Sobran's -- 
The Real News of the Month

January 2000
Volume 7, No. 1

Editor: Joe Sobran
Publisher: Fran Griffin (Griffin Communications)
Managing Editor: Ronald N. Neff
Subscription Rates (print version): $59.95 per 
   year; $100 for 2 years. Trial subscription 
   available for $19.95 (5 issues). E-mail 
   subscriptions: $75 per year. Payment should be 
   made to The Vere Company.
Address: Sobran's, P.O. Box 183, 
Vienna, VA 22183-1383
Fax: 703-281-6617
Publisher's Office: 703-255-2211
Foreign Subscriptions: Add $1.25 per issue for 
   Canada and Mexico; all other foreign countries, add 
   $1.75 per issue).
Credit Card Orders: Call 1-800-493-3348. Allow 
   4-6 weeks for delivery of your first issue.
The columns on pages 7-12 are reprinted with permission 
of the 
   Griffin Internet Syndicate

(pages 1-2)

George Double-U Bush remains the front-runner among the 
countless (they are as the sands of the seashore) 
Republican presidential candidates, despite several signs 
that he has inherited a good deal of George H.W. Bush's 
slight goofiness. Needless to say, he appears never to 
have heard of the U.S. Constitution. Not that this 
separates him from the rest of the pack.

*          *          *

     In the first Republican "debate" in New 
Hampshire, Steve Forbes accused Bush of planning to raise 
the age requirement for Social Security benefits. In 
reply, Bush quoted Forbes's own statement that the age 
requirement should be raised. Forbes retorted that he'd 
written that proposal more than 20 years ago. Neither 
mentioned that the Social Security program is not only 
unsound but unconstitutional. The best Republican, as it 
appears, is he who would most vigorously preserve 
entitlement programs passed by the Democrats of yore. And 
the competition is fierce.

*          *          *

     The media prefer the blunt, "straight-shooting" 
John McCain to Bush. Why? Because McCain has given even 
stronger signals than Bush that he won't oppose legal 
abortion. And because he favors campaign finance 
"reform," meaning limits on the amount of money 
candidates may spend reaching the voters -- a "reform" 
which, by curbing the equalizing power of money, would 
not only strengthen incumbents against their challengers, 
but magnify the unlimited power of the media as a factor 
in elections.

*          *          *

     I recall a news item about an indignant middle-
class Frenchwoman some years ago, during the presidency 
of the Socialist Francois Mitterand. "Mitterand told us 
he was going to tax the rich," she complained. "Now he 
tells us that we are the rich!" It's called the 
"slippery slope," madame. If you set fire to your 
neighbor's house, the flames may spread to your own home. 
And once you support violations of your neighbor's 
rights, your own rights may become the next target.

*          *          *

     Odd that those who see a "slippery slope" in 
censorship ("If we ban pornography, we may wind up 
banning ULYSSES!") rarely foresee any danger in giving 
the state the power to take our income. Considering the 
way the average taxpayer is now looted at rates 
originally aimed at "the rich," the wonder is that the 
Sixteenth Amendment hasn't gone the way of the 
Eighteenth. Of course Prohibition was repealed in large 
part so that the states could tax liquor along with 
everything else; the Twenty-First Amendment was by no 
means an unambiguous victory for liberty.

*          *          *

     Allow me to remind you that the first priority 
of the Constitution Party would be the abolition of the 
personal income tax. The Phillips-Sobran administration 
won't settle for "supply-side" half-measures, which have 
only enabled the federal government to increase its 
revenues and more than double its spending since 1982. 
The feds could finance their legitimate constitutional 
powers with a small fraction of their current booty.

*          *          *

     The first federal budget was about $4 million; 
in the 1830s, it reached $35 million (and ran 
surpluses!). It didn't reach $1 billion until World War 
I; today, in peacetime, it approaches $2 *trillion,* 
with a debt more than double that amount. A child born 
this morning will pay $100,000 in taxes (i.e., one-
fortieth of the first budget for the entire country!) 
just on the interest on the federal debt, even if every 
federal budget is balanced from now on. In what sense is 
a child who comes into the world owing $100,000 born 

*          *          *

     Hillary Clinton continues to flounder in New 
York. She has announced her *intention* to run for the 
U.S. Senate, but she hasn't yet announced that she is 
*actually* running, thus leaving herself a Clintonian 
loophole if she drops out. In the meantime she's 
campaigning on the weariest sort of liberal boilerplate, 
attacking her likely opponent, New York City's Mayor Rudy 
Giuliani, for ordering the arrests of "homeless people" 
after a street thug put a young woman in a coma with a 
brick to the skull. Said Hillary: "Our political leaders 
must be judged on how they treat everyone, including the 
least fortunate." In Hillary's compassionate reckoning, 
the homeless, not the girl with the smashed skull, are 
"the least fortunate."

*          *          *

     Hillary also noted that Christmas celebrated 
"the birth of a homeless child." Wrong again. Joseph and 
Mary had a home in Nazareth, but had to go to Bethlehem 
(where the rooms were all taken) at the order of Caesar 
Augustus, who was taxing the entire Roman Empire. Hillary 
and her hubby have more in common with Augustus than with 
the Holy Family, but at least she has the guts to refer 
to the New Testament in New York.

*          *          *

     A Jewish columnist in the DETROIT NEWS 
complains that at Hillsdale College, most students are 
"white and Christian." It's okay for Jews to say a little 
college is disproportionately Christian; but it would be 
anti-Semitic for a Christian to suggest that the media, 
Hollywood, the law schools, and the medical profession 
are disproportionately Jewish.

*          *          *

     I'm so weary of hearing Jesse Jackson referred 
to as a "civil rights leader." He is in fact a racial 
partisan (not that there's anything wrong with racial 
partisans -- unless, of course, they are white) who wants 
to abridge white people's freedoms, chiefly the freedom 
of association. The more he succeeds, the fewer civil 
rights we actually retain.

*          *          *

     In abnormal times, normal things have to be 
given invidious new names. We now have a special term for 
the shrinking breed of normal human beings: "Clinton-

*          *          *


     Maryland's indictment of Linda Tripp for illegally 
taping her girl-chats with Monica Lewinsky shows the need 
for a new federal program: a witness protection plan for 
those who supply evidence of Bill Clinton's crimes.

*          *          *

     Speaking of which, Al Gore was asked in New 
Hampshire whether he believed Clinton had raped Juanita 
Broaddrick. Any previous vice president (supposing the 
question could have arisen about any previous president) 
would have bellowed an indignant denial. Gore, however, 
stammered a long, noncommittal answer and spoke of 
"mistakes [Clinton] made in his personal life." Get that: 
if your state's attorney general rapes a woman, he's just 
making a mistake in his personal life. 

Created Equal
(pages 3-6)

The United States was founded in the republican 
conviction that heredity shouldn't be destiny. This 
doctrine has many ramifications, not all of them strictly 
logical or mutually consistent. The Declaration of 
Independence declares that all men are created equal; the 
Constitution forbids titles of nobility; it eventually 
outlawed chattel slavery; "civil rights" has come to mean 
that even private employers must not hire according to 
ethnic criteria; racial prejudice, "racism," has become a 
social taboo; and even generalizations about ethnic 
groups are frowned on (unless they flatter the 
"contributions" of this or that group). The only trait 
it's now safe to ascribe to whole races is victimhood.

     And yet common sense tells us that groups and 
nations do have distinct characters, with characteristic 
vices as well as virtues. When we aren't on our guard 
against the thought police, we may discuss such things 
freely. American individualism is balanced by the earthy 
sociology of stereotypes, which, as the great sociologist 
John Murray Cuddihy assures us, "are more or less 
accurate." Obviously what is true of the group may not 
apply to this or that member, but the group still has its 
own habits and ways, maybe even its own culture (or 
"subculture," to use a word my generation learned in 
college). The individual may show the group's traits for 
the same reason he speaks in the accents of his native 
place: from early childhood he imitates those around him, 
often without even realizing it.

     How does a group get a reputation that lasts 
over centuries? Is any such reputation a "prejudice"? A 
"prejudice" need not be a prejudgment; it may be the 
settled conclusion of long experience. In Europe Jews and 
gypsies were unpopular for centuries. Many Jews blame 
this fact, which they call "anti-Semitism," on 
Christianity, which they consider superstition, thereby 
denying any empirical foundation to the gentiles' 
distrust. The word "anti-Semitism" itself implies that 
all frictions between Jews and gentiles must be blamed on 
the gentiles. Hence the campaign to tar Pope Pius XII and 
the Catholic Church as "anti-Semitic."

     But the slang words "jew" and "gyp" tell 
another story: the bad reputations of both groups have 
less to do with religion than with practical experience 
and word-of-mouth tradition. Notice that the unpopularity 
of such groups has more to do with distrust than with 
simple hatred. The verbs "jew" and "gyp" imply sharp 
dealing and low ethics. The Middle East bears witness 
that the Jews may be unpopular even where most of the 
population is non-Christian. They haven't endeared 
themselves to Muslim Arabs; just as they were unpopular 
in the ancient pagan world. As a matter of fact, most of 
the world's Jews have chosen to live in Christian 
countries. Would they have done so if Christians were 
always hostile to Jews?

     Majority populations sometimes explode in 
violence against these minorities, but that has always 
been the exception. And of course our ethnic etiquette 
forbids us to ask the obvious question: Have the 
minorities ever done anything to exasperate the majority?

     A government can launch a hate campaign and 
excite the population to violence; this sort of top-down 
hatred has been a frequent feature of modern states. But 
most prejudices aren't created by official doctrines; 
they result from popular experience and the slow 
spreading of a group's reputation. The first gypsy I ever 
met -- on a street in Rome -- grabbed a wad of money out 
of my hand. I'd been too naive to be wary of her, though 
my companions had warned me against her.

     Hilaire Belloc's book THE JEWS, published in 
1922, should be required reading for anyone who wants to 
understand what used to be frankly called (even by Jews) 
"the Jewish problem." Belloc addressed the problem from 
the Christian point of view, but he did it in an even-
handed way, acknowledging that the vices of the Jews are 
often the obverse of their virtues. He wrote at a time 
when "Jewish Bolshevism," based in Russia, menaced 
Christendom. The Jewish Communists in every country 
seemed to embody, in extreme form, every bad trait 
ascribed to the Jews: hatred of the majority and its 
religion, duplicity, materialism, lust for power.

     The Jews' long survival is often called 
"miraculous." It would seem so -- literally. Judaism is 
based on divine revelation, and the highly tribal and 
patriarchal Mosaic law, so contrary to every precept of 
modern liberalism, has created a race of people who have 
refused assimilation to their surrounding populations 
over many centuries.

     Moreover, the Jews have preserved as their holy 
books (which Christians call the "Old Testament") 
writings which portray them in a very unfavorable light. 
They repeatedly stray from the Law and God has to keep 
rebuking the "stiff-necked people" and punishing them 
with terrible severity, even allowing their enemies to 
conquer them. In all this the Jews are in striking 
contrast to the ancient Romans, for example, who 
glorified themselves and developed a self-congratulatory 
mythology (as in Virgil's AENEID). Today the mighty 
Roman Empire is long gone; the Jews are still here, 
thanks in large part to their capacity for spiritual 
self-criticism. "Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth." The 
Jews, to their glory, took his chastenings to heart.

     Jews who adhere to their religion also believe 
that moral laws are as objective as physical laws. Their 
moral sense is stern, vigorous, and realistic, without 
the sentimental Christian tendency to turn morality into 
mush, with every sinner getting an infinite number of 
second chances. In that respect, early Christianity was 
much closer to Judaism than to modern watered-down 

     Of course most Jews no longer believe in 
Judaism; many are hostile to any religion, including 
their own. In substituting Zionism for Judaism they have 
adopted a self-exalting modern nationalism, rejecting all 
criticism as "anti-Semitism." The state of Israel 
practices every form of discrimination against non-Jews 
that secularized Jews reject when they are a minority 
anywhere else in the world. But this obvious fact is 
mentioned publicly at one's own risk. The idea of the 
Chosen People is separated both from the Mosaic Law and 
from any sense of a transcendent mission to the goyim -- 
"the nations." And Zionist jingoism, forever casting Jews 
as innocent victims, has taken its toll on the ancient 
Jewish capacity for rigorous self-criticism. Just as 
gentile criticism of Jews has become "anti-Semitism," 
Jewish self-criticism has become "self-hatred."

     Modern Jewry violently resented the 1975 United 
Nations declaration (later rescinded) that Zionism is "a 
form of racism and racial discrimination," but that is 
what Jews would rightly call any state based on similar 
laws consigning Jews to inferior status. Israeli laws on 
intermarriage and residence (92 per cent of the land of 
Israel is for Jewish residence only) recall Southern Jim 
Crow laws and Germany's Nuremberg laws. But only a few 
bold critics have pointed out this double standard. 
Actually, it goes beyond normal double standards: it's 
the application of standards that are directly 
*opposite* to those the modern, more or less "liberal" 
Jews insist on elsewhere.

     "Israel's right to exist" really means the 
right of Jews to dominate non-Jews. That is the 
foundation -- the virtual constitution -- of the Jewish 
state, and Jewish courts have ruled that non-Jews may not 
claim the same rights as Jews. Under the "right of 
return," any Jew in the world may "return" to Israel 
(even if none of his ancestors ever lived there) and 
immediately claim rights denied to Palestinians whose 
ancestors have lived there for untold centuries.

     Such facts, along with Israel's heavy 
dependence on American aid, confirm the very stereotypes 
Jews constantly protest: of Jews as duplicitous 
"parasites" who recognize no moral obligations of Jews 
toward gentiles. So do Israeli espionage and technology 
theft against this country. The convicted spy Jonathan 
Pollard is widely celebrated as a national hero in 
Israel. And yet we are told, not only by Jews but by our 
own native prostitute politicians, that Israel is our 
"reliable ally" as well as a model of "democracy."

     Before Zionism seemed to have any prospect of 
success, many Jews thought Communism was "good for the 
Jews." Of course they also insisted that Communism was 
good for "the proletariat." Russia under the tsars didn't 
have much of a proletariat, but when it became the Soviet 
Union it was transformed into "the workers' paradise." 
Until the heroic Alexander Solzhenitsyn published his 
great trilogy, THE GULAG ARCHIPELAGO, in the 1970s 
(excerpts of which, be it noted, were carried in the NEW 
YORK TIMES under its Zionist editor Abe Rosenthal), the 
heavily-Jewish U.S. liberal media still maintained that 
the Russian people were far better off under Communism 
than under the despotic tsars.

     In Germany, especially after Jewish-led 
Communist insurrections there and in Hungary and Romania, 
Hitler could argue plausibly that Soviet Communism showed 
what the Jews meant to do to other countries. Traditional 
suspicion was easily raised to a hysteria that found 
persecution not only permissible, but prudent. In 
America, Father Charles Coughlin, the radio priest, 
warned of Jewish Bolshevism too, cataloguing the real 
Jewish names of the Soviet ruling circles and accusing 
the Soviet regime of murdering 20 million Christians (a 
figure that later turned out to be far too low, according 
to Solzhenitsyn and others). Nevertheless, Stalin enjoyed 
widespread support from Jews around the world, even after 
his bloody purge of most Jewish members of the Soviet 

     Is there a "Jewish problem" in the United 
States today? In the media age, Jews prevail in the media 
-- in television news, punditry, major newspapers, and 
Hollywood entertainment. They also constitute a powerful 
lobby, devoted to a range of liberal causes: feminism, 
"civil rights," legal abortion, banning religion from 
public places -- whatever seems to irritate the Christian 
population. Many ethnic Jews (as well as many nominal but 
effectively apostate Christians) still carry what might 
be called the Bolshevik gene code.

     But Jews are so powerful in this country that 
any mention of the Jewish angle in liberalism is taboo, 
whereas the interests of "the Christian Right" are freely 
reported, often with scornful overtones. As I have reason 
to know, a journalist may endanger his career by 
discussing Jewish interests in any light except a highly 
favorable one. An especially vivid illustration is 
provided by the media's concerted hate campaign against 
Pat Buchanan. Jewish power is such that even Jews in the 
media are themselves afraid of it.

     To some extent this is merely the result of the 
Jews' success in a free society. They have enormous 
wealth and power, but they also have enormous talent and 
determination. They are "overachievers" from the cradle, 
and if there is one trait they surely have, it's the 
ability to focus on a long-term purpose. Despite an 
occasional Sandy Koufax, Jews are notoriously unathletic; 
but not necessarily because they lack physical ability. 
The chief reason is that they are serious. As the great 
Jewish polemicist Maurice Samuel explained, Jews have a 
general contempt for sports and games and don't waste 
their time on these gentile frivolities. Try to imagine a 
Jewish couch potato sitting in front of the television 
with a six-pack watching three football games in a row! 
It's hard to picture.

     But their seriousness also shows in their 
vindictiveness. People who don't hate the Jews are 
nevertheless afraid of them, afraid of crossing them. 
Believing the mythology of their own eternal victimhood, 
the Jews (by and large) feel that criticism of them means 
persecution, and they are quick to paint swastikas on 
their critics. Given their inordinate power in the media, 
this means that the general public hears very little 
criticism of them, even when they deserve it. It amounts 
to private censorship. Jewish power inhibits free speech 
even when the press is absolutely free from government 

     Of course the Jews are only exercising their 
rights as property owners when they bar their critics 
from their networks and newspapers, but the result is 
still a severe curtailment of full public discussion. The 
news media not only inform, but "disinform" the public by 
suppressing both facts themselves and comment on those 

     The general public has become accustomed to 
judging everything from a Jewish point of view. This is 
most striking -- to me, anyway -- in the constant harping 
on World War II, which has long since ceased revolving 
around Pearl Harbor and Japan and now centers obsessively 
on the "Holocaust" -- a word never used during the war 
itself. We are taught that it is good that the United 
States won, because Hitler was destroyed. In fact, the 
real victor was Stalin, who quickly took ten Christian 
countries under Communist rule; but since Communism 
enjoyed a good deal of Jewish support and most of its 
victims were Christians, its role in the war is barely 
acknowledged. Even Jewish anti-Communists (of whom there 
are now many) say next to nothing about the savage 
Communist persecution of Christians. In contrast to the 
endless hunt for old Nazis, there has been no campaign to 
find and punish aging Communist criminals, or to exact 
reparations for the cruelty and suffering they inflicted.

     Until recently, Jews passionately supported 
(and, to a large extent, controlled) the "civil rights 
movement," which was really a socialist campaign to 
extend the power of centralized government over private 
individuals and institutions. The unadmitted premise of 
the movement, ironically enough, was white supremacy and 
black inferiority. It was assumed that black children 
couldn't get a proper education in segregated schools; 
only if they sat in classrooms with whites could they 
become achievers. But public schools, once integrated, 
didn't remain integrated long; whites fled as soon as 
they could.

     Again, the alleged reason was "prejudice" -- or 
what Bill Clinton would homiletically call "fear of those 
who are different," as in "the color of their skin." But 
whites weren't afraid of skin pigment; they were afraid 
of violence. They went to great lengths and great expense 
to escape it. Even liberals notoriously put their 
children in safe, i.e., mostly white, schools. If sheer, 
irrational racial prejudice motivated "white flight" from 
black-dominated cities, it should also have made whites 
equally fearful of Orientals and other nonwhites.

     There is an obvious difference between 
defensive and aggressive prejudices -- a distinction 
liberalism doesn't acknowledge. When one group sees 
another group as threatening and is actually willing to 
pay a high price to avoid close contact with it, the 
prejudice would seem to have at least some foundation. 
The liberal response to this market judgment is to outlaw 
the market, making contact compulsory, without asking why 
such a policy is necessary. When such policies fail, 
liberals conclude that even more drastic policies must be 

     Even today, black "leaders" like Jesse Jackson 
appear to be white supremacists. Jackson admits that 
blacks pose a certain crime problem; he once confessed 
that when he hears footsteps behind him on a dark street, 
he is relieved if he turns and sees a white man. The huge 
disparity between interracial crime committed by blacks 
and that committed by whites -- the ratio is about 50 to 
1 -- causes no comment; a violent crime committed by a 
white against a black makes national headlines.

     The forbidden prejudice against blacks makes 
its appearance indirectly, in the low expectations 
everyone has of blacks (contrast the high expectations of 
Jews). Jackson and others, in making demands on whites, 
always imply that blacks are incapable of achievement on 
their own, outside the areas of sports, entertainment, 
and the performing arts; they can't even envision blacks 
as creators, inventors, innovators. They can see them 
only as recipients of white largess, cogs in the white 
man's economic machinery. Though they complain about the 
injustice of casting the black man in menial roles in the 
white man's world, they seem unable to conceive him as a 
builder of civilizations.

     Jackson and his ilk may not realize it, but 
they constantly reinforce the idea that blacks aren't 
even capable of moral responsibility. By blaming the 
white man for everything, they teach that only the white 
man is morally autonomous, and that blacks can be only 
what the white man chooses to make them. The white man 
becomes the Superman -- the black man's excuse for 
failure. Whatever Jackson's words say, this is what his 
actions mean. Nor do many others seem to disagree. As 
Bernard Shaw remarked, a man's deepest beliefs are to be 
inferred not from the creed he professes, but from the 
assumptions on which he habitually acts.

     Outside of sports -- where the black man is as 
secure in his domain as the Jew in his -- most of the 
blacks who are celebrated for their "achievements" are 
political. That is what black "leaders" do: they fight to 
enlarge the power of the state, narrowing the white man's 
freedom and taking his money for racial purposes. The 
state is of course a coercive and parasitic institution, 
creating and producing nothing, dispensing to some only 
what it takes from others -- "organized plunder," as 
Bastiat called it. Success in politics is nothing to be 
proud of.

     Demands for "reparations" for blacks, for the 
"lingering effects" of slavery, overlook the fact that 
slavery is the one institution this country ever imported 
from Africa. Moreover, when slavery came here it was far 
more humane than the African kind: American slaves 
weren't mutilated or castrated as in the African 
"homeland." Since black leaders sentimentalize Africa 
(they now want to be called "African-Americans"), no 
reparations are demanded of the descendants of African 
slave merchants, while American whites are assigned total 
responsibility for the problems of today's blacks.

     Nobody should be surprised if disreputable 
"stereotypes" continue to persist, since they often have 
the unintended but implicit sanction of the very people 
who deplore them. But a stereotype of any group is by its 
nature based on an external and usually unsympathetic 
view of that group. Despite liberal denials, the 
stereotype has some empirical validity; but it overlooks 
the internal life of the group -- the variety, divisions, 
and arguments that make it impossible for the group to be 
monolithic. Every group bound by a set of traditions is 
also riven by bitterly conflicting interpretations of its 
traditions. Its members, keenly conscious of this, may 
justifiably feel that its critics don't really understand 
the complications that underlie the behavior that 
outsiders find objectionable.

     By the same token, minorities have their own 
prejudices and stereotypes, also with some basis in 
experience of majority behavior. The success of so many 
black and Jewish comedians is largely due to their 
perspective as members of outnumbered and culturally 
overwhelmed races who have kept their ability to see the 
absurdities of which members of the majority are 
unconscious. It's a happy comment on human nature that 
the majority itself often finds such caricatures of 
itself hilarious.

     Of course stereotypes can also be favorable, 
respectful, and even affectionate. Jews are universally 
respected for their intelligence, and Jewish celebrities 
are often loved precisely for the qualities that make 
them seem "Jewish." Blacks in movies were often portrayed 
as earthy, warm, dignified, and wise, at least until 
fashion decided that benevolence toward whites was Uncle 
Tommish, with "black pride" prescribing an attitude of 
rancor and menace. Most whites still see Orientals as 
polite and industrious. The Irish and Italians, formerly 
typed as drunks and mafiosi, are now the subjects of 
benign stereotypes. Yet in their day, the old stereotypes 
probably had their measure of truth and utility.

     According to Bill Clinton's mantra, "Diversity 
is our greatest strength." Though Clinton has made a 
career of pandering to minorities (including sexual 
deviants), it is still true that we should delight in 
human variety. But there are limits; society also needs 
unity and an orthodoxy more solid than liberal bromides.

Boxed Copy

HONEST AL: Recognizing my limitations, I usually 
refrain from attempting art criticism; but when some 
innocent billionaire shells out $49.5 million for a 
Picasso, it's time for common sense to roll up its 
sleeves and assert itself. To say that Picasso remains 
one of the greatest frauds of the century (especially now 
that Freud is fading) is not so much art criticism as 
sartorial criticism of the emperor. A far superior 
artist, to name only one, is the peerless caricaturist 
Al Hirschfeld of the NEW YORK TIMES, better than ever 
in his nineties, who can capture a face with the simplest 
and strongest of lines. In fact, he can make you feel you 
recognize a face even if you've never seen it before. 
That's genius. How ironic that Hirschfeld should be 
featured in the Picasso-worshipping TIMES! (page 9)

WELL? A year ago the Democrats admitted that Clinton had 
committed crimes but denied that these "rose to the level 
of impeachable offenses." They also denied that they were 
putting him above the law; after he left office, they 
pointed out, he could -- and should! -- answer for his 
deeds in a criminal court. Anyone want to bet he'll be 
tried? (page 10)

MISSING PERSONS: The anti-Communist but Zionist 
columnist Charles Krauthammer praises "heroic dissidents 
like Natan Sharansky and Vaclev Havel and Lech Walesa" 
for their brave protests against Communism. He's right, 
but note that he begins his list with Sharansky, now a 
right-wing Zionist in Israel, and somehow omits the 
greatest of Christian dissidents: Alexander Solzhenitsyn, 
whose trilogy, THE GULAG ARCHIPELAGO, written at great 
personal risk, was the literary earthquake of the 
century. Was this omission accidental? Or does 
Krauthammer resent the fact that the Russian Christian -- 
who estimated that the Soviets had murdered 50 million 
people -- knocked the Holocaust off the front page of 
history? (page 11)

Reprinted columns (pages 7-12)

* Score One for Jesse (October 28, 1999)
* In Defense of Microsoft (November 9, 1999)
* Tragedy in Paradise (November 11, 1999)
* Hillsdale: The Moral (November 16, 1999)
* The "General Welfare" (November 23, 1999)
* Giving Away the Game (November 25, 1999)

All articles are written by Joe Sobran

This publication is for private use only.
Copyright (c) 2000 by The Vere Company. All rights 
Distributed with permission by the Griffin Internet