Sobran's -- 
The Real News of the Month

November 2000
Volume 7, No. 11

Editor: Joe Sobran
Publisher: Fran Griffin (Griffin Communications)
Managing Editor: Ronald N. Neff
Subscription Rates.
   Print version: $59.95 per year; $100 for 2 years; 
   trial subscription available for $19.95 (5 issues).
   E-mail subscriptions: $59.95 for 1 year ($25 with a 
   12-month subscription to the print edition); $100 for 
   2  years ($45 with a 2-year subscription to the print 
   edition). Payment should be made to The Vere Company.
Address: Sobran's, P.O. Box 1383, Vienna, VA 22183-1383
Fax: 703-281-6617      Website:
Publisher's Office: 703-255-2211 or
Foreign Subscriptions (print version only): Add $1.25 per 
   issue for Canada and Mexico; all other foreign 
   countries, add $1.75 per issue.
Credit Card Orders: Call 1-800-493-3348. Allow 
   4-6 weeks for delivery of your first issue 


(pages 1-2)

     New York's Governor George Pataki, signing a hate 
crimes law, observed that if Germany had adopted such a 
law, the Holocaust might never have happened. I'm 
starting to understand how some people could think 
Prohibition would stop folks from drinking.

*          *          *

     One of the many mysteries of this year's 
presidential race is why George W. Bush never mentioned 
Al Gore's view that the internal combustion engine is the 
greatest threat to the survival of the planet. Gore's 
weirdly apocalyptic views on the environment are no 
secret: he published them in his book, EARTH IN THE 
BALANCE. But of course Republicans don't read, and the 
wish "O that mine enemy had written a book!" is lost on 

*          *          *

     On the other hand, Gore would probably have denied 
that he wrote the book. He lied just as shamelessly about 
everything else. Not even Bill Clinton has told so many 
whoppers that were certain to be exposed. It's the 
*childishness* of Gore's lies that stuns you and 
distinguishes him from Clinton. He's like a little kid 
who makes things up on the spot without stopping to think 
whether they can be checked out.

*          *          *

     Three good friends of mine -- Howard Phillips of the 
U.S. Constitution Party; the Libertarian, Harry Browne; 
and Pat Buchanan -- ran for president this year; as I 
write, it looks as if none of them will win the White 
House. The media, naturally, have given them very little 
coverage, and they were excluded from the televised 
debates. Too bad, because all of them, unlike Bush and 
Gore, had important messages, spoke in complete 
sentences, and felt no need of prevarication. I'm proud 
to know such honorable men, and I only wish more people 
had gotten to know them. But under our system, only the 
richest candidates qualify for free publicity.

*          *          *

     The only lesson I can draw from this year's election 
is that direct political activity is essentially a waste 
of time. In the end you can only hope that the lesser of 
two evils -- the two major parties -- will defeat the 
other and thereby stave off the worst possibilities for 
the moment. Only Christ can save this country. Secular 
institutions, by themselves, naturally fall into decay 
and, unless spiritually revivified, are soon beyond 
repair; it's too late to restore the U.S. Constitution, 
desirable though that might be. But if Christian 
influence increases in the general culture, one 
conversion at a time, some of the good effects will 
eventually seep into politics. That is the most we can 
really hope for: the gradual taming of power by religion.

*          *          *

     The latest riots in Israel remind one of Golda 
Meir's sanctimonious declaration: "We can forgive the 
Arabs for killing our children; we can never forgive them 
for forcing us to kill their children." In the same 
spirit (more or less), I can forgive Al Gore for making 
me hate him; I can never forgive him for making me like 
George W. Bush.

*          *          *

     Kathleen Schwicker (you'll remember her as Kathleen 
Willey) is suing Bill Clinton, his aides, and the FBI for 
violating her privacy by releasing her personal letters 
to him. Clinton hoped to refute her charge that he'd 
groped her in the Oval Office by showing the public that 
she had written warmly to him even after the alleged 
assault. But as Ann Coulter has observed, those letters, 
in which Mrs. Willey (as she then was) was angling for a 
government job, may have been a subtle, ostensibly 
friendly means of reminding Clinton that she had 
something on him, if she should ever care to go public 
with it. In any case, he and his underlings broke the law 
by releasing them.

*          *          *

     "Nothing appears more surprising to those who 
consider human affairs with a philosophical eye," wrote 
David Hume, "than the easiness with which the many are 
governed by the few." So true; and I've often wondered 
why. I suppose it's easiest when the rule of the Few is 
called "democracy."

*          *          *

     Speaking of the power of the Few over the Many, the 
Boy Scouts of America are rapidly becoming a certified 
Hate Group. A Manhattan school district has forbidden its 
schools to sponsor Scout troops to protest the Scouts' 
"discrimination" against homosexuals, following the lead 
of school districts in San Francisco and seven other 
cities. Meanwhile, the federal courts are figuring out 
pretexts for extending "civil rights" protection to 
homosexuals without all the bother of legislation. In San 
Francisco, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has 
delayed the deportation of a Mexican transvestite with a 
ruling that "gay men with feminine sexual identities" may 
qualify for political asylum here if they are persecuted 
in their native lands.

*          *          *

     And a Virginia man named Ronald Gay has shot seven 
gay people in a gay bar, killing one of them. It seems he 
was sick and tired of being teased about his name. He 
prefers to call homosexuals "faggots." I can't condone 
his action, but I wonder what I would have done if they 
were called "sobrans."

*          *          *

     Bureaucracies, like courts, can be a convenient 
means of circumventing democracy. The Food and Drug 
Administration has approved the marketing and sale of the 
abortion pill mifepristone, a/k/a RU-486. So the 
legitimation of abortion continues, without any avenue of 
popular appeal. We don't know who makes these decisions, 
and it seems futile to oppose them. A basic strategy of 
the tyranny of the Few is to make the operations of 
government incomprehensible to the Many.

*          *          *

     The New York race for the open U.S. Senate seat 
turned into a duel over who loves Israel most. Both 
Hillary Clinton and Rick Lazio campaigned on the 
assumption that the Empire State's voters cared more 
about Israel than this country's interests, and nobody in 
the media dared to point this out. You mustn't *say* 
that American Jews have "dual loyalties," but it's 
perfectly acceptable to take it for granted.

*          *          *

     Frank Sinatra's daughter Tina has revealed that her 
father did an "errand" for Joe Kennedy, asking Chicago 
mobster Sam Giancana to help Jack Kennedy's 1960 
campaign. Giancana later felt betrayed when Kennedy 
cracked down on organized crime; Sinatra had to soothe 
him and make amends. These poor naive Italians had to 
learn it the hard way: you deal with the Kennedys at your 
own risk.

*          *          *

     Several of our readers have asked how my grandson 
Joe's district all-star baseball team fared in the state 
championship tournament. Alas, they were eliminated, 
winning one game and losing two; one fatal run scored 
when the team's fine third baseman slipped on the wet 
grass in the final inning. Joe did well in several 
appearances as a pinch-runner, stealing bases and scoring 
runs without making any outs.

(pages 3-4)

     This month I write not knowing the outcome of the 
presidential election, though with dark forebodings of a 
Gore victory. I hope this is as wrong as my prophecies 
usually are; after all, I'm the guy who predicted that 
Clinton wouldn't even be renominated in 1996, to mention 
only one of my memorable forecasts. Rest assured, 
however, that I will ascertain the winner in time for our 
next issue, even if it means reading a newspaper. All I 
can say at this point is not that I hope Bush won, but 
that I hope Gore lost.

     What would (or did) a Gore victory mean? A Gore 
legacy. And that would chiefly mean, as it appears, 
several appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court. Court 
appointments are now among the richest spoils of 
presidential elections. Republicans don't fully 
appreciate this, but Democrats do. The High Court changes 
the ground rules of politics and therefore decides what 
politics can decide.

     In the mid 1930s the Court correctly struck down 
major features of the New Deal as unconstitutional. 
Franklin Roosevelt, bent on usurping powers not granted 
by the Constitution, decided to solve the problem by 
increasing the number of justices on the Court. His 
court-packing scheme shocked even his fellow Democrats. 
In those days the Constitution was taken very seriously, 
and everyone understood that Roosevelt was trying to 
destroy the independence of the judiciary by making it 
subordinate to the executive branch.

     His own explanation was that the three branches of 
government were like a team of three horses, one of which 
wasn't pulling its share of the load. The image betrayed 
his dictatorial mentality: it was the duty of all three 
branches to work as one. The separation of powers was a 
mere inconvenience, not a vital principle of liberty. 
Like his friend Joe Stalin, he wasn't about to let it 
hinder him.

     Though the furious reaction made him drop the 
scheme, the Court soon came around anyway. It began 
finding his usurpations tolerable, and several justices 
retired or died; soon he was able to staff it with his 
own cronies, and by 1940 it was not only ruling his way 
but effectively striking down not new legislation, but 
inconvenient provisions of the Constitution itself, such 
as the Tenth Amendment, which was declared a mere 

     From that point on the Court adopted a new mission: 
stripping the states of their traditional powers. This 
was done in the name of the Bill of Rights. Using the 
Fourteenth Amendment as its pretext, the Court found that 
the Bill of Rights had been "incorporated" and was now 
binding on the states as well as (or more than) on the 
federal government. Segregation, public-school prayer, 
unegalitarian voting districts, obscenity laws, bans on 
the sale of contraceptives, customary arrest procedures, 
laws restricting abortion, and capital punishment were 
all deemed violations of the Constitution. The reasoning 
was shaky, but it didn't matter, because the state 
legislatures were helpless against the federal courts. 
Checks and balances didn't apply.

     To its delight, the Supreme Court discovered that it 
could dictate vast changes in the American way of life. 
It made this discovery during the relatively conservative 
administration of Dwight Eisenhower, when it was still 
dominated by Roosevelt and Truman appointees; its boldest 
move came in 1954, when it ruled that racially segregated 
schools were unconstitutional. It soon proceeded to 
overturn local obscenity laws and then to enforce a novel 
interpretation of the separation of church and state. 
Both popular protest and scholarly criticism were 
unavailing; the Court was on a roll. Some of the most 
trenchant criticism of the Court came from conscientious 
liberals like Alexander Bickel. But most liberal 
intellectuals liked what the Court was doing and provided 
propaganda support in the media.

     The Court's expanded role came as a great relief to 
liberals in the U.S. Congress, who could now let the 
Court carry the unpopular parts of the liberal agenda 
(and nearly all the Court's "historic" rulings were 
unpopular) while disclaiming responsibility. Elected 
representatives could have what they wanted without 
voting for it, explaining to angry constituents that the 
Court was merely doing its job of "interpreting" the 
Constitution, albeit in undreamed-of ways.

     We are often reminded that the justices of the Court 
have frequently surprised the presidents who appoint 
them. Actually, this tends to be true only of Republican 
appointees, such as Earl Warren, William Brennan, Harry 
Blackmun, Sandra Day O'Connor, and David Souter, all of 
whom have joined the Court's liberals in the mission of 
overturning state laws. It is hard to think of a 
Democratic appointee who has turned out to be 
conservative, with the very partial exception of Byron 
White, one of the two dissenters in Roe v. Wade. And 
even that wouldn't have shocked John Kennedy, who had 
named him to the Court in 1962. Democratic appointees 
from William O. Douglas to Thurgood Marshall to Ruth 
Bader Ginsburg have generally voted just the way they 
were expected to.

     Far from checking the centralizing tendencies of 
Congress, as Alexander Hamilton envisioned, the Court has 
joined Congress in usurping and centralizing power, while 
weakening the states. By making itself the enforcer of 
the Bill of Rights (minus the Tenth Amendment, of course) 
*against* the states and unconscionably broadening the 
meanings of such phrases as "establishment of religion," 
"freedom of speech [and] of the press," "unreasonable 
search and seizure," "due process of law," and "cruel 
and unusual punishment," inventing rights (e.g., 
"privacy") that are nowhere in the text (but which 
allegedly lurk in its "penumbras"), and ignoring the 
obvious and traditional meanings of other clauses, the 
Court has enormously increased its own arbitrary power. 
It no longer finds meanings *in* the Constitution, it 
imposes meanings *on* the Constitution. This is the 
famous idea of the Constitution as a "living document."

     And an increase in the power of the U.S. Supreme 
Court is also an increase in the power of the federal 
government over the states, local governments, and 
individual citizens. If every law made at every level is 
subject to arbitrary veto by the Court, which is what the 
current situation amounts to, we are living not under 
federalism, but under precisely the sort of monopoly 
government the Constitution was designed to prevent. This 
is what liberalism, a variant of socialism, aspires to. 
Like all forms of collectivism, it views the total 
unification of power as "progressive" and the division 
and dispersion of power as "reactionary." It senses that 
the original constitutional design is its mortal enemy, 
and it will take any measures necessary to defeat the 
idea of "original intent."

     As long as the liberal regime prevails, the rule of 
law is dead; without a Constitution construed according 
to reason, tradition, and literal and logically 
inescapable meaning, government becomes lawless. The 
current interpreters, who can make the document mean 
anything that suits their purposes, cease to be bound by 
the past or by any higher authority than themselves; they 
become all-powerful, in the same way that the Soviet 
regime was all-powerful when it could rewrite history, 
blanking out the inconvenient parts.

     In the first of this year's presidential debates, Al 
Gore said he believed that the Constitution "grows with 
our country and with our history." This was his way of 
endorsing the Living Document. George W. Bush charged 
that Gore, if elected president, would appoint "liberal 
activist judges" -- which was true, but feeble and trite. 
Bush didn't explain what he meant or why liberal 
activists are objectionable. Gore meant that he views the 
Court as an institution for mandating the liberal agenda, 
not for interpreting the Constitution with fidelity to 
its inherent meaning. Bush knew this, but didn't know how 
to say it -- and didn't comprehend the gravity of the 

     The Republicans, and most conservatives, still 
haven't fully grasped the role of the federal courts in 
the liberal modus operandi. Bush's father had no idea 
what he was doing when he named David Souter to the 
Supreme Court; he never bothered looking into either 
Souter's views on abortion or his judicial philosophy. So 
the elder Bush got the kind of "surprise" Republicans 
usually get and Democrats rarely get when Souter turned 
out to be a rabid liberal, earning the lavish praise of 

     Those who have a sense of humor (I lost mine some 
time ago) may be amused to reflect that liberals tried to 
block Souter's confirmation, as they had blocked Robert 
Bork's and tried to stop Clarence Thomas's. They 
suspected Souter of conservatism. Now they know they 
needn't have worried; but at least they showed again that 
they understood the stakes. It can't be overemphasized 
that *constitutional politics is more fundamental than 
electoral politics,* because the Constitution -- or at 
least its prevailing interpretation -- sets limits on 
what electoral politics may do. And liberals have learned 
to achieve their goals through bogus interpretation.

     Conservatives, on the other hand, haven't learned 
that controlling the interpretation of the Constitution 
is all-important and that the Constitution, faithfully 
construed, would be a fatal obstacle to most liberal 
designs. So, in contrast to the Democrats' street-
fighting against Bork and Thomas, Republicans supinely 
voted to confirm Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 
thereby ensuring further constitutional erosion.

     Much as I yearn for Gore's defeat, Bush's victory 
wouldn't guarantee good judicial appointments. He shows 
every sign of being his father's son, and he could easily 
inflict another Souter or two on us.

     So although I can't tell you who won the election 
(you may be able to pick that up from other sources) I 
can tell you why it mattered.


     When I was a much younger man, I almost worshipped 
Shakespeare. He seemed to me almost literally "inspired," 
the most eloquent man who ever lived. And he nearly 
filled the place in my life that Catholicism had briefly 
occupied after my teenage conversion.

     When I returned to the Catholic Church in my early 
thirties, I began to see him differently. As a 
professional writer myself, I still admired him 
immensely, realizing how impossible it was that I should 
ever emulate him. But I no longer regarded him as a god. 
I had another god -- namely, God.

     I began to marvel at the words that were truly the 
most inspired ever uttered: those of Christ. As a writer 
I felt honored when anyone quoted me or remembered 
anything I'd written. But Christ is still quoted after 
2,000 years. An obscure man, he wrote nothing; we have 
only a few of the many words he spoke during his life, 
not in the Hebrew or Aramaic he spoke them in, but 
translated into Greek and thence into English.

     His words have a unique power that sets them off 
from all merely human words. Even two removes from their 
original language, they still penetrate us and rule our 
consciences. They have changed the world profoundly. He 
didn't just perform miracles; he *spoke* miracles. The 
words we read from his mouth are miracles. They have a 
supernatural effect on anyone who is receptive to them.

     One proof of their power is that we also resist 
them. Sometimes they are unbearable. Like some of the 
early disciples who fell away, we are tempted to say: 
"This is hard stuff. Who can accept it?" It's the natural 
reaction of the natural man, fallen man.

     Great as Shakespeare is, I never lose sleep over 
anything he said. He leaves my conscience alone. He is a 
tremendous virtuoso of language, but much of his beauty 
is bound to be lost in translation. (I apologize if this 
offends our German readers; Germans believe that 
Shakespeare in English was really just raw material for 
Schiller's great translations.)

     By the same token, nobody ever feels guilty about 
anything Plato or Aristotle said. They spoke important 
and lasting truths often enough, but never anything that 
disturbs us inwardly. We are never *afraid* to read 
them. We aren't tempted to resist them as we are tempted 
to resist Christ. The sayings of Confucius and Mohammed 
haven't carried over into alien cultures with anything 
like the force of Christ's words. They may be very wise 
at times, or they wouldn't have endured for many 
centuries; but still, they are only human.

     But all this raises a question (and here I apologize 
for offending our Protestant readers). If the Bible is to 
be our sole guide, why didn't Christ himself write it? 
Why didn't he even expressly tell the Apostles to write 
it, as far as we know? Why did he leave so much to 
chance? Yet he said: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, 
but my words shall not pass away." And so far this 
certainly appears true, though we know of no measures on 
his part to see to it that his words would be preserved. 
He seems to have trusted that they would somehow have 
their effect by their sheer intrinsic power, just as he 
trusted that his enduring the humiliation, agony, and 
death of a common criminal would confound every human 
expectation and fulfill his tremendous mission.

     St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that the Redemption was an 
even greater miracle than the Creation. I've often 
wondered just what he meant by that, and I think I'm 
starting to see. The human imagination can readily 
conceive of God *creating* the world. The human race has 
many creation stories and myths; every culture seems to 
have its own. But nobody imagined, no human being could 
ever imagine, God becoming a human being and redeeming 
the human race by submitting to utter disgrace, 
unspeakable physical pain, and death, ending his life in 
what appeared even to his disciples to be total futility.

     The greatest genius who ever lived could never have 
foreseen or supposed such a story. It was absolutely 
contrary to human common sense. It came as a total shock 
even to the devout and learned Jews who were intimate 
with the Scriptures and prayed for the coming of the 
Messiah. The Apostles who had repeatedly heard Christ 
himself predict his Passion, his destiny on the Cross, 
failed to comprehend it when it actually came to pass. 
When his words were fulfilled to the letter, instead of 
recognizing what seems to us so obvious, they fled in 
terror. (As we would done have in their place.)

     The New Testament Epistles were written by men who 
had seen Christ after the Resurrection. A skeptic might 
dismiss St. Paul's vision as a hallucination, but Peter, 
John, and James had seen Christ's Passion and afterward 
met him, conversed with him, dined with him, touched him. 
They didn't deny their own desertion and loss of faith at 
the time of his death, just as the ancient Israelites 
didn't play down, in their own scriptures, their many 
defections from the true God; it was an essential part of 
the story.

     Nor did the authors of the Epistles keep reiterating 
that the Resurrection was a fact, as if it were in doubt. 
They simply treated it as something too well known to 
their hearers to need further proof. They were prepared 
to die as martyrs in imitation of Christ; Christian 
suffering, not writing, was to be the chief medium of the 
Good News for the rest of the world.

     Christ's words, in their minds, were inseparable 
from his deeds. He had founded an organization, which we 
call the Church, and he had told and shown the Apostles 
how to go about their mission when he was no longer 
visibly present. It seems to me fatally anachronistic to 
suppose that distributing literature, in the form of what 
we now call the Bible, was to be a prominent part of this 
mission; that was impossible before the printing press, 
surely a great technological advance but one that had no 
role in the life of the Church before the fifteenth 
century. The Apostles had -- and could have -- no 
conception of books as we know them, easily mass-produced 
and cheaply purchased. Before Gutenberg, every book had 
to be copied by hand, carefully preserved, awkwardly 
used. Reading itself was a special skill.

     The life of the Church, as prescribed by Christ, was 
sacramental. He never told the Apostles to write books; 
he told them to baptize, to preach the Gospel, to forgive 
sins, and to commemorate the climactic moment of his 
ministry before the Passion, the Last Supper. He 
delegated his own authority to them and left much to 
their discretion, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. 
That is why Catholics give so much weight to tradition; 
we aren't privy to all his instructions to the Apostles, 
but we trust that they knew what they were doing when 
they formed the Church in her infancy.

     In one respect Catholics are more fundamentalist 
than the fundamentalists. We take the words "This is my 
body" and "This is my blood" very literally. So did the 
first hearers who rejected the "hard saying" that eating 
his flesh and drinking his blood was necessary to 
salvation; he didn't correct the impression that he meant 
exactly what he seemed to be saying. Even a current 
writer, the professedly Catholic Garry Wills, rejects the 
traditional Catholic doctrine that the priest who 
consecrates bread and wine converts them into the very 
body and blood of Christ. Christ's words, as I say, still 
provoke resistance. And this is why I believe them.

     What greater proof of his divinity could there be 
than the fact that he is still resisted, even hated, 
after 2,000 years? Nobody hates Julius Caesar anymore; 
it's pretty hard even to hate Attila the Hun, who left a 
lot of hard feelings in his day. But the world still 
hates Christ and his Church.

     The usual form of this hatred is interesting in 
itself. For every outright persecutor, there are 
countless people who pretend not to hate Christ, but 
subtly demote him to the rank of a "great moral teacher," 
or say they have nothing against Christianity as long as 
the "separation of church and state" is observed, or, 
under the guise of scholarship, affect to winnow out his 
"authentic" utterances from those falsely ascribed to him 
-- as if the Apostles would have dared to put words in 
his mouth! And as if such fabricated words would have 
proved as durable as "authentic" ones! (Try writing a 
single sentence that anyone could mistake for a saying of 
Christ for even a century.)

     Most secular-minded people would find it distasteful 
to nail a Christian to a cross, though there have been 
exceptions. They prefer to create a certain distance 
between themselves (or "society") and Christ, to insulate 
worldly life from the unbearable Good News, so that they 
feel no obligation to respond to God's self-revelation. 
An especially horrifying concrete application of this 
insulation of society from Christianity is the reduction 
of the act of killing unborn children to an abstract 
political "issue," a matter about which we can civilly 

     Pretending to leave the ultimate questions moot, 
they actually live in denial of and opposition to the 
truth we have been given at so much cost. What was 
formerly Christendom -- a civilization built around that 
central revelation of God to man -- has now fallen into a 
condition of amnesia and indifference.

     Even much of the visible Catholic Church itself has 
defected from its duty of evangelizing, which begins with 
transmitting Catholic teaching to children. Ignorance of 
Catholic doctrine in the "American Church" is now both a 
scandal and a terrible tragedy.

     The Vatican recently offended its Protestant and 
Jewish partners in ecumenical "dialogue" by reiterating 
the most basic claim of the Catholic Church: that it's 
the One True Church, the only sure way to salvation. 
Apparently the tacit precondition of "dialogue" was that 
the Church stand prepared to renounce her identity. And 
we can well understand why some people might get the 
mistaken impression, even from certain papal statements 
and gestures, that this was a live possibility. But it 
was a misunderstanding that had to be unequivocally 
cleared up before any honest conversation could occur.

     Christ always has been, still is, and always will be 
too much for the human race at large to accept or 
assimilate. Exactly as he said he would be. The world 
keeps proving the truth of his words.


OF INTEREST: Forrest McDonald, one of the finest living 
American historians, has just published STATES' RIGHTS 
sympathetic study of the Southern cause. McDonald's 
criticisms of Lincoln have been attacked by Walter Berns 
in the WASHINGTON TIMES as "mistaken and offensive." 
Offensive? Berns doesn't explain what the Southern states 
were supposed to do when the federal government violated 
the terms of the Constitution. Secession may have been a 
futile cause then and a lost cause now, but that doesn't 
mean it wasn't a good cause. (page 9)

A PERSONAL NOTE: Warm thanks to my old friend Taki, my 
favorite Greek writer since Homer, who has praised this 
newsletter in his column in the NEW YORK PRESS. (page 9)

YANKEE, COME HOME: The Usual Suspects are calling the 
Yemen suicide bombing of the USS Cole an "act of war." 
No kidding! Well, since the perpetrators are dead and 
their accomplices are unknown, it's hard to know whom to 
retaliate against. But possibly the bombers considered 
the presence of American destroyers in their part of the 
world -- as in most parts of the world -- something other 
than evidence of our peaceful intentions. Would we be so 
widely hated if we stayed home and stuck to defending our 
own borders? Are the world's Muslims wrong to feel that 
the U.S. government is making war on Islamic 
civilization? The modern liberal regime is at war with 
*all* traditional societies -- and is shocked when those 
societies are ungrateful for its efforts to subjugate 
them. (page 11)

Exclusive to the electronic version:

END OF AN ERA: Gus Hall, perennial head of the U.S. 
Communist Party and four-time presidential candidate, has 
died at 90, nine years after the collapse of his beloved 
Soviet Union, at which time he was still defending Stalin 
and deploring Mikhail Gorbachev's betrayal of 
"socialism." Among Gus's tips for tourists: "If you want 
to take a nice vacation, take it in North Korea."

BULLETIN: The U.S. Constitution is in blatant violation 
of the First Amendment! It says it was adopted "in the 
*year of Our Lord* one thousand seven hundred and 
eighty-seven." Why hasn't the American Civil Liberties 
Union called our attention to this clear endorsement of 

Reprinted Columns (pages 7-12)

* The Stopping Point (September 5, 2000)
* Do We Need the First Amendment (September 7, 2000)
* Untold Stories (September 14, 2000)
* Staying in the Muddle (September 19, 2000)
* The Death Penalty (September 26, 2000)
* Freud and the Constitution (September 28, 2000)

All articles are written by Joe Sobran

Copyright (c) 2000. All rights reserved.
SOBRAN'S is distributed by the Griffin Internet 
Syndicate (
Individuals may now subscribe to an e-mail version 
of Joe Sobran's columns and newsletter. For more 
information contact or call