SOBRAN'S --
The Real News of the Month
April 2002
Volume 9, No. 4
Editor: Joe Sobran
Publisher: Fran Griffin (Griffin Communications)
Managing Editor: Ronald N. Neff
Subscription Rates.
Print version: $44.95 per year; $85 for 2 years;
trial subscription available for $19.95 (5 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).
Address: SOBRAN'S, P.O. Box 1383, Vienna, VA 22183-1383
Fax: 703-281-6617 Website: www.sobran.com
Publisher's Office: 703-255-2211 or www.griffnews.com
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 1-800-513-5053. Allow
4-6 weeks for delivery of your first issue.
CONTENTS
Features
-> The Moving Picture
-> West Meets East, Again
-> Saturday Night Laughing
Letters to the Editor
Nuggets (plus Exclusives to this edition)
List of Columns Reprinted
FEATURES
The Moving Picture
(page 1)
As it contemplates expanding the war, the Bush
administration is also weighing the possibility of using
nuclear weapons. It reportedly has contingency plans to
nuke several states, including Russia and Syria (which
has no nukes). Instead of learning the obvious lessons of
9/11, the government is redoubling the reckless imperial
policies that helped provoke 9/11. In doing so it
endangers the life of every American.
* * *
Another contingency plan: an unconstitutional
"shadow government," to take power in case the president
and his successors should be wiped out in a sudden
attack. Under a decentralized -- i.e., constitutional --
government, in which power was properly dispersed, no
such backup would be necessary.
* * *
Meanwhile, the Middle East boils. Ariel Sharon's
ingenious peace plan -- to kill Palestinians until they
cry uncle -- has backfired, getting dozens of Jews killed
in the space of a few days. George W. Bush and Colin
Powell, emerging from stupor, have expressed their alarm
at the carnage. Saudi Arabia's peace plan -- recognition
for Israel, if it returns to its 1967 borders -- is being
denounced by Zionists as a sneaky Arab trick, though it
amounts to what Zionists used to say they wanted.
* * *
The sinister visage of Osama bin Laden has vanished
from the covers of the newsmagazines; indeed his very
name has disappeared from the press. We haven't heard
from him for months, and nobody -- well, no infidel --
knows whether he's alive or where he is. A strange
eclipse, given our recent obsession with him. At first a
chief goal of the War on Terrorism was to destroy him
personally. Now it's unclear *what* the goal of the war
is. It's as if Hitler had been forgotten in the middle of
World War II.
* * *
And in another blow to our national pride, China has
announced that it has successfully cloned dozens of human
embryos since 1999. The genie of Progress is certainly
out of the bottle. An eerie reminder that in the future,
Western scientific achievements will be applied by non-
Western people, uninhibited by silly Western moral
scruples. Maybe we'll soon look back on the twentieth
century as a period of stable traditions. The new century
promises to be very, very weird.
* * *
David Brock is back -- yet again. He has now retold
the story of his disaffection from the conservative
movement in BLINDED BY THE RIGHT: THE CONSCIENCE OF AN
EX-CONSERVATIVE, wherein he repents, or re-repents, of
his days at THE AMERICAN SPECTATOR as the muckraking
scourge of Anita Hill and Bill Clinton. He says he
learned that his conservative friends weren't nice
people, and having said that, he hopes his new liberal
friends will take him to their bosoms. But he doesn't
seem to have had a true conversion, because he never
really had any conservative principles to recant. He's
just a gossip who has switched sides. His career is just
one more reminder of the triviality of today's
conservatism.
West Meets East, Again
(pages 3-5)
War, once more; or still. It never ends. No peace
was ever concluded with Iraq after the 1991 war. American
bombs have destroyed Iraq's water and sewage treatment
facilities, causing untold (and in this country, largely
unreported) suffering to the civilian population. Nasty
business, and illegal under the Geneva Conventions.
Israel's Amen Corner has been pushing for a new effort to
topple Saddam Hussein, and it appears that G.W. Bush and
his team intend to do just that later this year, in time
for the fall elections.
What began as a "war on terrorism" is morphing into
a war to crush Israel's enemies. And naturally so. The
9/11 attacks would never have occurred except for the
U.S. Government's Middle East policies, which are pretty
much dictated by the Jewish-Zionist powers that be in the
United States. The Zionists boast privately of their
power, but they don't want the gentiles talking about it.
Readers of Orwell will recognize the principle of
Doublethink. The Jewish lobby, like all lobbies, exists
to promote specific interests that may clash with others'
interests; yet it resists any assertion of those others'
interests, or even any admission that Jewish and gentile
interests may not always be the same. Apparently the
whole Jewish lobby exerts all its power and influence to
make sure the United States does what it should do in its
own interests even if there were no Jews!
Obviously the truth is very different. The lobby
strives to cause the U.S. Government to act in ways that
are directly contrary to the interests -- and the moral
principles -- of most Americans. We should have learned
how opposite those interests are on September 11.
Instead, the result has been to consolidate the American-
Israeli alliance.
Mark Weber of the Institute for Historical Review
has said it best: "The truth is that if we held Israel to
the same standards that we apply to Serbia, Afghanistan,
and Iraq, U.S. bombers and missiles would be blasting Tel
Aviv, and we'd be putting Israeli prime minister Sharon
behind bars for war crimes and crimes against humanity."
Heaven forbid! Yet it would simplify matters greatly
if the United States treated Israel as its only enemy,
instead of taking on all of Israel's enemies as its own.
From the American standpoint, this alliance is not only
immoral but wildly irrational. Usually your ally is
someone you join with against a common enemy; in this
case, we got the ally first, then we also got its enemies
in the bargain.
Furthermore, those enemies have a just grievance:
Israel itself. The perpetual Zionist complaint is that
the Arab-Muslim states refuse to recognize Israel's right
to exist. But setting aside the question of whether any
state can have a right to exist, Israel's putative right
is the right of Jews to rule gentiles, to drive them from
their homes, seize their property, and treat them as
inferior beings. Is it surprising that the gentiles (who
in this case happen to be Arabs) are reluctant to concede
a "right" that consigns them to subjugation? What it
comes to is that the Jews feel victimized if their
victims deny them the right to victimize, alias their
"right to exist." It's that crazy.
You might think that a rational Zionist would
understand why the Arabs feel that Zionism means somewhat
more than Jewish existence, which has been an accepted
fact for millennia. But most Zionists affect to believe
that the Arabs, in refusing to concede the legitimacy of
Jewish hegemony in Palestine, are denying the Jews' very
right to live at all. According to Zionist propaganda,
the Arabs -- Semites themselves -- are driven by anti-
Semitism.
Israel is based on a principle of racial
discrimination that is illegal in Western countries, not
only in law but in many aspects of private life. Not only
is the Western state forbidden to practice such
discrimination; so are most private enterprises,
commercial and otherwise. And in the Diaspora, most Jews
favor anti-discrimination laws -- for the sake of Jews
who might be discriminated against! Yet the same Jews
favor a Jewish state in which a new arrival from Moscow
or New York instantly enjoys privileges denied to Arabs
whose ancestors have lived in Palestine for countless
generations.
And this is the country we are told shares the
"democratic values" of the United States. Maybe it does,
if you correctly grasp what "democratic values" really
means. The innocuous phrase, like "right to exist," seems
to have hidden implications that most people never
suspect.
In truth, Israel is culturally remote from the
United States. Israel Shahak, a dissident Israeli,
explains this in his little book JEWISH HISTORY, JEWISH
RELIGION (Pluto Press). It's one of the most illuminating
books ever written about Zionism -- and one of the most
lethal.
Shahak, who died recently, had been in a German
concentration camp during World War II, then went to
Palestine as a Zionist. But he became disillusioned as he
witnessed similarities between Zionism and Nazism. And he
traces most of what is wrong with Zionism to the deeply
rooted contempt for gentiles taught by Talmudic Judaism.
He quotes one authoritative rabbinical saying: "The best
of gentiles -- kill him; the best of snakes -- dash out
its brains." This may not have been meant too literally,
but it is hardly a summons to universal brotherhood. And
Israel has been riven by debates over whether it is
permissible -- *permissible,* mind you -- to save a
gentile's life on the Sabbath. The Talmud teaches that a
Jew may not directly murder a gentile, but may lawfully
cause his death indirectly (as by removing a ladder if he
is in a deep hole). In practice, Israeli Jews who kill
Arabs are assured of lenient sentences. And the Arabs
know this.
Shahak was a brave and honest man, but I suspect he
judges Talmudic Judaism too harshly. The point, I think,
is not that traditional Judaism is evil, but simply that
it is far more alien to Christianity than most Christians
dream. The average Christian supposes that a Jew is just
a Christian who is a bit behind on the news; that he
reads the Old Testament in the same spirit that a
Christian does, but hasn't caught up with the New
Testament yet. But thanks to the vast Talmudic
commentaries, the Jew's Old Testament is utterly
different from the Christian's. And after all, Christ
brought a whole new way of interpreting the Old Testament
-- one in which, for example, Abraham's willingness to
sacrifice his son for the Lord prefigures the divine
sacrifice of the Son on Calvary. This is totally at odds
with the Jewish conception of the Messiah.
Most Jews today know next to nothing about the
Talmud, but Shahak contends that its millennia of
authority have been a formative influence, particularly
for contemporary Zionism. Israel is far from the pacific
Jewish state envisioned by Theodore Herzl, a modern,
secularized European Jew who would have been appalled by
Ariel Sharon. Anyone who can mistake Sharon for a Western
man has much to learn.
Ethnocentrism is a universal trait, but few peoples
have taken it as far as the Jews. Even in the ancient
world they were hated for their alleged misanthropy,
their aloofness from other races. Today's Jewish leaders
are actually disturbed by the freedom with which Jews now
mix with, and even marry, gentiles; some call
intermarriage a greater threat to Jewish survival than
the Holocaust. But again, Doublethink prevails: a gentile
who warned against intermarriage with Jews would be
condemned by Jews as a bigot.
Jewish ethnocentrism is acceptable; gentile
ethnocentrism is not. Jews should be self-centered;
gentiles should be Jew-centered. All are expected to give
top priority to Jewish interests, and the twin symbols of
this Judaeocentrism are the Holocaust and Israel, which
now dominate American public discourse to a degree that
would have been astonishing a few decades ago. The
Catholic Church itself is expected to defer, and even
adapt its teachings, to Jewish sensibilities.
Part of the misunderstanding between Jews and
Western gentiles is due to the peculiar culture of the
West. Since the ancient Greeks, and especially since the
High Middle Ages, Western man has developed an
extraordinary culture of measure. He measures,
quantifies, classifies, analyzes, seeks order and
proportion in all things. He has applied this mania for
measure in mathematics, physics, biology, astronomy, law,
philosophy, engineering, and a hundred other fields;
religion itself has become systematized in theology. He
has even developed an art form -- tragedy -- in which the
lesson is driven home that hubris or pride, the sin of
forgetting one's subordinate place in the order of
things, leads to disaster. The rule of law is a way of
averting tragic conflict in daily life by assessing rival
claims; though easily perverted, it remains basic.
This ability to see even oneself in proportion, an
antidote to both individual and group pride, is a fragile
and difficult thing, as the wars and conflicts of the
West amply demonstrate; but it survives as an ideal. It
is foreign not only to Judaism but to nearly all non-
Western cultures, in which ethnocentrism is taken for
granted. The primacy of measure is absent in cultures
governed by myth, tradition, ceremony, magic, kinship,
raw self-assertion, and other habits we have come to look
on as primitive or barbaric, or simply impractical. We
spend our days keeping records and manufacturing screws,
and to us all the minutiae of measurement seem natural.
We forget how peculiar we are, how difficult it is
for people from other cultures to adapt to our ways. The
special difficulties of Jewish adaptation are brilliantly
explored in John Murray Cuddihy's book, THE ORDEAL OF
CIVILITY: FREUD, MARX, LEVI-STRAUSS, AND THE JEWISH
STRUGGLE WITH MODERNITY (Basic Books; now out of print).
In Cuddihy's view, the great Jewish-founded sciences of
psychoanalysis and Marxism are really reductionist
ideologies, whose covert purpose is to undercut what
seemed, to Jewish intellectuals, the hypocrisies of the
West. If Jews appeared "rude" and "crude" to Western
gentiles, gentile politeness, "refinement," appeared
unnatural and phony to Jews. Freud, Marx, and other
Jewish ideologists sought to debunk and explode gentile
pretensions, and their ideas were shaped by this mission.
For Freud, romantic love was "really" nothing but
disguised lust, just as for Marx capitalism was "really"
nothing but disguised greed.
In the same way, resistance to Zionist demands
becomes "really" nothing but anti-Semitism. That gentiles
may have their own reasons, including reasons of moral
principle, for not acceding to Jewish ethnocentrism
hardly occurs to many Jews. The "real" motive must be a
hypocritically disguised anti-Semitism.
A recent article in COMMENTARY magazine virtually
equated criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. What else
is new? Everything from fanatical calls for war on Israel
to a diplomat's private wisecracks about Israel were
cited as proof of "the return of anti-Semitism." The
category is broad enough to encompass anything, however
trivial, that displeases Jews; which is why I've often
said that an anti-Semite is no longer a man who hates
Jews, but a man whom Jews hate.
It's now the duty of gentiles to internalize the
insatiable Jewish ethnocentrism that has come to the fore
since the founding of Israel. The fiction that Israel is
essentially a Western country -- a fiction that has now
cost us dearly -- might seem hard to sustain during the
ascendancy of a man like Sharon; but Israel's apologists
are inexhaustibly resourceful in justifying killing Arabs
as necessary for Israeli "survival." And Bush seems ready
to take the propaganda at face value. Whatever qualms he
may have felt about Sharon have apparently evaporated.
By Western standards, the Arab-Israeli conflict is
irrational on both sides. Talmudic Judaism makes
Mormonism seem like Voltaire; Islam is simpler on the
surface, but at least equally non-Western at its core.
There are not two sides in this struggle, but three, the
third being the American. The trouble is that the U.S.
Government doesn't represent the American side; it
behaves, as an Irish politician has remarked, "like a
puppet of Israel."
Bush has only a feeble sense of what makes the West
Western. He is what the Jews call "goyishkopf," "gentile-
headed," i.e., gullible. At least his father understood
that American and Israeli interests are sharply
divergent, even if he wasn't quite sure why; the son
seems to believe sincerely in the democratic bromides on
which Israeli propaganda relies. If reports are to be
believed, he has become convinced that the United States
must resume war on Iraq and dethrone Saddam Hussein.
If history offers one easy lesson, it's that wars
are a lot easier to start than they are to finish, and
that even the most overwhelming victories may produce
unpredictable and uncontrollable consequences. But
America has drawn all the wrong lessons from the events
of September 11 and is now in the grip of its own hubris.
But maybe the bad news doesn't matter, because there
is much worse news ahead. In a few decades, given the
demographic facts of life, America, Europe, and Israel
will be unrecognizable. What shall it profit a nation to
win its wars if it lose its identity?
Saturday Night Laughing
(page 6)
It's painful to watch SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE these
days. Time was when I enjoyed it so much I'd turn down
social invitations so I wouldn't miss it; today I don't
usually bother with it. After a quarter of a century of
success, the show's decline in recent years has caused
much comment.
To me the reason seems simple. In its greatest
years, roughly the late 1980s, its humor was based on
great characters. Dana Carvey's Church Lady was probably
the most popular, but my own favorite was Al Franken's
Stuart Smalley, the neurotic self-help counselor, who was
both hilarious and oddly touching as he dispensed jargon-
laden advice while falling to pieces before your eyes --
an inspired creation. Chris Farley was also a genius at
playing hapless and insecure blowhard losers. The rest of
the cast in those days -- Phil Hartman, Victoria Jackson,
Kevin Nealon, Jon Lovitz, Tim Meadows, Rob Schneider,
Ellen Cleghorne, and others -- were nearly as good, and
the writers (including Franken and Conan O'Brien) were
brilliant.
Lorne Michael is still the producer, but he seems
not to realize the secret of his own success. Today the
show is rarely funny. Its humor is merely snotty and
smutty -- mean-spirited. It was always irreverent and
often off-color, but it also had a saving affection for
its satirical targets. It used to understand that being
hip and smart-assed wasn't enough. A fatal smugness has
ruined the fun. Tim Meadows's Lady's Man promised to be
one of the funniest routines ever, affecting suavity with
utter gaucherie, but he soon fizzled into a mere dirty
joke.
While Bill Clinton was president, Darrell Hammond's
mimicry carried the show, because his Clinton -- a sly,
lecherous con man of hammy hypocrisy -- was another great
comic character. George W. simply doesn't offer the same
possibilities, and Clinton's departure from the show may
be the only reason to deprecate the Twenty-Second
Amendment.
Nowadays I rely for my Saturday laughs on Garrison
Keillor's PRAIRIE HOME COMPANION, an ingeniously updated
version of the old radio variety show. Keillor has found
another rich formula, but unlike Michael he hasn't lost
his touch. Based in St. Paul -- which he insistently
distinguishes from urbane, upscale Minneapolis -- he has
carved out a secure niche as America's highbrow rustic.
The show combines country-folk music with excellent
formulaic skits. "Lives of the Cowboys" features two
grizzled cowpokes who still think existentialism is hip;
"Guy Noir, Private Eye" transfers the hard-boiled
detective from Chandler's Los Angeles to the Scandinavian
Midwest; the weekly "News from Lake Wobegon" -- Keillor's
climactic monologue -- displays the full splendor of
Lutheran humor, whose very existence, before Keillor, was
unsuspected. Even as you laugh, you marvel at his
inexhaustible inventiveness. As a humorist, Mark Twain
had nothing on this amazing man.
Keillor is a liberal, but his wit is dry, subtle,
and gentle, more often at the expense of liberal excess
than of conservatism. Who ever imagined a liberal
humorist? Especially one who would make liberals laugh at
themselves? This is originality indeed. He also has one
of the finest speaking voices ever heard on radio, deep
and softly resonant, without the usual flatness of the
Midwest.
Keillor can't resist poking fun at the most
irresistible target the good Lord could possibly have
given him: Minnesota's governor, Jesse Ventura. It isn't
all in fun; the two men really feud. Ventura is absurd,
and he has the power, but in this case, as it happens, he
is quite right. He asks the very reasonable question: Why
should the taxpayer be forced to subsidize so successful
an entertainer as Garrison Keillor?
On the point at issue, Ventura stands for liberty
and Keillor for snobbery and serfdom. Ventura won his
fame and fortune in the lower depths of the private
sector, professional wrestling, and even as a governor he
retains something of an independent outlook; Keillor is a
tycoon of the public sector, and he has no apparent
qualms about getting rich on the taxes of people less
affluent than he. Much as I enjoy and admire his talent,
he is for me a symbol of the arrogance of his class. He's
also a reminder of how unscrupulously predatory the
taxing power has become.
Yet week after week, after several decades in the
business, Keillor keeps delivering fresh material,
bringing charm, wit, and variety to a medium that seemed
to have run out of surprises long ago. He's still doing
for radio what SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE once did for
television.
Letter to the Editor
(page 2)
Mr. Sobran -- I am an admirer of your work and faithfully
read your columns, so please take these comments as the
friendliest of criticisms. You'll know I am a fan when I
compare your thoughts to those of Tacitus.
Tacitus seems to have hated the Roman principate and
despised its pretense of republican traditions and phony
deference to the Senate. He records how the emperors used
constitutional symbols as masks for their lawless
concentration of power. However, Rome was an empire and
Tacitus was a citizen and senator who had his duties. So
despite his abhorence of the emperors, he seems to have
grudgingly accepted the inevitability of imperial
domination for Rome in order to avoid constant civil war
and resist barbarian pressure around the huge perimeter
of the empire. His practical goals seem to have been to
hope for good emperors and put up with what he had to,
while trying to avoid undue personal servility or self-
defeating poses of political independence.
As I understand your writings, you similarly despise
the American pretense to traditional constitutional
forms, when in fact power has been concentrated in the
central government and its bureaucracy, which have
erected a stupendous warfare/welfare nation-state. You've
described yourself as a reactionary utopian, and as such
and as a social critic you aren't bound by the demands of
practicality. But as a citizen, isn't your view so
impractical as to be irrelevant and self-defeating?
Doesn't the raw fact of the American nation-state, like
the fact of the Roman Empire, require not just our
condemnation, but also our efforts to improve it in
realistic ways and to live in it with as much dignity and
freedom as possible? It is interesting to read of your
admiration for the Swiss federation, but how could that
be of any relevance to us, given the American character,
the size of our territory and population, and the sweep
of our present worldwide dominion? When I finish reading
one of your columns, I agree with what you say, but only
with regret and resignation. Maybe this is the lot of the
concerned citizen. Still, it's hateful just to think that
we, like the Romans, are being "driven by our fates."
I'm looking forward to your promised book on
constitutional history; maybe that will make it all clear
to me. Anyway, many thanks.
Richard L. Kirkpatrick, Esq.
San Francisco, CA 94105-2228
NUGGETS
THE SILENT MAJORITY: To say that we are hated around the
world is not to suggest that acts of anti-American
violence are somehow justified. But they should remind us
that we are also hated by countless people who are too
moral to take indiscriminate revenge on innocent
Americans. These are the people who really deserve our
attention, but don't get much of it. The only critics our
government acknowledges are those with bombs. (page 2)
THE BIG HE: Wrapping up his investigation at long last,
special prosecutor Robert Ray, Kenneth Starr's successor
(I'd nearly forgotten), says the evidence of Bill
Clinton's perjury in the Paula Jones case warranted
indictment and would have resulted in conviction. Not
that it really matters much, but it's always nice to have
one more nail pounded into the coffin of Clinton's
reputation. As with Count Dracula, however, the trick
will be to keep him in that coffin. (page 2)
BAD NEWS: I don't know which I find more distressing, the
war or the revelations about pedophile priests. But the
sufferings of the war seem remote; whereas the stories of
the victims of the perverted priests are heart-
wrenchingly vivid. What an unspeakable thing to do to a
boy; and because unspeakable, it remained unmentionable.
For years each boy kept his silence in confusion and
shame, thinking he was the only one to share the dreadful
secret of his priest. Now we learn how widespread this
abomination was, and how systematically concealed by the
Catholic hierarchy, the only ones with some inkling of
how common it was. The offenders had the assurance that
their superiors, if they learned the truth, would treat
their diabolical betrayal as a mere administrative
problem. (page 5)
JOKE! JOKE! Richard Lowry of NATIONAL REVIEW says his
e-mail reveals "lot of sentiment for nuking Mecca." He
comments: "Mecca seems extreme, of course, but then again
few people would die and it would send a signal." Later
he explained that this was just -- heh-heh --
"understated sarcasm." When an Arab-American group
demanded that the magazine apologize and discipline
Lowry, he quipped: "I'm going to officially slap myself
on the wrist." Oh, that zany NATIONAL REVIEW humor! Back
in the 1960s, the mag sold buttons with the merry slogan
"Nuke the chinks." Maybe these kids don't really want to
nuke Mecca, but they don't seem to discourage such talk.
(page 5)
INNOCENTS ABROAD: An American woman and her daughter have
been killed by a terrorist grenade attack in a church in
Pakistan. Nothing new here; Americans abroad have been
targets for years, but now we're starting to notice. We
can expect more of this, just as we can expect our
government to keep on making us hated around the world.
President Bush called the deaths "acts of murder that
cannot be tolerated by any person of conscience." Do
tell. And no doubt the perpetrators must be brought to
justice. (page 8)
Exclusive to the electronic version:
EXTRA! EXTRA! A conservative newspaper in the Big Apple?
Well, sort of. The NEW YORK SUN is scheduled to commence
publication on April 18. Its columnists will include
Peggy Noonan, Richard Brookhiser, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Seth
Lipsky, and Fred Siegel. If you don't see a pattern here,
you haven't been taking your daily paranoia pill. Just
what New York so desperately needs: yet another pro-
Israel paper.
YOU KNOW THE TYPE: I honor genuine piety and charity, but
some people ought to wear signs warning: "Dangerous when
religious." For them, piety is a mood that comes and
goes, and when the "spiritual" impulse strikes them, they
are capable of feeling justified in behavior they would
recognize as insufferable in their normal, human moments.
FIRST HURRICANES, NOW THIS: Following a current fashion,
the London daily LLOYD'S LIST, which has covered the
shipping industry since 1734, has announced that it will
now refer to seafaring vessels as "it" rather than "she."
So passes another sweet old tradition, as Progress
improves the language by neutering it. Maybe we should
also refer to feminists as "it." After all, most of them
are more sexless than any galleon or schooner.
OLD FRIENDS: For those keeping score on the Balkans, the
Bosnian Muslims befriended by the United States against
the Serbs and Croats in 1992-95 have now turned anti-
American. "The American government is the enemy of Islam
everywhere -- and this includes Bosnia," says one
militant, voicing the popular view. Is anyone learning
anything yet?
REPRINTED COLUMNS (pages 7-12)
* Genocide and Wisecracks (February 14, 2002)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/020214.shtml
* Our Chesterton (February 19, 2002)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/020219.shtml
* Am I "Anti-American"? (February 26, 2002)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/020226.shtml
* The Duty of Lying (February 28, 2002)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/020228.shtml
* The Rise of Tax Slavery (March 5, 2002)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/020305.shtml
* How Might Makes Right (March 7, 2002)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/020307.shtml
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All articles are written by Joe Sobran
You may forward this newsletter if you include the
following subscription and copyright information:
Subscribe to the Sobran E-Package.
See http://www.sobran.com/e-mail.shtml
or http://www.griffnews.com for details and samples
or call 800-513-5053.
Copyright (c) 2002 by The Vere Company -- www.sobran.com.
All rights reserved.
Distributed by the Griffin Internet Syndicate
www.griffnews.com with permission.
[ENDS]