offering to return England's great
cathedrals to the Church of Rome). How can people who reject
the concept of apostolic succession -- the principle that the
Church inherits the authority of Christ -- believe that
today's Church can inherit guilt from the medieval Church? And
if guilt is hereditary, why not also blame today's Jews for
the Crucifixion? Can we now expect rabbis to apologize for the
role of Jews in Communism and for their own "silence" during
Soviet mass murders of Christians? There are interesting
possibilities here. And does today's Church get credit for
creating Western civilization? Or is her uniquely continuous
moral identity over two millennia recognized only for the
purpose of heaping accusations on her?
For whatever reason, everyone seemed to assume that the
present Pope *could* somehow take responsibility for all the
sins of Catholics throughout history, *should* take
responsibility for them, and yet had failed to do so
adequately. Jews objected (again) that the Pope had failed to
apologize specifically for the you-know-what and demanded that
he condemn the "silence" of Pius XII; homosexuals complained
that he hadn't expressed remorse to gays and lesbians; the NEW
YORK TIMES noted sorrowfully that he hadn't repudiated
Catholic teaching on contraception and abortion. Liberal
Catholics found fault with him too, on similar grounds. As for
believing Catholics, most of them saw the futility of trying
to appease the insatiable.
In short, if you're going to apologize to the modern
world, you have to do it on the modern world's terms.
Technically, of course, the "apology" was a prayer addressed
to God, not to the Anti-Defamation League; but it was clearly
designed to be overheard, as it were, by secular ears. The
free-for-all of faultfinding was only to be expected.
We must ask: What is the fruit of the hundred or so
apologies this Pope has now uttered? Is there any evidence
that they have drawn any souls to the Church? Do they not, on
the contrary, confirm every malicious common belief about the
Church, while discouraging faithful Catholics and confusing
weak ones? What on earth is the *point?*
Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League complains that
the Pope had "stopped short in addressing specific Catholic
wrongs against the Jewish people, especially the Holocaust."
This is now a tenet of Holocaust-centered secular Jewish
ideology: that the Catholic Church bears guilt for the
Holocaust, not only because Pius XII was "Hitler's Pope," but
because the Church is the historic mother of anti-Semitism.
This attitude has been reinforced, not softened, by the papal
statement.
It would have been only fair if Jews like Foxman had
communicated their view to Catholic soldiers in the Allied
armies early on, so that those boys would have had some
inkling of what they were being sent to fight for: a postwar
world in which countless of their fellow Catholics and other
Christians were subjugated and persecuted by Communism, while
Jewish propaganda blamed the crimes of the Axis on their
Church. Probably not the sort of victory they had in mind.
But the Foxmans maintained a discreet silence on the
subject as long as they needed those Catholic boys to do the
fighting. Now that the war has long since ended favorably,
they've sized up today's Catholic Church as soft, and they
deem it safe to insult the dead as well as the Church with
their measureless libels. They can be confident that a Church
that craves their pardon won't give them any backtalk. As for
the young Christians who died fighting Hitler, well, who
cares? They've served their purpose; did they expect to be
thanked?
Speaking as a convert, I am deeply grateful that the
Catholic Church of my boyhood -- the Church of Pius XII --
evangelized in a different spirit, claiming, and proclaiming,
the authority of Christ. Nobody dreamed of demanding apologies
from that Church, and none were forthcoming. The message was
simple, unclouded by equivocation: the Catholic Church was the
way to salvation. To reject Christ and his One True Church was
to incur damnation.
There were, to be sure, qualifications. We were taught
that people might guiltlessly reject Catholicism out of
"invincible ignorance"; but they were still in danger of
damnation as the natural result of original and actual sin,
and they still *needed* the Church, even if they didn't know
it. Catholic teaching covered everything with majestic common
sense; the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas merely took common
sense to sublime heights. The simple old widows I saw at daily
Mass and the sophisticated scholars from whom I sought answers
were in this thing together, and they understood each other as
members of the same divine family. We were American and French
and Filipino and African and everything else. Every Catholic
priest in the world spoke Latin. Catholicism was universal in
a way that was far more real and resonant than today's
abstract "universalism" and "multiculturalism" can ever be.
It all revolved around the Last Supper and the
Crucifixion. Christ had instituted the Eucharist, turning
bread and wine into his body and blood and telling us to do
likewise. He called himself "the bread of life" and said that
eating his flesh was necessary for salvation. The Mass,
reenacting his sacrifice at Calvary, was our essential rite.
The Mass necessitated a priesthood, which in turn necessitated
a hierarchy to ordain priests and, in time, a magisterium to
keep doctrine pure. The Holy Inquisition followed eventually,
and was essentially legitimate in spite of any abuses that
might befall it. Within this framework, the notorious Index of
Forbidden Books didn't trouble me at all. The infallibility of
the Pope, our supreme shepherd in the line of St. Peter, the
rock on which Christ built his Church, was my assurance that I
could trust the Church's teaching authority not to mislead me.
Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary and the saints, prayers
for the poor souls in Purgatory, the rosary, the Stations of
the Cross, all this seemed to offer a wealth of spiritual
opportunities. The Latin liturgy exuded holiness and mystery;
it also signified the unity and ancient continuity of the
Church. Catholic morality was unchanging and uncompromising.
In all this I saw nothing that called for improvement as of
the commencement of the Second Vatican Council in 1962; I was
confident that the Council would merely continue what had
already existed, making some parts of the Deposit of Faith
more explicit, leaving intact everything that was already
established.
I understood the logic of Protestantism too. It issued
from the rejection of the Eucharist: the words "This is my
body" and "This is my blood" were only figurative, even to
"fundamentalists" who took the Bible literally! But if Christ
had been speaking figuratively, why had so many disciples
deserted him when he announced that eating his flesh and
drinking his blood were necessary for salvation (John 6: 53-
66)? When they left, saying, "This is a hard saying; who can
accept it?" he could easily have said, "Wait, come back! I was
just using a metaphor!" Instead, he rebuked them for not
believing.
Once the Eucharist was demoted to a mere symbol, there
was no need for a priesthood to consecrate bread and wine, no
need for a hierarchy, et cetera. The "priesthood of all
believers" became the papacy of each believer, with no
cohesive authority to ensure unity. Freedom of conscience,
permitting each believer to interpret Scripture for himself,
seemed to me anarchic; and Protestantism seemed doomed to
dissolve into countless sects, creating a centrifugal culture
that would terminate in unbelief and sensuality. Some
Protestants held firm to as much of the Deposit of Faith as
they had received; such people were faithful to Christ by
their lights, though they lacked the blessings of the
Sacraments they had rejected and had cut themselves off from
the graces they might have received through Our Lady and the
saints. I considered Protestants of this kind better
"Catholics," as it were, than those nominal Catholics who
picked and chose among the Church's teachings and therefore
essentially rejected the authority of the Church.
Today, whether because of the Council I don't know, many
Catholics as well as Protestants have committed apostasy while
continuing to call themselves Christians. The "dissident"
Catholic insists that he is as good a Catholic as the faithful
members of the Church, even if he denies the Real Presence of
Christ in the Eucharist and therefore rejects the very
rationale of Catholicism. But the usual motive for this
internal apostasy isn't specifically theological; it is
sexual. The defector claims a "right" to sexual freedom --
fornication, contraception, sodomy, divorce, and remarriage;
nominally Catholic voters and politicians even treat abortion
as a right. I can only wonder why these virtual Unitarians
insist on identifying themselves as Catholics.
But such dissidence suffers no penalty in today's Church.
If the Pope seeks matter for repentance -- sins he can
actually do something about -- he should look to the failure
of the Church under recent papacies, very much including his
own, to teach and discipline Catholics properly. The Eucharist
itself is constantly abused, even to sacrilege, in the Novus
Ordo Mass, which permits the Body of Christ to be treated with
contempt.
Do I exaggerate? Not long ago I saw a young man take
Communion while wearing a T-shirt that read "PARTY NAKED."
Nobody in the Church is apologizing for letting that sort of
thing happen. But then, the Anti-Defamation League isn't
complaining.
THE CASE OF ELIAN GONZALEZ
(pages 5-6)
As I write, the case of Elian Gonzalez remains
unresolved, but Al Gore has broken with the Clinton
administration -- and the entire Democratic Party -- over
whether the six-year-old should be sent back to his father in
Cuba. Gore now favors letting Elian stay with his relatives in
Miami, a position that is being harshly denounced by other
Democrats, including congressional leaders Richard Gephardt
and Tom Daschle, not to mention such odious leftists as
California's Maxine Waters and New York's Charles Rangel. Lee
Hamilton of Indiana says Gore's shift calls into question his
"convictions and commitment." So the Gonzalez case amounts to
a sort of litmus test of liberal Democratic orthodoxy -- as
well it should. (Within a few days Gore, feeling the heat, was
already edging away from his new position.)
City officials in Miami, including the mayor and police
chief, have announced that they won't assist federal forces in
repatriating the boy. Many of Miami's Cubans are ready to take
arms, if necessary, to prevent his deportation.
What is most impressive in this case is the near-
unanimity of liberal opinion that Elian should be sent back to
life under Communism. Not a single liberal voice, as far as I
know, has even called for some assurance by Fidel Castro that
Elian will not be killed if he tries to leave Cuba later.
Liberal anti-Communism, never a hardy plant, appears to be
extinct.
A believer in the sanctity of family ties may honestly
feel that Elian should be returned to his father, no matter
what the political environment. And such a view would not at
all palliate or play down the evil and sordidness of Cuban
Communism; it might even underline the dangers repatriation
poses for Elian.
But this is not the case that is currently being made for
sending Elian back to Cuba. To hear the advocates of sending
him back, you might gather that there is no downside at all.
Suddenly the liberal-feminist bloc has discovered the
"family values" it usually ridicules, swallowing its
opposition to "patriarchy" for the sake of Elian's piteous
father. Even Janet Reno -- Mother Waco herself -- now speaks
of "the sacred bond between parent and child." As a Florida
prosecutor, she was noted for taking children from their
parents on the slenderest pretext of "protecting" them from
"abuse." This solicitude for "our children" is grotesque,
coming from people who defend the killing of unborn children
even at full term.
Bill Clinton isn't one to put Castro on the spot by
demanding, or even suggesting, that Elian's father and his
family be permitted to migrate to this country. We can't have
that! The United States may be bedeviled by illegal
immigrants, but Castro's Cuba has never had that problem: it
has always had to deal with Communism's perennial problem --
illegal *emigrants.* More than any other form of government in
history, Communism, from the beginning, has made people want
to leave their ancestral homes behind and take their chances
elsewhere. This has produced that reliable fixture of
Communist rule, the armed, barbed-wired border, not to keep
invaders out but to keep the natives in. Not that Castro is
the least bit abashed about this; but then, Communist rulers
tend not to be people who care much when they're not wanted.
Liberal opinion has also been strikingly hostile to the
exiled Cubans in Florida. Stalin may be long gone and the Cold
War may be over, but most liberals can still be trusted to
take the Communist side whenever there is a Communist side to
take. And they still hold refugees from Communism in contempt.
No liberal -- none of the audible ones, anyway -- is
holding Castro responsible for Elian's mother's death; she
drowned after escaping the gunboats that patrol Cuba's
shoreline for the purpose of killing would-be refugees. On the
contrary, some liberals blame her for exposing Elian to danger
with her "reckless" escape attempt in a pitifully inadequate
boat.
To ideologues, Communism may still appear as a
"progressive" -- if sometimes heavy-handed -- form of
government, aspiring to "social justice." But to those who
have lived under it, Communism is defined not by any such
abstract aspirations but by its claim, and unabashed exercise,
of total power, including the power to kill its subjects,
particularly those who try to escape. That power, not Marxist
theory or "class stuggle," is the ugly essence of Communism.
That power was what the Berlin Wall signified; and some
liberals openly defended the Wall. The tens of millions
murdered by Communist states haven't essentially altered
Communism's ideological attraction for liberals. By Communist
standards, after all, any dictator who has killed fewer than a
million people practically qualifies as a humanitarian.
Not that the numbers really matter. Liberals, after all,
judge Communism not by its history but by its future. What it
does never matters as much as what it promises to do. And it
doesn't matter how often the promise is broken: Communism is
right in principle. After all these years, liberals still
accept Communism on its own terms and grant Castro the moral
high ground against the Cubans in Miami.
This is all the more remarkable in that today's liberals
are far less gullible, far less likely to be "dupes" and
"useful idiots," than those of the Stalin era. Solzhenitsyn,
the Vietnamese boat people, and long experience have rendered
the old illusions impossible. Today it comes down to basic
principles, stripped of utopian hopes. And the Gonzalez case
shows that liberalism doesn't need illusions about steel
production, literacy rates, and five-year plans in order to
approve of Communism in principle.
One standard feature of liberal anti-anti-Communist
(i.e., obliquely pro-Communist) polemics is the denigration of
refugees. They are never admitted to be seeking freedom or
fleeing tyranny; they are always "landed oligarchs," bitter at
being dispossessed of ill-gotten wealth and privilege; or, at
best, they are materialists who want to get a piece of Western
prosperity.
Liberals won't acknowledge that people have a natural
right to acquire wealth and property without impediment by the
state, or that they also have a natural right to escape
religious persecution, which is always a feature of the
Communist state. After all, liberals share the Communist
desire to impose total economic control and eliminate
Christianity from public and private life.
So the refugees get no credit for courage when they risk
their lives to escape. To liberals there is nothing heroic
about fleeing Communism and therefore nothing sympathetic
about those who perish in the attempt. Naturally, then,
liberals have infintely more pity for a Communist "victim of
McCarthyism," who has lost nothing more than a livelihood as a
Hollywood screenwriter, than for a woman who drowns escaping
from Castro.
It's vital to bear in mind that liberals don't believe in
natural rights. When they speak of "rights," they mean legal
rights they think it desirable for the state to confer. But
since they think the state, not God or nature, is the actual
source of rights, they don't object in principle to a
Communist state that confers no rights at all. They recognize
sovereign "states' rights," but in a peculiar modern sense,
not in the sense meant by John Calhoun and Jefferson Davis.
Such limitless sovereignty belongs only to "progressive"
states, not to "reactionary" ones. So liberals favor the
prosecution of a Pinochet, but would never call for or assent
to the prosecution of Castro. The liberal press tips its hand
by calling Pinochet a "dictator," while calling Castro a
"leader."
The Gonzalez case should clear our minds. Even now, when
we are told that not only the Cold War but "the era of big
government" is over, liberalism hasn't repudiated its affinity
to Communism. It insists on treating Castro's murderous slave-
state as a perfectly legitimate regime, not as a monstrous
tyranny. It accepts his right to kill his subjects,even for
the crime of emigration. One Cuban diplomat called Elian a
"possession" of the Cuban government; among the media, only
the conservative WASHINGTON TIMES quoted this revealing claim,
though the liberal WASHINGTON POST ran a damning op-ed piece
about Castro's Cuba by a former Cuban official, now in exile.
If Elian is sent back, he wrote, it will not be to his father
so much as to Fidel. Cuban law requires that every child be
imbued with a "Communist personality" and proscribes
"influences contrary to Communist commitment"; children begin
the school day with a chant: "Pioneers for Communism, we will
be like Che!" Beginning at age ten they attend mandatory
summer indoctrination camps.
So Castro mustn't be asked to assure us that Elian will
be free to leave Cuba later: why should one boy be so
privileged in a land where all are equal, if only in
subjection? If, when he grows up, he is caught trying to
escape, he'll be shot like anyone else; as his unpitied mother
would have been, for example. Liberals simply don't find this
horrifying. And they don't want to embarrass Castro (or
themselves) by calling attention to it.
The debate over Elian Gonzalez, like many previous
debates (e.g., those over McCarthyism, the Vietnam war, and
recognizing Red China), is really a debate over the moral
legitimacy of Communism. By taking the Communist side again,
liberalism is reminding us that it still stands for
unconditional state power.
Liberals would of course deny that this is their creed.
But as Bernard Shaw observed, a man's real beliefs must be
inferred not from the creed he professes, but from the
assumptions on which he habitually acts. In the real world,
liberalism is a welter of hypocrisies that mask a set of
cynical attitudes. It isn't hard to penetrate those
hypocrisies and deduce those attitudes.
Boxed Copy
IT TAKES A VILLAGE (SUCH AS HAVANA): Janet Reno says Elian
must go back to Cuba because of the "sacred bond" between
father and child. When has she -- or any Clintonite -- ever
used that phrase for that relationship before? (page 6)
LEST WE FORGET: Even under Stalin, the Soviet Union had a
constitution that guaranteed all sorts of rights, including,
as Franklin Roosevelt enthusiastically noted, religious
freedom. Of course, as with Roosevelt's Supreme Court, such
rights were qualified: they meant what the government wanted
them to mean. In short -- a living document! (page 8)
NO! NO! DON'T RAISE IT! George W. Bush has met with a group of
homosexual Republicans and emerged feeling like "a better
person" for the experience. "I welcome gay Americans into my
campaign," he said. (Mark the phrase "gay Americans." Will he
also welcome pedophile Americans into his campaign?) He added
that he was "very interested in the idea" of a gay speaker at
the GOP convention this year. One of the group said the
purpose of the meeting was to "raise his consciousness."
Heaven forbid. The very thought of a Bush with a raised
consciousness is kind of creepy. (page 10)
A DEFINITE MAYBE: As we head into the homestretch of the
Clinton era, a question naturally arises: Will Bill be
indicted when he leaves office? The new special prosecutor,
Robert Ray, says it's a live issue; and he can quote all those
Democrats who, while insisting that perjury and obstruction
didn't "rise to the level of impeachable offenses," bailed out
with the proviso that Clinton remained liable to criminal law
at the end of his term. The new party line, though, is "Enough
is enough." Clinton and Al Gore are dodging the question of a
pardon. Their equivocations amount to the usual Clintonian
denial: a yes that sounds like a no. (page 12)
Reprinted Columns (pages 7-12)
* The Papal "Apology" (March 14)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/000314.shtml
* In Defense of Bob Jones (March 16)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/000316.shtml
* Punishing "Hate" (March 21)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/000321.shtml
* Pat Buchanan: The Next John McCain? (March 23)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/000323.shtml
* Smearing a Pope (March 28)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/000328.shtml
* The Clinton Rap Sheet (March 30)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/000330.shtml
All articles are written by Joe Sobran
Copyright (c) 2000. All rights reserved.
This material may not be disseminated or distributed in any
way without the express permission of Griffin Internet
Syndicate. It is for private use only and may not be published
-- either in print or on the Internet.Those wishing to publish
the newsletter or columns must obtain a publications rate,
which is based on the circulation of your publication.
Contact fran@griffnews.com for further details.
[ENDS]