Sobran's --
The Real News of the Month
August 2000
Volume 7, No. 8
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: $59.95 for 1 year ($25 with a 12-
month subscription to the print edition); $100 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
(pages 1-2)
I take no position on Harry Potter. Haven't even glanced
at the books. For now I'll say only that I don't like the
sound of him.
* * *
As Bill Clinton, his days in office numbered, tries to
rustle up a "legacy" -- a Middle East peace treaty or
something -- two new books focus on what he'll really be
remembered for. It seems he has nicknamed his guiding organ
"Willard." One book explains the origin of the name (from one
of Hillary's uncles); the other makes Willard a speaking
character. How vile! How vulgar! How appropriate.
* * *
A black suspect has been arrested in the murder of an
eight-year-old white boy in Alexandria, Virginia in April. The
WASHINGTON POST reports that police found a note in the
suspect's rented room near the scene of the crime reading
"kill them racess whiate kidd's anyway." This would seem to be
the purest possible example of a "hate crime" -- singling out
a child because of his race and slashing his throat -- yet
that phrase has been conspicuously absent from media coverage.
The POST described the note as "racial" rather than "racist."
* * *
A 13-year-old ballplayer in the local Junior League, the
step up from Little League, finished his brilliant season as
pitcher, catcher, and shortstop by going 4 for 4, with two
doubles and a triple, in his final game. His last hit raised
his average over .500 for the year (best in the league) --
shades of Ted Williams. His name: Joe Sobran. His grandfather,
a career .200 hitter, is inexpressibly proud and of course
claims full credit for this prodigy.
* * *
The U.S. Supreme Court has closed its term with a spate
of interesting rulings, all wrong. First it ruled that a Texas
public school couldn't allow a student to lead a voluntary
prayer before a football game, on grounds that this somehow
violates the First Amendment's injunction that "Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Congress
had nothing to do with it. That's all that counts.
* * *
Then the Court ruled that New Jersey couldn't force the
Boy Scouts to accept sodomite scoutmasters. Conservatives
applauded, but they shouldn't have. New Jersey, though dead
wrong, was acting within the reserved powers of the states,
since the federal government has no authority to overrule such
laws, however monstrous. If federalism means anything, it
means that even tyrannical laws may be constitutional.
* * *
The Court also ruled that laws banning late-term
abortions place an "undue burden" on a woman's right to kill
her unborn child and are therefore unconstitutional. Nonsense,
and sickening nonsense at that. Even the majority in Roe v.
Wade acknowledged that the states may protect the child when
it attains "viability." Now even that flimsy criterion has
been abandoned. Shame on Sandra Day O'Connor for joining the
forces of evil on this one.
* * *
The Court upheld certain forms of federal aid to
religious schools. Clarence Thomas's majority opinion rightly
argued that such aid doesn't violate the First Amendment, but
he forgot the Tenth Amendment, which denies to the federal
government all powers not delegated to it (as opposed to all
powers not arrogated by it). Discouraging, since Thomas is the
only justice who occasionally remembers that the Tenth
Amendment exists.
* * *
Did Al Gore know that the Buddhist temple fundraiser was
a fundraiser? A sharp NEW YORK POST reader poses a simple
test: Who paid for the trip? If the government paid for it, it
was illegal anyway; if the Democratic National Committee paid
for it, Gore knew the truth and is lying.
* * *
A fond farewell to Walter Matthau, one of the screen's
great comedians. He could make a scene funny by his sheer
presence; he made you feel what was comical about it just by
being in it, and his lines seemed hilarious even before he
delivered them. Actually, he seldom got material worthy of his
talent; but his Whiplash Willie, the crooked lawyer in THE
FORTUNE COOKIE, and Oscar in THE ODD COUPLE (the original, not
the vulgar sequel) would be sufficient to justify a career.
* * *
When a tabloid headlined "HITLER IS ALIVE," one's first
reaction was: "Oh, rats!" Luckily the report appeared to be
baseless. But THE NEW YORKER reports that some of Hitler's
relatives wound up in the United States -- in, of all places,
the New York City area. (Of *course* they changed their
names, dummy!) Meanwhile, some of the German branch of the
family are still fighting legal battles over the royalties
from MEIN KAMPF. Hope springs eternal, doesn't it? All of
which reminds me: when I lived in New Jersey, I sometimes used
to see a plump little woman, vaguely familiar-looking, on the
morning bus to New York. At first I paid little attention to
her; but eventually I learned that she was Svetlana Stalin. I
wish I could have gotten to know her, but I could never quite
think of an appropriate way to introduce myself. You try it.
* * *
My book ALIAS SHAKESPEARE is still being attacked on the
Internet; but it's the same old stuff. The case for William of
Stratford comes down to testimony, which can never be
conclusive, witnesses being notoriously unreliable. The
evidence of the works themselves, especially the Sonnets,
speaks loudly for Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford. The other
side keeps dodging my argument that the speaker of the Sonnets
sounds like Oxford, point for point, and can't be matched to
anything we know of William. Among other things, the poet is
bisexual, as Oxford seems to have been; or, as I like to say,
he's here, he's queer, he's Edward de Vere!
* * *
The Pope has scolded the countless sodomites who held a
"Pride" week in Rome to affront the Catholic Church for its
traditional attitude toward sodomy. It goes without saying
that the Church and other reactionary institutions have no
right even to disapprove of such practices. Note the ground
rules of tolerance: "gays" can contribute to pluralism just by
being what they are; Catholicism and the Boy Scouts can only
contribute to it by ceasing to be what they have always been.
* * *
Exclusive to the electronic version:
Think how much of last year's journalism was
expended on the questions of a Y2K crisis and whether George
W. ever snorted cocaine.
The Religion of the World
(pages 3-6)
I've often marveled that modern man has more faith in the
State than medieval man had in the Church. Though the State's
utopian promises have been kept by fraud at best, and war and
mass murder at worst, its authority has hardly been impaired
by experience -- probably because it has taken charge of
education and erased its subjects' memory of its own crimes.
All political discussion, you'd think, should naturally
begin with a haunted awareness of two world wars, the Gulag,
forced famine, genocide, the bombing of cities, nuclear
weapons, that sort of thing; not to mention the State's
enormous and ever-expanding parasitic economy of dependency,
debt, and funny money. But evil has a way of inuring us to
itself; having supped full with horrors, we cease to be
horrified. In time the horrible seems normal, and we live
contentedly with things our ancestors would have crossed
oceans to escape.
By now even ordinary people should talk about the State
in the same mordant tones in which Jews talk about Hitler. But
modern man not only still obeys the State (he has little
choice) but still expects it to better the human condition. He
thinks of Hitler as an unfortunate anomaly, with whom his own
rulers have taught him they have nothing whatever in common,
even as they promote the right to slaughter unborn children.
Even if I were an atheist, I'd cherish the Catholic
Church as a bulwark against the prevalent fanaticism of the
State. As G.K. Chesterton once put it: "Only the Catholic
Church can save a man from the degrading slavery of being a
child of his time."
As my patient readers know, I've long been fascinated by
Garry Wills, whom I consider one of the exemplary writers of
our time -- one of the brighter children of our time. He's
undeniably gifted, and I always look forward to wrestling with
his books. He writes a lot of them. He's one of the most
learned, stylish, and stimulating journalists in America.
After dropping out of a Catholic seminary, he took his
doctorate in the classics at Yale. He has written dozens of
books -- about Chesterton, Richard Nixon, Jack Ruby,
Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln, the Kennedys, Ronald
Reagan, and John Wayne, not to mention Roman culture,
Catholicism, and Shakespeare.
Wills began his journalistic career as one of Bill
Buckley's Catholic conservative crew at NATIONAL REVIEW. No
doubt his early writing would embarrass him now, but it holds
up very well. His first submission to the magazine, in 1957,
was so mature and assured that Buckley was floored to learn
that the author was a lad of 22. Even now I can hardly think
of another writer with such a wide-ranging mind, who can write
so much high-quality prose on so many subjects.
In 1968 Wills shocked his conservative friends and
readers with a sudden lurch to the left, political and
theological. He left NATIONAL REVIEW and quickly established
himself in the liberal mainstream with his book NIXON
AGONISTES. It was typical of his later work: big, sprawling,
and impressive, yet not very satisfying. In Wills the parts
are always better than the whole. He has rarely written a bad
sentence or a good book. His next book was a smaller effort, a
short but unfocused attack on the Catholic Church titled BARE
RUINED CHOIRS. He continued, however, to insist that he was a
loyal Catholic, even as he adopted the latest liberal causes,
including, at last, abortion on demand.
I've been puzzled by Wills ever since his conversion.
*Why* did he change? One of my own first efforts for NATIONAL
REVIEW was a critique of Wills, which he pronounced "solemn,
long, [and] laughable." No argument there (I hope nobody ever
digs it up and reads it!), though I stand by my central
judgment, which, I must say, strikes me as extraordinarily
shrewd, coming from such a callow fool: Wills had, and still
has, a taste for the subtle and the clever that distracts him
from the obvious. If he sounded mature when he was young, he
seems oddly unfinished in his advanced years. I've spent
decades trying to plumb depths that I'm not sure were ever
really there.
A few months back I discussed his book A NECESSARY EVIL:
A HISTORY OF AMERICAN DISTRUST OF GOVERNMENT. It supplied half
the answer to my question: he has an uncritical faith in the
State. His new book, PAPAL SIN: STRUCTURES OF DECEIT, supplies
the other half: he has no faith in the Church. After a century
in which the State has usurped the authority of the Church and
murdered countless Christians, Wills is on the side of the
State. He has dedicated his considerable talent to bearing
witness for the State against the Church. He's what I call an
anti-martyr. He has made himself at home in the modern world.
That's one reason I call him exemplary.
"I am not attacking the papacy or its defenders," Wills
announces at the outset in PAPAL SIN. Most people would say
that denying the claims of the papacy is "attacking" it, but
Wills is actually denying much more than that.
His thesis is that since 1870, when the First Vatican
Council defined the dogma of papal infallibility, the Catholic
Church has been trapped in its own "structures of deceit."
Since the Church claims to be error-proof, it can't back down
from its errors. "In order to claim that popes cannot err," he
writes, "popes must lie." He traces this bad habit back to
Pius IX, the villain of the book, whose papacy lasted from
1846 to 1878.
His first case study is the Holocaust. Wills concedes
that Pius XII may have worked to save Jews from the Nazis, but
he insists that Pius kept a culpable silence about the
Holocaust -- and later lied by claiming to have spoken out.
The Vatican has subsequently lied to maintain Pius's, and its
own, reputation, despite its "terrible record" on the Jews.
Wills doesn't explain what this "terrible record" consists of,
beyond recounting the story of how Pius IX personally adopted
a baptized Jewish boy against the wishes of the anguished
parents, outraging much of the general public.
For the most part he repeats familiar charges against
Pius XII, ignoring all contrary evidence, including heartfelt
tributes from Jews, notably Israel Zolli, the chief rabbi of
Rome, who not only became a Catholic after the war but took
Pius's baptismal name, "Eugenio," as his own. The evident
purpose of these opening chapters is to make the Church look
bad in the eyes of the secular world. This is propaganda, not
history.
Wills briefly acknowledges that Pius was constrained by
many factors, not least of them the peril of Communism (which
even before the war had dwarfed the Nazis in the mass murder
department), but he treats anti-Communism as a neurotic
anxiety. Never mind that Communism killed quite a few
Christians and that Christians didn't kill very many
Communists (though let us *never* forget that McCarthyism
deprived a few Communists of their government jobs).
If your working premise is that Communism was nothing
worth worrying about, you can make all sorts of responses to
it look not only unreasonable, but reprehensible. But Pius was
perceptive enough to realize that the war would be won by
either Hitler or Stalin, and he could hardly have seen this as
anything but a terrible dilemma for the Church, which Hitler
had pledged to crush "like a toad." Wills says not a word
about the Catholic nations that fell to Stalin, or about the
martyrs and other, more ordinary victims of that Famous
Victory, whose religious and cultural life was devastated by
Communist tyranny. (Let's not cavil about the hellish poverty
Communist rule also imposed on them; that would be mere
"economics.")
Wills's argument appeals strictly to regnant prejudices
about liberalism's holy war: anyone who wasn't denouncing
Hitler at top volume must have been Hitler's friend. Yet as
Sidney Zion has recently observed, Pius did far more to save
the Jews than those prize hypocrites, Franklin Roosevelt and
Winston Churchill.
For all that has been said, written, and shrieked about
Pius's conduct, it has seldom been examined from a Catholic
standpoint. I confess I'm partial to Pius, one of the greatest
men of the century. He was tactfully silent about many
horrors; why not condemn him for failing to denounce the
Allied bombing of cities, including Dresden, Berlin, Tokyo,
and of course Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I presume he thought it
was simply useless to do so in the colossal welter of violence
that was World War II. There were so many things to denounce,
for those inclined to do so. But since liberals specialize in
retroactive denunciations, we may fairly ask why they choose
to blame Pius for some silences and not others. Wills himself
rightly denounces nuclear weapons -- the modern State's most
typical achievement, I'd say -- yet he doesn't even think to
blame Pius for failing to thunder against them. A recent book
has stigmatized him as "Hitler's Pope." With equal justice (or
injustice) he could be called "Roosevelt's Pope," or perhaps
"Truman's Pope."
Wills also accuses Paul VI of dishonesty for overruling
his own committee of experts in order to uphold the Church's
condemnation of contraception. He treats it as self-evident
that Paul was wrong, giving no weight to any reservations
about birth control and the sexual revolution. He blames
priestly celibacy for the scandal of pedophile priests, as if
allowing a man to marry would redirect his appetite for boys.
It doesn't, as witness similar scandals among ministers,
rabbis, scoutmasters, teachers, athletic coaches, and guidance
counselors. Wills also scores the Church for its treatment of
"gays," including priests; yet it doesn't occur to him to
suggest that marriage may be the cure for *that.* As "we" now
"know," homosexuality is fixed in one's makeup by birth and
can't be "cured." If Wills is not very consistent with
himself, at least he's consistent with fashionable opinion;
and that seems to be what counts.
Wills argues that the several Scriptural condemnations of
sodomy don't apply to all homosexual acts as such, though St.
Paul seems to be pretty unambiguous, and even Moses doesn't
seem to leave much wiggle room for "gay people" (my term, not
Moses'). The notion that modern liberal attitudes may be
lurking in ancient Hebrew and Christian texts, against all
appearances and every traditional understanding, strikes me as
a triumph of trendiness over honest scholarship. The idea that
St. Paul was condemning only the *abuse* of homosexuality
sounds like a weird joke. He strikes me as pretty "homophobic"
(Wills's term, not Paul's).
According to Wills, priestly celibacy was not a genuinely
Christian idea, but a cultural infection, resulting from the
contamination of Christian thought by pagan and Jewish
misogyny. As a specimen of this misogyny he cites the third-
century Dionysus, Patriarch of Alexandria, who wrote that
during menstruation, "pious, devout women would never even
think of touching the sacred table or the Body and Blood of
the Lord." But Wills fails to see where this citation leads.
As the book proceeds, Wills proves that he is indeed
attacking much more than the modern papacy. He denies the
doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist,
deriding the notion that the priest has a "magic" power to
consecrate mere bread and wine. Once again he ignores the
obvious: the words of Christ, not only at the Last Supper, but
on the occasion where, according to John's Gospel, many of his
disciples fell away when he told them that nobody can go to
heaven unless he "eats my flesh and drinks my blood." They
were shocked: "This is a hard saying; who can accept it?"
Obviously they were taking this teaching literally, and Christ
didn't correct them. Paul likewise warned the Corinthians that
to eat "the body of the Lord" unworthily was to incur
damnation, just as every little Catholic, until recently, used
to be taught. This strange idea gave rise to the Roman slander
that Christians practiced cannibalism.
Wills denies that the early Church had a priesthood apart
from the whole body of believers. He notes with satisfaction
that his hero, St. Augustine, in his hundreds of sermons,
"never mentions (any more than the New Testament did, or [St.]
Ignatius did) the power of the priest to consecrate." But as
his quotation from Dionysus shows, the doctrine later called
"transubstantiation" had become established a century before
Augustine. If Augustine had rejected a belief so widespread,
he would have had to deny it explicitly. If his silence proves
anything, it proves that he accepted it. Wills needs better
evidence than this to discredit so fundamental a doctrine; he
needs, at the very least, a positive denial, from someone of
Augustine's stature, that the Eucharist is actually the Body
of Christ. And Paul's warning to the Corinthians surely means
that someone other than Christ had the power to consecrate
bread and wine. If not a priest or someone specially ordained,
then who?
At this point it's clear that we are far from the "sins"
and "dishonesty" of the modern papacy. Wills is really
attacking some of the most ancient Christian beliefs, beliefs
that Catholicism shares with Eastern Orthodoxy, which has
rejected the papacy. These include not only the Real Presence
and the priesthood, but apostolic succession, the authority of
bishops, the Sacrament of Confession, and the special status
of the Virgin Mary. Wills denies the Immaculate Conception,
which he sees as a trick of Pius IX (who defined it as a dogma
in 1853) to exalt the papacy by elevating the Virgin to "this
idol-goddess." He cites another saint, St. Thomas Aquinas, who
argued against the doctrine in the thirteenth century. But
again his evidence backfires: it shows that the doctrine was
widely believed long before 1853. So, by the way, was papal
infallibility, which Luther attacked long before 1870. These
teachings weren't innovations of the autocratic Pius IX.
Wills offers an innovation of his own when he suggests
that we "welcome a female analogy for God, but assign it to
the third person of the Trinity.... The pronoun for the Spirit
should be She, which will make it clear that many of the
functions [traditionally] assigned to Mary (as a symbol of the
church, or its protector) truly belong to the Trinity in its
female analogue." Here he appeals not to Scripture, but to the
Zeitgeist.
It's not only fair but irresistible to ask why Wills
still counts himself a Catholic. (Even a friendly reviewer of
the book, the philosopher Richard Rorty, has raised this
question.) His vision of Catholic history suggests a
despairing view of a Church far beyond repair through a good
dose of "honesty." If Wills is right, Christ's promise to
stick with the Church "until the end of time" was broken early
on, and Catholics have been guilty of what the Reformation
accused them of, "the idolatry of the Mass" -- groveling daily
before mere bits of bread. Not only have popes lied; priests
have been performing empty rituals, women and "gays" have been
insulted routinely, and prayers have been sent to the wrong
address *every single day, in every single parish* for at
least fifteen centuries. As for the Spirit, where has *She*
been while all this was going on?
Once you adopt Wills's reductive methods, there is no
obvious stopping point. If he rejects so much not only of
Catholic doctrine but of daily Catholic worship, what, the
reader wonders, does Wills still believe in? He affirms very
little, beyond the need for "honesty," which seems to mean
that other Catholics should admit that they don't really
believe in all this stuff either. Even so, the reader suspects
that Wills hasn't yet come clean, that he doubts even more
than he has told us. Does he really believe in the Virgin
Birth? In the Redemption and Resurrection? In the divinity of
Christ? In the immortality of the soul? In the existence of
hell? Why should he?
Another of Wills's heroes is John Henry Newman, largely
because Newman bitterly opposed Pius IX on the question of
infallibility (though he later reconciled himself to it). But
Newman embraced Catholicism because he saw what Wills calls
corruptions as authentic "developments" whose seeds were in
the Gospels. He argued that the doctrines that scandalized the
early Protestants were implicit in Christianity from the
beginning, however surprising they may seem to a naive reader
of the Scriptures. Over time, Newman said, the Church found it
necessary to define these doctrines and to give them full
expression in response to new circumstances; but they were no
less genuine for that. Newman would be horrified by Wills's
conclusions; but so would Augustine and Paul.
Apart from the manifest dishonesty of some of his own
arguments, Wills arouses the suspicion that he is seeking to
bring the Church into alignment not just with the modern
world, but with the modern State. The most he can bring
himself to say against abortion is that it "should be
avoided." He counsels a "respectful agnosticism" about the
humanity of the human fetus, but not respectful enough to
warrant giving it the benefit of a doubt against the
abortionist. Of course he says nothing about whether the fetus
may have an immortal soul, a question Augustine and Aquinas
might have deemed relevant.
Coming after his endorsements of contraception,
homosexuality, and other current causes du jour, this is too
many for me. If we weren't inured to it by now, the very
mention of abortion would induce nausea. Is there *any*
question on which Wills would take the side of his Church
against liberalism and the liberal State?
One almost feels that Wills thinks the Spirit has been
guiding the State instead of the Church. He thinks the
development of the State -- in particular, the centralization
of power in the federal government -- has been benign.
Christianity sprang out of a cultural soil remote from
and alien to the modern State. How is it possible, just as a
matter of mere anthropology, that the early Church --
basically a bunch of Jews who thought their Messiah had
arrived in an unexpected form -- should be in such perfect
harmony with today's State and, particularly, with the sexual
revolution the State has been promoting? It's just too
convenient, especially since that Messiah was even stricter on
sexual morality than Moses had been. (No divorce, no dirty
thoughts.)
Newman had something to say on this head too: "In every
age of Christianity since it was first preached, there has
been what may be called a "religion of the world," which so
far imitates the one true religion as to deceive the unstable
and unwary. The world does not oppose religion *as such.* I
may say, it has never opposed it. In particular, it has, in
all ages, acknowledged in one sense or other the Gospel of
Christ, fastened on one or other of its characteristics, and
professed to embody this in its practice; while by neglecting
the other parts of the holy doctrine, it has, in fact,
distorted and corrupted even that portion of it which it has
exclusively put forward, and so has contrived to explain away
the whole....
"What is the world's religion now? It has taken the
brighter side of the Gospel -- its tidings of comfort, its
precepts of love -- all darker, deeper views of man's
condition and prospects being comparatively forgotten. This is
the religion *natural* to a civilized age, and well has Satan
dressed and completed it into an idol of the truth."
Such imitation versions of Christianity are always more
or less plausible; but when a man tells us in effect that the
Catholic Church can return to its Gospel roots by adopting the
latest Democratic Party platform, the question is not what's
wrong with the Church, but what's wrong with *him.*
In Wills's case, I still don't know. I probably never
will. I recognize that it may be a mystery of the soul, a
drama of grace, to which only Wills himself is privy and which
I can't presume to assess. But I do know that, at the purely
natural level, he keeps making arguments on politics and
religion that are beneath his own intelligence, and even below
my own. And I know that the version of Christianity he
espouses is the religion of the world. He is trapped in what
you might call structures of self-deceit.
Nuggets
RANDOM THOUGHT: I'm convinced that if it weren't for white
racism, our national anthem would be "I Heard It through the
Grapevine." (page 6)
UTOPIAN THOUGHT: Al Gore's charge that we have a "do-
nothing" Congress inspires wishful thinking. If only it were
so! If only candidates would pledge: "Since our citizens are
already burdened by staggering taxes and oppressive laws, most
of them unconstitutional as well as unjust, I favor a surcease
from new legislation. In fact, our business now should be the
repeal of most of the laws currently on the books." (page 8)
CAMPAIGN KARMA: Hillary's New York campaign is in trouble
for an alleged ethnic slur 26 years ago. A new book says that
after Bill's first political defeat in 1974, she blamed an
ally whom she called an illegitimate fornicator of Hebraic
extraction (though she managed to condense the thought into a
mere five syllables). She insists she never said it, but three
witnesses laugh at her denials, and she's notorious for her
foul, abusive mouth. Unfortunately, the only witness who
vouches for her is a well-known perjurer. (page 10)
ELDER STATESMAN: Jerry Ford thinks George Bush should pick
a pro-abortion running mate. As for pro-lifers in the
Republican Party, "Where are they gonna go?" At 87, Ford still
shows the political sagacity that made him such a winner.
Alas, the Republicans aren't quite ready to commit suicide.
(page 12)
Reprinted Columns (pages 7-12)
* The Day of the Yoot (June 15, 2000)
http//www.sobran.com/columns/0000615.shtml
* Dr. Johnson, Radical (June 22, 2000)
http//www.sobran.com/columns/000622.shtml
* Structures of Deceit (June 27, 2000)
http//www.sobran.com/columns/000627.shtml
* Prejudice and Precent (June 29, 2000)
http//www.sobran.com/columns/000629.shtml
* Let's Debate "Basics" (July 4, 2000)
http//www.sobran.com/columns/000704.shtml
* Crossing Bloodlines (July 6, 2000)
http//www.sobran.com/columns/000706.shtml
All articles are written by Joe Sobran
Copyright (c) 2000. All rights reserved.
SOBRAN'S is distributed by the Griffin Internet
Syndicate (fran@griffnews.com).
Individuals may now subscribe to an e-mail version
of Joe Sobran's columns and newsletter. For more
information contact fran@griffnews.com or call
800-493-9989.
[ENDS]