SOBRAN'S --
The Real News of the Month
September 2006
Volume 13, Number 9
Editor: Joe Sobran
Publisher: Fran Griffin (Griffin Communications)
Managing Editor: Ronald N. Neff
Subscription Rates.
Print version: $44.95 per year. For special discounted
subscription offers and e-mail subscriptions see
www.sobran.com, or call the publisher's office.
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 Coming Fury
-> Publisher's Note
-> Prescriptions for the Public Good?
The Sobran Forum
-> The Political Victory of Political Correctness
Cartoons (Baloo)
"Reactionary Utopian" Columns Reprinted in This Issue
FEATURES
The Coming Fury
(page 1)
As Venezuela's leftist president, Hugo Chavez,
cuddled with the ailing Fidel Castro on the occasion of
the latter's eightieth birthday, I found myself thinking
of a name from the past: Manuel Noriega. Remember him? He
was the pocky-faced dictator of Panama toppled by the
first President Bush in 1989, on the pretext that he was
trafficking in drugs, with the usual Hitler analogies
justifying the latest U.S war in Central America. After
he finally surrendered, Noriega was somehow tried under
U.S. law (though he hadn't set foot in this country) and
of course convicted. The last I heard, he was in an
American prison and had converted to Christianity.
This remains the most recent of America's many
little interventions in the region. We tend to forget
them quickly, but those on the receiving end remember
them. This is why rulers like Castro and Chavez are as
popular as they are in Latin America: whatever their
faults, at least they defy the bullying Yanqui.
About all I remember about the Panama war is that it
seemed quite unnecessary to me, while my conservative
friends were all for it. I never understood their
enthusiasm, except that the Cold War was coming to an end
and they relished the chance to exercise American power
abroad against an enemy, any enemy, and Noriega would
serve. I thought it was shameful. Obviously Noriega was
no threat at all to the United States; you might say he
was the Saddam Hussein of the Eighties. And we wonder why
there is so much anti-Americanism around the world.
Lately I've been reading Pat Buchanan's latest book,
STATE OF EMERGENCY, a warning that immigration by
unassimilable aliens now threatens not only America but
Europe. Given our history of absorbing newcomers
peacefully, I was disposed to be skeptical. But after
only a few chapters I found myself, against my will,
shaken and convinced. The new influxes, chiefly Mexican
here and Muslim in Europe, are totally different from
early waves of immigrants -- and far more dangerous. At
present rates, it won't be long until there are no
majority white Christian countries on earth. And the new
nonwhite majorities will be deeply hostile to the
natives.
In his brilliant, neglected book, THE MIGHT OF THE
WEST (1964), Lawrence Brown observes that we remember the
nineteenth century as a period of peace only because the
white nations seldom made war on each other. The rest of
the world experienced it differently. The white man's
technology, chiefly gunpowder, enabled him to invade and
conquer red, brown, yellow, and black men around the
world, with enormous attendant slaughter and disruption.
To these peoples it must have seemed as if a strange race
of pale aliens, armed with malevolent magic, had arrived
from another planet to destroy them. They were all but
helpless against the enemy's guns, then a terrible
novelty and mystery to them.
We ruled the world, and it seemed we would go on
ruling it forever. But now -- suddenly, in historical
terms -- the tables are turned, and it is we who seem
helpless against the colored races' explosive
populations. They are driving us out of their world and
moving into ours in huge numbers. And they are in no mood
either to adopt our ways or to forgive us.
Publisher's Note
(page 2)
Dear Loyal Subscriber,
Several months ago, I wrote to you about the great
financial need we have in order to continue publishing
SOBRAN'S. I'm grateful that a number of people responded.
I was encouraged, too, by the feedback and by the many
prayers that were offered for the success of the
newsletter. So far, we have met about half of our goal.
There is still time -- and still a need -- to make a
pledge or send a gift to assist us in meeting our
financial crisis. Frankly, keeping the doors open
requires the participation of those who believe that
SOBRAN'S plays a vital role in the battle of ideas.
Because of your support, votes of confidence, and
prayers, we are indeed making progress:
* Patrick J. Buchanan's new website, www.Buchanan.org,
reprinted one of Joe's WANDERER newspaper columns in
which he reviewed Pat's blockbuster book, STATE OF
EMERGENCY. Joe's column got thousands of "hits" from
Buchanan website readers. Joe's lead piece in this issue
is being reprinted by MIDDLE AMERICAN NEWS
(www.manews.org), a widely circulated conservative
newspaper.
* Joe's column, "The Real Bill Buckley," (see the July
SOBRAN'S or http://www.sobran.com/columns/2006/
060530.shtml) was reprinted by the "Conservative
University," an on-line classroom (www.acuf.org/issues)
that gets nearly 50,000 visitors. Also, the column came
to the attention of Mr. Buckley himself, who wrote a nice
note to Joe about it.
* Joe's recent speeches in Detroit and Washington, D.C.,
were well received, as was his appearance on James
Edwards's nationally syndicated radio talk show. To set
up a speaking engagement or fundraising party, please
call John Mangopolous. (See side panel for his contact
information.)
* Of course Joe continues to be attacked by the left-wing
press -- another sign of our success. The October 9,
2006, NATION magazine says that Joe doesn't "fall into
that [racist] category," but claims he is a "right-wing
columnist drummed out of his post at NATIONAL REVIEW for
his anti-Semitism and Holocaust revisionism." For the
record, Joe holds neither view.
In the meantime, Joe has his nose to the grindstone
as a contributor to a new college textbook on
"Shakespeare" plays for a major publisher. (See his piece
on page 8 or see http://www.sobran.com/columns/2006/
060912.shtml for a sneak preview.)
Finally I am delighted to announce that our 12th
anniversary SOBRAN'S Charter Subscribers' luncheon will be
held on Saturday, December 9, at Maggiano's Little Italy
restaurant in McLean, Virginia. As usual, Joe will be
giving a talk and we will have two special guest speakers
as well: Tom Fleming, editor of CHRONICLES magazine, and
author and policy analyst Doug Bandow.
This event is for benefactors of SOBRAN'S who have
already pledged or wish to pledge at least $1,000 to
support the newsletter. Please note: we have now
established a flexible payment schedule, so if you wish
to donate on a long-term basis, we would be grateful. An
invitation and handy reply form outlining the options is
enclosed.
As you might imagine with avid readers of SOBRAN'S,
those attending are well-read and fascinating dinner
companions. In past years such luminaries as Pat
Buchanan, Howard Phillips, Taki Theodoracopulos, Dr.
William Campbell Douglass, Tom Bethell, Ann Coulter,
Grover Norquist, and Michael Peroutka have been sitting
in the audience. Space is limited and reservations have
already started to come in, so let me know as soon as
possible if you plan to be there.
If you cannot come but would like to help sponsor
the event or wish to make a pledge to help Joe and the
newsletter, you may contact me directly by writing,
e-mailing, or calling -- or simply push that "Donations"
button at www.sobran.com. Remember, your financial,
moral, and prayer support are vital to the continuation
of this modest enterprise. And, as always, my deepest
appreciation goes out to every loyal supporter of
SOBRAN'S.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Fran Griffin
Prescriptions for the Public Good?
(pages 3-4, 6)
When, early this year [1983], the Department of
Health and Human Services required that parents of
children receiving prescription contraceptives be
informed of this fact, the regulation was greeted with
catcalls by the enlightened. Editorials in the NEW YORK
TIMES denounced "the squeal law," and the WASHINGTON POST
reported with pokerfaced prose that "civil liberties and
family planning groups" were filing suit to prevent
implementation.
The rhetoric is interesting. Words like "squeal" and
"civil liberties" imply that the child's privacy is at
stake. Only one thing is forgotten: that a public agency
is interposing itself between members of that most
private of all human institutions, the family. The
protesters are in effect arguing (though not very
candidly) that distributing contraceptives is properly a
matter between child and state and that parents have no
legitimate interest in the transaction.
If the argument were put so boldly it would be
breathtaking. But of course the enlightened are loath to
admit there is a any serious principle at stake here at
all. Who can approve of squealing? Who can oppose civil
liberties? Who is so heartless as to wish that young
people, succumbing to the common weaknesses of this our
flesh, should therefore be visited with the twin blights
of disease and pregnancy? Who would obstruct "family
planning"?
I deliberately saved the worst for last. Skin should
crawl when that innocuous phrase -- "family planning" --
is invoked. The family! Ah, yes, we all revere the
family, don't we? Planning! Excellent thing, planning.
The very opposite of improvidence, by which so many have
been brought to ruin. Put them together and you get a
doubly good thing: families *should* plan.
Except that what is really meant, as appears from
the squeal-rule controversy, is not that the family will
plan, but that it will be planned by somebody else.
Family-planning groups are groups that have plans for the
family. We now see that they are not necessarily eager
that the family be informed. (That might upset the
plans.)
On the one hand we are told that sex is a purely
private affair; on the other we are told (convolutedly)
that public agencies -- including the federal government-
-- have an interest in teenage sexual behavior, but that
parents of those teenagers don't. Parents are to pay
their taxes and not ask any questions as to what the
money is spent on.
The POST reported that even the Salvation Army --
seldom thought of as a radical or even trendy
denomination -- had protested the squeal rule. This was a
detail that saddened me, I confess. It was no surprise
that some other churches would join the pack, but the
Salvation Army! That genuinely Christ-loving and
consequently fashion-free sect, whose sacrifices for
others are so constant and palpable. For *them* to be
drawn into this conspiracy against the family was worse
than disgusting. It hurt.
Parents, it used to go without saying, have not only
a biological and economic but a moral and spiritual
interest in their children's conduct. It used to go
without saying because it didn't need to be said. Today
it goes unsaid because so few in leadership positions
have the courage to say it. Churchmen are urged to "speak
out" on the issues, but everyone understands that this
loaded locution is really an invitation for them to speak
out on the side of "social change." Those who speak out
on the other side can count on being ignored, ridiculed,
and reviled for "resisting change." This may seem a
rather light cross to bear, but it is evidently too heavy
for many in the clergy, and we should pray that they will
be given the strength to do it, because what is in
progress is a concerted assault on the core of society,
and many elements within the churches have become part of
that assault -- reverse martyrs.
In what I consider the most seminal book of our
time, THE SOCIALIST PHENOMENON, Igor Shafarevich argues
that we now call "socialism" is really a recurrent
process of social dissolution. When the central
institutions of society -- religion, the family. and
private property -- lose their vigor, power flows to the
state, and the seekers of power in turn rationalize the
destruction of these institutions or their transformation
into mere appendages of the state (like the Orthodox
Church in the Soviet Union, where the family may be
broken up if parents instruct their children in the
Christian faith, and private plots of land are tolerated
only because there would be mass starvation without
them).
Since the great apostasy of the West, the same
process has been under way generally. Here it is
disguised, not spearheaded by a powerful Left. Still, it
is noteworthy that the American Civil Liberties Union,
which has predictably opposed the squeal rule, began as a
socialist legal agency. Its founder, Roger Baldwin, often
praised the Soviet Union, taking the view at one point
that, where you have the workers themselves in charge of
the state, you don't really need civil liberties quite so
much: i.e., civil liberties are a means, not an end in
themselves. Like most socialist organizations, the ACLU
has put distance between itself and the Soviet Union.
This is incidental; the principle is what counts, and the
ACLU's selected liberties do not, contrary to popular
rumor, encompass the entire Bill of Rights with
indiscriminate passion. (What about the Second Amendment?
the Ninth? the Tenth?) Instead it supports those
liberties best calculated to weaken the bonds of the
family, the influence of religion, and the security of
private property.
To what extent the leaders and members of the ACLU
are consciously socialist is not for me to say, nor is it
my primary care here. What really matters is the
compulsive assault on traditional social order in the
name of individual freedom. However, the individual who
will remain when all the institutions that support and
unite individuals are gone will be a naked little fellow
indeed. Literally. There is now a pederast's
organization, the North American Man/Boy Love
Association, whose avowed goal is to legalize sexual
"love" between men and boys -- in the name of the boys'
sexual rights or, as they put it, "liberation." The
founder of this outfit, David Thorstad, has described
himself as a Marxist-Leninist, by the way, and tellingly
informed one interviewer that "this society is a real
cesspool."
Many people on both sides seem to feel that way now,
and I can't help wondering (without, I hope, unfairly
prejudicing a serious issue) whether much of the power of
the nuclear-freeze movement doesn't come from the sheer
demoralization of people who might otherwise be disposed
to insist on the essential incompatibility of East and
West. In January I went to Washington for the annual
Right to Life march, and on the way back chatted with a
neighbor of mine, a goodhearted, apolitical woman who has
become extremely worried about nuclear war. She quite
naturally and properly fears for her children, and she
may be right. All the same, there was a tone in her words
which I doubt would have been there 15 years ago -- a
tone of despair and confusion, as if to suggest that, in
the wake of things such as the legalization of
pornography and abortion, the exclusion of religion from
public life, and so forth, East and West have become,
grimly, compatible. Why perish in a conflict between two
secularized, socialist -- dying -- societies? We used to
call the Soviets things like "godless" and "atheistic."
Now we have been taught to ridicule these once
uncontested terms, as Richard Weaver called those terms
that stand for the great unchallenged values of any
culture. We have ourselves become, operationally, godless
and atheistic.
This is not to say that a godly and theistic people
should lightly aim nuclear weapons at other countries'
population centers. It is to say that we may be seeking
the wrong kind of peace for the wrong reasons. I suspect
we want to avoid war, not out of love for our neighbors,
but out of indifference to what *makes* them our
neighbors. I have friends who are devout Catholics of
politically conservative principle who with deep
sophistication hold that nuclear weapons are essentially
immoral, not because such weapons are apocalyptic, but
because they are indiscriminate to an utterly intolerable
degree. This is a serious position, to which I have no
good answer. I mention it because it represents a healthy
opposition to nuclear war, in the sense that my friends
love God, believe in the Redemption, oppose socialism,
support the family, and are totally convinced of the evil
of the Soviet Union. This places them in sharp contrast
to those vague souls who seem to think that the surrender
of faith and principle are somehow necessary to physical
survival -- and *worth the price.*
All this leads to a practical conclusion. Christians
-- those who believe that the Son of God died on the
cross to redeem us -- must be prepared to go
eyeball-to-eyeball with progressives, planners, peace
movements, and the rest. We have to get in the habit of
asking them, as a lobby so to speak, what their policy
prescriptions imply *for us.* Is what they advocate
compatible with our faith? Does it depend on our
acceptance of their premises about man's nature? Does it
require us to behave as if God had not revealed himself
to us?
We will have to beware of the old trap of trying to
persuade them on their own principles, and insist that
they either persuade us on ours or be prepared for our
opposition. So far we have allowed public policy to be
based increasingly on purely secular assumptions; we have
been needlessly cowed, I think, by the charge that in
bringing our own principles to bear we are seeking to
"impose our views" -- a charge that comes oddly from
people who are ready, willing, and eager to regiment all
society into a new order as soon as possible. The essence
of a healthy polity is that it acts corporately for the
common good, The common good must be understood in an
inclusive sense, that is, to include things of the
spirit, and the only practical test of this is whether
the Christian community is able to make itself heard and
felt.
As it has not yet learned to do. Christians tend to
assume that they are a majority and that under a system
of majority rule there is no special reason for them to
bestir themselves. Neither assumption is true. Jews wield
far more political clout than Christians. Even homosexual
groups, opposed and despised by the great majority of
Americans, mange to get tax money, while Christians can
hardly get tax relief for their schools. More
insidiously, the mass media award publicity mostly to
those Christians who "speak out" for the progressive
agenda, giving only fleeting and negative attention to
those who oppose it. When was the last time the press
mentioned the Salvation Army before it joined the
opposition to the squeal rule?
We are not facing a heresy in the traditional sense,
with clear-cut doctrines that may be met by argument. If
only we were! We are facing, instead, a kind of
generalized decadence whose representatives resist
defining their terms or admitting that key principles
*are* at stake. Our main order of business, in my
judgment, is forcing the public to see the real
implications of a mass of hypnotic slogans that are by
now too familiar to seem sinister. Satan, in our time,
speaks in a bland and offhand idiom.
[This essay originally appeared in Center Journal (Spring
1983) of Notre Dame University, Notre Dame, Indiana.]
THE SOBRAN FORUM
The Political Victory of Political Correctness
by Paul Gottfried
(pages 5-6)
According to recent reports, French politician Jean
Marie Le Pen must stand trial a second time for remarks
made to a reporter from the right-wing newspaper RIVAROL
in January 2005. In his controversial interview, Le Pen
had expressed the opinion that the German occupation of
France "wasn't particularly inhumane, even if there were
some blunders, which were inevitable."
The new suit for group defamation and, by
implication, for criminally denying the official facts
about the Holocaust that were issued by the international
Nuremberg Tribunal in 1946, is being brought by the Sons
and Daughters of Jewish Deportees of France, an
organization with long-standing and transparent
connections to the French Left.
A convenient peg for suits of this kind is the Loi
Gayssot legislation, which builds on a law against
collective defamation going back to the early 1970s. This
important law -- both sponsored by and named for a Jewish
Communist deputy in the National Assembly, Jean-Claude
Gayssot -- criminalized speech that might offend
self-designated victim minorities, while making sure that
denials of Communist mass murder, however explicit, would
be exempted from prosecution.
In a response to anti-Communist critics in the
French Assembly in November 1997, Premier Lionel Jospin
refused to condemn the mass killing done by the
"anti-fascist" Joseph Stalin. Nonetheless, Jospin did not
run the risk of being accused of a delit d'opinion (a
crime of opinion). The premier, by this act, was not
condoning anti-Semitic or anti-Islamic deeds or opinions
but doing something deemed less reprehensible, refusing
to be judgmental about Stalin's efforts to deal with a
class enemy.
Although most of the Loi Gayssot designates and
criminalizes hate speech against religious and ethnic
groups, Article 9, Title 2 condemns specifically the
public expression of views that conflict with the
condemnation of genocide and crimes against humanity
enumerated by the Nuremberg Tribunal. In this postwar
judgment by, among others, Stalin's handpicked judges,
only certain kinds of mass murder and violence could
incur legal action. In fact, only those crimes that the
Communist condemned as "fascist" would be subject to
criminal prosecution.
If the Communists, who were the coalition allies of
Jospin's Socialists, had nothing unkind to say against
Stalin's or Mao's campaigns to rid their countries of
"fascist" collaborators, what right then do French
progressives have to raise objections?
In his response, Jospin accused his critics of
treating on an equal basis two "incommensurable
phenomena": a set of not particularly blameworthy
Communist blunders and the most evil of all evils,
"fascist racism."
In Germany, such vile mistakes can bring legal
actions in addition to professional ruination. Those with
insufficiently anti-fascist opinions can be listed as a
"danger to democracy" by the governmental Protectors of
the Constitution or else be dragged into court for
"trivializing the Holocaust." This last misstep might
include paying excessive attention to Stalin's mass
murders, which has been interpreted as deliberately
diverting public attention from the inexpiable enormity
of German fascist crimes.
Whatever may have been Le Pen's reason for uttering
his statements, his historical judgment is certainly
defensible. The Nazi occupation of France was not
exceptional for twentieth-century occupations carried out
by unfriendly invaders. A comparison with the Soviets'
takeover of the Baltic countries may be instructive.
There the French Left's "anti-fascist" former Big
Brother, then allied to Hitler, succeeded in carrying out
a far higher proportion of political murder and
deportation than did the Nazis during the German
occupation of France.
Almost half of the Balts were deported or killed
under Stalin, a figure that was reached in France only
for foreign-born Jews during the German Occupation. Most
of the French Jewish indigenes (more than 190,000)
managed to escape with their lives, and the vast majority
escaped deportation, largely because of French Christian
assistance. Of the 330,000 Jews who were in France before
the war, 170,000 stayed in France and almost all of them
survived the Occupation. Moreover, the German occupation
was far less destructive for French Christians than the
German presence in Poland or Russia was for inhabitants
there. And if one takes into account the hideous
slaughter wrought by the Japanese on the Chinese and
Filipinos, or the far worse slaughter of Jews in the East
than in France, Le Pen's statements were not as
outrageous as one might guess from looking at the press.
Certainly they are not the sort of thing that a
civilized country should throw someone in jail or
threaten with a huge fine and public disgrace for
uttering.
Note, Le Pen's assertions are also far less
questionable as historical statements than the
Holocaust-denial that they are imagined to illustrate.
They should not be compared to those greatly reduced
figures for the Holocaust that were associated with
British historian David Irving, before his recent arrest
and incarceration in anti-fascist Austria. This
comparison is worth making, despite the fact that
Irving's fate for his politically incorrect history was
both outrageous and typical. It was outrageous, given the
self-promotion of Western "liberal democracies," which
have become controlled hothouses of politically correct
opinion. And this jailing of an aged scholar for his
historical judgment made in a different country at a
different time is all too typical.
The victory of multiculturalism in the "Western
democracies" has given rise to a totalitarian domination
as loathsome and intrusive as the real Marxist-Leninism
that it is replacing. Whether it goes by the name of
multiculturalism, sensitivity-training, or cultural
Marxism, this combination of ideas and sentiments has
taken over Western administrative states and their
cultural industry.
There is no way of combating this danger, save for
an angry mass rejection of what the destroyer preaches,
and a disempowering of the mind-snatching states that
impose "tolerance" by force and through public education.
Immigration from the non-Western world and particularly
of Muslims, who are now streaming into Western and
Central Europe, has been a tool for breaking down the
pitifully little that remains of Western social and
cultural authorities.
Not all immigration expansionists are misguided
fools. Many of them dislike or fear what Western
societies were and did in the past, and have set out to
reconstruct them by supplanting their old core
populations. Others of those who are now engaged in this
enterprise are, of course, useful idiots. Here, one
thinks of the leadership of the Republican Party, who
seem to be reaching out in the wrong direction even
strategically by joining the vanguard of the immigration
expansionists.
But the effect of such politics, no matter what the
motivation, is to aggravate the trend toward cultural
breakdown, thereby helping along the multicultural
experiment that is now unfolding throughout the West.
The demographic erosion of Western peoples, the war
waged by state and culture against inherited structures
of authority, and the "celebration of diversity" all
belong to the same process of orchestrated change that
has contributed to the legal difficulties of Jean Le Pen.
[Paul Gottfried is Raffensperger Professor of Humanities
at Elizabethtown College, Pennsylvania. He is the author
of AFTER LIBERALISM, MULTICULTURALISM AND THE POLITICS OF
GUILT and THE STRANGE DEATH OF MARXISM. A version of this
article originally appeared in VDARE.com at
www.vdare.com/gottfried/060816_west.htm]
NUGGETS
DICTATORSHIP MAY DEPEND on torture chambers, but
democracies run to bamboozle.
-- from page 29 of REGIME CHANGE BEGINS AT
HOME by Joe Sobran; $5 postpaid or free with
a renewal of your SOBRAN'S subscription.
THE FINAL STEP: Gay marriage is not enough. We won't have
true equality until there are gay shotgun weddings.
-- from page 49 of REGIME CHANGE BEGINS AT
HOME by Joe Sobran; $5 postpaid or free with
a renewal of your SOBRAN'S subscription.
CARTOONS (Baloo)
http://www.sobran.com/articles/leads/2006-09-
cartoons.shtml
REPRINTED COLUMNS ("The Reactionary Utopian")
(pages 7-12)
* Everybody Knows (September 14, 2006)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/2006/060914.shtml
* Wild Justice (September 12, 2006)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/2006/060912.shtml
* Victim of McCarthyism (September 5, 2006)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/2006/060905.shtml
* Heavenly Turmoil (August 17, 2006)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/2006/060817.shtml
* Nation-Building and Islam (August 15, 2006)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/2006/060815.shtml
* Language in Rubble (August 10, 2006)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/2006/060810.shtml
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All articles are written by Joe Sobran, except where
explicitly noted.
You are receiving this message because you are a paid
subscriber to the Joe Sobran column or a subscriber has
forwarded it to you.
If you are not yet a subscriber, please see
http://www.sobran.com/e-mail.shtml
for details or call 800-513-5053.
Copyright (c) 2006 by the The Vere Company,
www.sobran.com. All rights reserved.
[ ENDS ]