Sobran's --
The Real News of the Month
February 2000
Volume 7, No. 2
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 MOVING PICTURE
(pages 1-2)
President Clinton told reporters he'd spent the holidays
helping Hillary pack her belongings for the move to their (or
should we say her?) new house in Chappaqua, New York. In a
statement that seemed designed to repair his tarnished
credibility, he added: "I've enjoyed it very much." Nobody
doubted it.
* * *
Trying to squelch speculation that the marriage is on the
rocks, Clinton stayed with Hillary on her first night in their
(her?) new house and announced he will claim New York
residency so he can vote for her. In a related story, lawyer
Raoul Felder says the residents of Chappaqua should be alerted
that there is a sexual predator in the neighborhood.
* * *
Monica Lewinsky, meanwhile, is keeping a high profile,
advertising Jenny Craig diet products. This in keeping with
her statement a few months ago that she doesn't want to be
remembered just for you-know-what; to which a wag replied,
"She'd better start working on a cure for cancer." To which I
would only add that if she did find the cure, her entry in the
encyclopedia would probably end with the sentence "She also
found the cure for cancer."
* * *
In order to avert an NAACP boycott, NBC News has agreed
to do a lot more minority hiring. Since those hired will owe
their jobs to racial preferences, it's a cinch they won't be
critics of "affirmative action." Nor will their white
colleagues. So the net result of racial "diversity" will be
intensified ideological uniformity.
* * *
Major League Baseball commissioner Bud Selig has ruled
that Atlanta Braves pitcher John Rocker must undergo
psychological testing for his recent disparaging remarks about
New York City. Among other things, Rocker said: "Imagine
having to take the 7 train to the ballpark, looking like
you're [in] Beirut next to some kid with purple hair next to
some queer with AIDS right next to some dude who just got out
of jail for the fourth time right next to some 20-year-old mom
with four kids. It's depressing." Rude, yes. And Rocker
apologized. It should have ended there, but the Diversity
Gestapo is demanding his head for his thought-crimes, and
Selig, taking a leaf from Soviet psychiatry, is treating them
as symptoms of mental illness. Rocker wouldn't be in trouble
if only he'd spewed a few normal jock obscenities. As things
now stand, he may be on his way to Siberia. Under baseball's
Schott-Turner rule, only Christians may be insulted with
impunity.
* * *
Meanwhile, Al Gore has announced that if elected
president, he will make favoring homosexuals in the military a
"litmus test" for his appointees to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Nobody is demanding that Gore be subjected to psychological
examination.
* * *
A Maryland judge, Durke Thompson, has given a 24-year-old
man a sentence of 18 months for the statutory rape of an 11-
year-old girl whose mother found him hiding in the girl's
closet at 2:30 AM with his trousers around his ankles.
Thompson explained the light sentence with the adage that "it
takes two to tango." Yes, some of these pre-teens are just
begging for it. However, nobody is demanding that Thompson be
required to undergo psychological examination. Liberalism is
not yet recognized as a form of mental illness.
* * *
Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, seeking the Republican
presidential nomination, knows what ails the GOP: "I think we
need new blood. I think we need new ideas.... Let me tell you
why. The next president has got to save Social Security and
Medicare." No wonder the Republican debates are so thrilling.
* * *
Did someone say "new ideas"? Okay. If elected vice
president, I pledge to seek a constitutional amendment making
it a federal crime to desecrate the Confederate flag.
* * *
"Those who leave the tradition of truth," wrote G.K.
Chesterton, "do not escape into something we call Freedom.
They only escape into something else, which we call Fashion."
And from the diabolical point of view, C.S. Lewis's devil
Screwtape agrees: "The use of Fashion in thought is to
distract the attention of men from their real dangers.... The
game is to have them all running around with fire
extinguishers when there is a flood, and all crowding to that
side of the boat which is already nearly gunwale under....
Cruel ages are put on their guard against Sentimentality."
And, Lewis added elsewhere, licentious ages are put on their
guard against Prudery and Puritanism.
THE FRIENDS OF UNCLE JOE
(pages 2-6)
[Breaker quote: Three "Persons of the Century" have one thing
on common.]
[Breaker quote: Stalin had revealed his true colors long
before the "Iron Curtain" fell.]
[Breaker quote: The Nuremberg "trials" were themselves
criminal.]
[Breaker quote: Stalin and Churchill: cynical Manichaeans]
The year 2000 has brought a predictable flood of
retrospection, with several equally predictable nominees for
Man (or rather "Person") of the Century. These include Albert
Einstein (chosen by TIME), Winston Churchill (the choice of
THE WEEKLY STANDARD), and Franklin D. Roosevelt (the choice of
several, including Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in the NEW YORK
DAILY NEWS).
The gushing encomia deal very lightly, as one might also
have predicted, with one fact common to all three: their
fondness for Joseph Stalin, perhaps the Mass Murderer of the
Millennium. TIME fails to mention that the saintly Professor
Einstein, a man of "humane and democratic instincts," was a
relentless fellow-traveler who defended even Stalin's macabre
1938 Moscow show trials; the anti-Communist philosopher Sidney
Hook recalled in his autobiography, OUT OF STEP, that getting
Einstein to criticize the Soviet Union was like pulling teeth.
Roosevelt's eulogists likewise avoid the subject of
Stalin, for whom FDR had the highest regard, calling him "a
Christian gentleman" during the Yalta conference. He had
befriended Stalin from the first year of his administration,
when he extended diplomatic recognition to the murderous
pariah state. Time and again he chose to help "Uncle Joe" when
he didn't have to, appeasing him from a position of strength.
Even Neville Chamberlain never idealized Hitler as "Uncle
Adolf." When FDR asked Pope Pius XII to condemn Hitler, Pius
sent back word that if he did so he would also have to condemn
Stalin; Roosevelt withdrew the request.
As for Churchill, we are assured that he had no illusions
about Stalin, which only makes his wartime indulgence of the
tyrant harder to excuse. His 1946 complaint (in a famous
speech in Fulton, Missouri) about the "Iron Curtain" falling
on Eastern Europe after World War II is treated as prophetic,
when it was just the opposite: a totally hypocritical gesture.
Anyone who didn't know what to expect of Stalin by 1946 -- or
who could believe his guarantees at Yalta in 1945 -- was a
moron. And Churchill was no moron, only a cynic feigning alarm
at the obvious.
Stalin had shown his true colors long before Roosevelt
and Churchill took on as their ally the brave, bluff "Uncle
Joe." Had they never heard of the forced famine of Ukraine,
the NKVD mass arrests, the Gulag camps, the purges and show
trials, the murder of Trotsky, the invasions of Poland (with
the Katyn Forest massacre of 15,000 Polish officers), Finland,
Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania? All these things, and more,
revealed not only the brutality of Stalin but the logic of
Communism itself, which had begun its reign in Russia with the
mass murder of Orthodox priests under Lenin. Communism was in
essence a reversion to the principles of primitive warfare,
directed not only against external enemies but against its own
subjects if they resisted (or were even suspected of a
disposition to resist) its tyranny.
The alliance with the Soviet Union is a permanent
bloodstain on the Western democracies. It was part of what
F.J.P. Veale, a British jurist, called the Allies' "advance to
barbarism" in his mercilessly trenchant book of that title.
Long out of print, ADVANCE TO BARBARISM is now available only
from the Institute for Historical Review in Torrance,
California. The book is both essential to read and difficult
to obtain. It's remarkable for the iron logic with which Veale
seizes on the damning casual admissions, and even the
occasional twinges of conscience, of the victors of World War
II. (He finds such twinges far more often in Churchill than in
Roosevelt.)
The exaltation of the three Stalin-lovers as the heroes
of the century, and saviors of civilization, is almost
incomprehensible. It's as if we were asked to believe that
three of the greatest men of the Middle Ages -- say, Innocent
III, Dante, and St. Francis of Assisi -- had been friends and
admirers of Genghis Khan.
The truth is that the Allied cause was as unholy as
Hitler's. Veale ranks the Allies' policies of terror-bombing
and "war-crimes" trials with Hitler's genocide as the
distinguishing features of the "retrograde movement of
civilization" that culminated in World War II. The readiness
with which Churchill and Roosevelt embraced Stalin as an ally
after Hitler attacked Russia in 1941 was only one signal of
the new morality of warfare they were prepared to adopt; they
so far forgave Stalin's part in the rape of Poland that began
the war in 1939 as to entrust him, at the war's end in 1945,
with control of Poland.
War has always been terrible, of course, and mass
extermination was a regular occurrence until the development
of what may be called, without irony, the rules of "civilized
warfare" late in the seventeenth century. At that time
Europe's rulers, exhausted by bloody combat, came to agree on
certain conventions: combat should be confined to soldiers in
uniform; civilians and their property should be left alone;
prisoners should be treated humanely; and defeated powers
should be spared total devastation and indignity. These rules
held until (and to some extent even after) World War I,
replacing the logic of annihilation that governed primitive or
"primary warfare" -- the unrestricted slaughter common between
warring societies with no civilized principles in common.
For more than two centuries after the age of Louis XIV,
European civilians were so unmolested that they often barely
realized that their rulers were at war, and ordinary travel
and commerce between countries usually continued during
hostilities. The courtliness between rulers and officers of
opposing armies, like the jovial fraternization between common
soldiers as soon as peace was restored, is often hard to
believe now. A sort of golden rule prevailed; each victor
realized that he might be tomorrow's loser, so everyone tried
to avoid leaving a legacy of bitterness by treating the
vanquished reasonably and often generously. Peace treaties
politely avoided any tone of blame or recrimination.
There were exceptions, of course. Napoleon's mass armies
changed the character of war for a while; Lincoln's policy of
waging war on civilian areas shocked European observers.
Lincoln justified this on grounds that he was dealing not with
a traditional war, but with a rebellion, in which the entire
enemy population might be treated as criminals and traitors.
The idealizers of Lincoln have blamed his policy on the
generals who merely carried it out, especially Sherman and
Sheridan. Of course even Lincoln was unable to apply this view
consistently; to do so would have meant executing nearly every
Southerner, soldier or civilian. But Lee's gallantry was more
typical of the code of the professional man of arms. Veale
notes that the South was more imbued with European culture,
including military culture, than the North.
According to Veale, World War I was not truly a world
war, but only the last and worst of Europe's civil wars. There
were serious lapses from the code of civilized warfare: the
British naval blockade of Europe caused mass starvation, for
example, and Allied propaganda diabolized the Kaiser and the
"Huns" with wild atrocity stories of bayoneted babies. But in
the end, as usual, the parties convened after the war to make
a settlement among themselves, although, for the first time, a
non-European power had a say: the United States, led by the
blundering Woodrow Wilson.
But in contrast to earlier peace settlements, Germany was
unfairly blamed and cruelly looted, leaving Germans poor and
starving. The bitter fruit of German "war guilt" set the stage
for a far worse war, which would result in a settlement
dictated, for the first time in European history, by non-
European powers: the United States and the Soviet Union.
Shortly after World War I British military planners,
contemplating war with France at the time, began to savor the
possibilities of aerial warfare against civilian targets. By
1936, well before World War II, the British started preparing
for an aerial war -- a total break with the principles of
civilized warfare. When the war came, they soon put this new
idea into effect, catching the Germans unprepared. Such
British military authorities as J.M. Spaight and Arthur
"Bomber" Harris, looking back triumphantly at the success of
terror-bombing, later wrote books gloating that the Germans
had been caught flat-footed! Instead of adapting to the new
technology of war, the Germans had continued to regard aerial
bombing as mere tactical support for ground troops and the
bomber as a form of airborne combat artillery; and because
they didn't perceive the possibility of "strategic" bombing
against the population and resources of an enemy country, the
Luftwaffe had no heavy bombers with which to match the
destructive fury of the Royal Air Force even for the purpose
of retaliating against RAF strikes on German cities. Yet the
boasts of men like Spaight and Harris didn't affect the
popular view (and official story) that the Germans had
originated the atrocity of bombing cities.
Official American propaganda likewise used the Japanese
bombing of Chinese cities as a justification for fighting
Japan, until the United States itself adopted the policy of
bombing Japanese and German cities. Since this policy was
accepted as legitimate when employed against diabolical
enemies, it's now difficult for most people to recall the
nauseous horror that bombing cities used to inspire. As Veale
says, we have all become inured not only to atrocities in a
holy cause but to the sort of "doublethink" that reasons: "We
must be willing to slaughter innocent people in order to
defeat our monstrous enemies, who slaughter innocent people."
The test came when, in 1940, Churchill's War Cabinet (in
what Spaight would later praise as a "splendid decision")
secretly adopted the policy of striking industrial areas of
Germany outside the combat zone, vastly broadening the
definition of "military objectives" and ensuring many civilian
casualties. Two years later this policy was expanded under the
Lindemann Plan to deliberately targeting the most thickly
populated areas of industrial cities -- working-class
neighborhoods near factories, where workers and their families
lived in crowded tenements. Attacks on civilians were actually
given priority over attacks on factories. Men, women, and
children alike became "military objectives"; undefended cities
like Hamburg and Dresden became furnaces in which people flung
themselves into rivers to escape the terrific heat; old
houses, churches, and other buildings that had survived from
the Middle Ages were reduced to rubble by the latest methods,
and oldest principles, of warfare. Even the confines of zoos
were destroyed, and frantic wild animals roamed the streets.
Burial of all the dead being impossible, funeral pyres
disposed of bodies for weeks after the air raids.
Meanwhile, Churchill and his cronies lied to Parliament,
denying that they were practicing "indiscriminate bombing." In
one sense the denials were true. The bombing was anything but
indiscriminate, since killing and terrorizing civilians was
not a side effect of error or carelessness but the fully
conscious purpose of the Lindemann Plan. The full truth
emerged only long after the war, in the early 1960s. But by
then it all seemed ancient history to most people, few cared
much about the truth, and the war's mythology was too firmly
established to be shaken. Veale had already gathered the
essence of the story before all the details were released, but
even now his work is little known and the official wartime
story is still vaguely accepted as essentially true.
At the time it was happening, the British public thought
German charges of deliberate bombing of civilians were the
products of Joseph Goebbels's propaganda machine. And when the
Germans retaliated with the infamous Blitz against British
cities, as Churchill foresaw, the Englishman in the street was
outraged at Germany's hideous violation of civilized rules of
warfare, never dreaming that his own government had purposely
provoked it.
Hitler himself, according to his biographer John Toland,
was so shocked by the British bombing of cities that he at
first excused it as a mistake, due to the inexperience of
British bomber pilots. He couldn't believe the British were
capable of such savagery. It was three months before the
Germans responded in kind. Even so, as Spaight later admitted:
"Hitler assuredly did not want the mutual bombing to go on."
Franklin Roosevelt and the Americans were quite willing
to join in the new spirit of total war. Roosevelt, an acolyte
of Wilson, had always yearned for war with Germany and the
chance to build an American global empire; the American people
had been roused to fury and race-hatred by the Japanese attack
on Pearl Harbor, likewise never suspecting that it had been in
any way provoked. "Sneaky Japs" seemed a sufficient
explanation and no punishment seemed excessive.
A new book, DAY OF DECEIT, by Robert B. Stinnett, argues
that Roosevelt actually knew the attack was coming -- but
excuses him anyway! After all, "the Pearl Harbor attack was,
from the White House perspective, something that had to be
endured in order to stop a greater evil -- the Nazi invaders
in Europe who had begun the Holocaust and were poised to
invade England." These words show how thoroughly the
democracies still accept the notion that the end -- stopping
Hitler (the "sneaky Japs" have receded from the picture) --
justified any and every means, including massive deception of
the American public. As of 1941, of course, Hitler had not yet
"begun the Holocaust"; besides, his persecution of Jews played
no part in Roosevelt's callous calculations.
Goaded by Einstein and others, Roosevelt also launched
the quest for the ultimate bomb, one that would incinerate
whole cities in a flash. This final nail in the coffin of
civilized warfare was originally intended for German cities;
one wonders whether Americans might feel somewhat more rueful
about it today if it had been dropped on Berlin and Munich
rather than Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The use of this bomb --
more truly Roosevelt's bomb than Harry Truman's -- stands as
the most inhuman act of the whole war, a fact that Allied
harping on Nazi "war crimes" has successfully diverted most
people from realizing.
No American president has used power as ruthlessly as
Roosevelt. His liberal admirers are somewhat embarrassed by
his order to round up U.S. citizens of Japanese extraction --
a brazen violation of their constitutional rights -- but it
was of a piece with his constant use of federal agencies to
punish, smear, or disable anyone he deemed an enemy. The
notion that FDR was somehow on the side of civil liberties is
hard to fathom. His critics correctly sized him up as a
dictator at heart. His affinity with Stalin was genuine. Both
were exemplars of the total state and total war.
In another breach of the rules of civilized warfare,
Roosevelt and Churchill insisted on unconditional surrender by
the Axis powers, thereby prolonging the war and immensely
intensifying its bitterness. They made it clear that there
would be no mercy for the losers.
As the war drew to a close, Veale notes, Roosevelt and
Churchill were eager to placate Stalin, who at the 1943 Tehran
conference had urged that 50,000 German officials be
dispatched à la Katyn Forest. This was a little more than the
democratic leaders figured their people could stomach, so they
proposed an alternative Stalinist method: postwar sham trials,
observing the superficial forms of judicial process. Stalin,
sighing at this bourgeois sentimentalism, for once yielded. In
fact he eventually staged thousands of war-crimes "trials" of
his own, in which there were, of course, no acquittals to
speak of.
When the trials began at Nuremberg, there were a few
irregularities. The accusers (including Soviet "judges" with
long experience in Stalinist jurisprudence) doubled as jurors;
the court was never impartial; the accused were judged guilty
before the proceedings began. The rules of evidence sharply
limited the defense; the defendants were not permitted to
argue that the Allies had committed the same acts they were
being accused of.
Even at that, the Germans were never tried for bombing
civilian areas, because the Allies didn't want to risk calling
attention to the fact that they themselves had initiated this
particular "crime against humanity." The novel charge of
"waging a war of aggression" was never defined, because no
definition could be found that would cover the German invasion
of Poland without also covering Soviet invasions of Poland and
several other countries to boot.
Such treatment of prisoners of war was also a novel
departure from the old rules, which the Allies justified by
arbitrarily declaring the captured German military officers to
be civilians. This made them eligible to be tried as criminals
under the inchoate new rules. The purpose of the trials was
not to do justice or to determine guilt according to normal
standards of law (which forbid ex post facto trials), but to
give the Allies a propaganda victory on top of their military
triumph.
In essence, the Germans were convicted of losing the war.
The only real "war crime," as Veale points out, was being
defeated. The honorable German admiral Erich Raeder, for
example, was convicted for invading Norway, though he had
merely beaten the British to the punch on the eve of their own
planned invasion. The whole thing was a shameless break with
precedent, but it set its own precedents for the pursuit of
aging "war criminals" that still continues. When similar
trials were held in Tokyo two years later, an Indian jurist
who participated decried the proceedings: "The farce of a
trial of vanquished leaders by the victors was itself an
offense against humanity." No Western jurist had found the
courage to say as much at Nuremberg.
Under the circumstances, it's easy to understand why some
students of the war even doubt that Hitler's persecution of
Jews, revolting as it was, amounted to a "Holocaust" or
extermination program. It may have happened as the official
story has it, and Veale, who questions most of the Allied
claims, expresses no doubt of it; but if so, it's about the
only thing the Allies told the truth about. At any rate, the
story of the Holocaust is suspiciously convenient for those
who were willing to commit such horrors that only something
like an enormous program of mass murder could divert attention
from their own guilt. With all due respect for those who
really suffered at Hitler's hands, some skepticism is in
order. Whatever the truth, Hitler is not the only one who
deserves lasting infamy. So do several Persons of the Century.
Veale deals lightly with the postwar mass deportation of
large populations, including the "repatriation" of millions to
the Soviet Union (and certain death) during what was later
known as Operation Keelhaul. At the time when Veale wrote,
shortly after the war, little had been published about these
final Allied favors to Uncle Joe. Since then, James Bacque and
other historians have concluded that the Allies also starved
millions of Germans after the war, a policy that was
interrupted only by the breach between the democracies and the
Soviet Union; luckily for the surviving Germans, the Cold War
necessitated a new alliance with what was left of Germany.
Since the Cold War began, the democracies have repudiated
Stalin and Communism. But that does nothing to remove the
great bloodstain of World War II, still liberalism's holy war.
The democracies were Stalin's eager partners in atrocity and
mendacity, and they committed plenty of crimes of their own
that can't be blamed on Uncle Joe. And for what it's worth,
the Allied atrocities seem to have failed on their own terms.
Most analysts agree that they intensified the war without
really affecting the outcome. Veale argues that the diversion
of RAF bombers to Germany may even have changed the outcome of
the Battle of France in 1940, when one defeat might have
toppled Hitler and cut the war short. In the end the victors
succeeded chiefly in hardening their own consciences, while
giving Stalin the spoils.
Some sort of pragmatic defense of the war might have been
made on the frank grounds of power: Churchill and the British
wanted to oppose German power, which threatened their own
global empire (while speaking frankly of "the British Empire"
in private, for propaganda purposes Churchill called his cause
"democracy" in public); Roosevelt wanted also to stop the
Japanese, those insolent yellow dwarfs (as Veale caustically
puts it) who dared to challenge the white man's rule in the
Far East.
But Roosevelt and Churchill chose to wage the war as a
Manichaean crusade against evil, while cutting their cynical
deal with the devil in the Kremlin (not to mention the one in
hell). Their partnership with Uncle Joe, their resort to
aerial mass murder, and their participation in postwar
enormities destroyed any moral claim they made for the war.
Sooner or later the accepted view of this heroic epic is going
to have to be drastically revised, as Veale perceived
immediately after the war ended.
The Allied crimes have never been acknowledged, except as
wartime necessities justified by noble ends; and the Allied
criminals have never been brought to the dock. Instead, they
are still honored as heroes of the twentieth century. (Even
the memory of the odious "Bomber" Harris -- long ostracized
with distaste and moral embarrassment by the British
Establishment for his rather unseemly enthusiasm for killing
civilians -- was recently honored by the erection of a statue
in London.) And the entire American establishment still has a
stake in the mythology of World War II; its legitimacy rests
largely on its boast that it saved the world from Hitler. It
can afford neither to disown its alliance with Stalin nor to
face the implications of its having befriended him. It still
condemns the "isolationists" who knew exactly what Stalin was
a decade before Churchill acknowledged it at Fulton.
Boxed Copy
BUT OF COURSE: Amidst all the gooey nominations of Persons
of the Century, only my old friend and fellow columnist Paul
Craig Roberts got it right: Alexandr Solzhenitsyn. The great
Russian defied the Soviet regime with deep faith, iron
courage, and a transcendent spiritual vision that rebuked
Western liberalism as well as Soviet Communism. He was the
greatest man of the century because he was so insistently out
of step with it; and he changed the way modern men saw the
world they had made. (page 9)
SURPRISED BY JOY: Jane Fonda has reportedly converted to
Christianity. And she has done so quietly, without any
suggestion that she is honoring the Lord with a celebrity
endorsement. Her life is still tangled -- she has also
separated from her third husband, Ted Turner -- but she is at
least far from Hollywood and in good hands. (page 11)
IN THE MOVIES ... Casual sex never results in venereal
disease ... German soldiers always appear at least 35 years
old ... Nonwhites always have to explain fine points of
science and high technology to whites. (page 11)
Exclusives to the electronic version
GIVING CASTRO HIS DUE: If Elian Gonzalez is sent back to
Cuba, at least his father won't have to explain to him what
"oral sex" is.
OH, BY THE WAY: One fact has been nearly forgotten in the
Elian Gonzalez debate: that Fidel Castro is directly
responsible for the boy's mother's death by drowning during
her escape from Cuba. Like all Communist states, Cuba has made
it a capital offense to leave the country without special
permission; and after 41 years, unauthorized emigration
remains "treason" to Communism. Mrs. Gonzalez paid with her
life for exercising a basic right. Yet many Americans see
nothing amiss when Castro has the ghastly effrontery to claim
her son!
Reprinted Columns (pages 7-12)
* Pearl Harbor Revisited (December 7, 1999)
http//www.sobran.com/columns/991207.shtml
* A Century of Psychobabble (December 9, 1999)
http//www.sobran.com/columns/991209.shtml
* Authentic John (December 14, 1999)
http//www.sobran.com/columns/991214.shtml
* Clinton's "Mistake" (December 16, 1999)
http//www.sobran.com/columns/991216.shtml
* Rocker Rocks New York (December 23, 1999)
http//www.sobran.com/columns/991223.shtml
* The Other Einstein (December 28, 1999)
http//www.sobran.com/columns/991228.shtml
All articles are written by Joe Sobran
This publication is for private use only.
Copyright (c) 2000 by The Vere Company. All rights reserved.
Distributed with permission by the Griffin Internet Syndicate
(fran@griffnews.com).