Sobran's --
The Real News of the Month

March 2001
Volume 8, No. 3

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


(page 1)

   Defying liberal opinion, George W. has begun his 
presidency by cutting off Fedbucks to groups that promote 
abortion abroad. Not that Bush has strong convictions on 
the subject, but he may have felt he had no choice but to 
act when his wife, on the eve of the annual January 22 
pro-life march in Washington, told an interviewer that 
she was against repealing Roe v. Wade. Unlike his 
father, GHWB, GWB is wary of making his conservative base 
feel betrayed.

*     *     *

   Bush has also proposed education "reforms," meaning a 
rearrangement rather than a reduction of the federal role 
in public education. The Democrats found most of his 
agenda acceptable, except for vouchers that would let 
parents choose private schools, including religious ones, 
for their children. Vouchers are a bad idea, but that's 
not why the Hive hates them: it hates parental freedom 
and especially Christian schooling. It regards children's 
minds as state property, which the Constitution makes 
off-limits to religion.

*     *     *

   Wouldn't the privatization of education doom poor 
children to illiteracy? The old-time libertarian Leonard 
Read used to answer that statist cliché by saying that if 
the state had always paid for our shoes, any proposal to 
privatize shoes would have been denounced as dooming poor 
children to go barefoot. Judging by the level of public 
discourse in the early decades of the Republic, this 
country was far more literate *before* education became 
a state province than it is today. In fact, if education 
had remained private, any proposal to turn it over to the 
state would shock all lovers of liberty. But by now 
Americans are inured to the intellectual serfdom of state 

*     *     *

   Clinton's two terms have been like eight years of 
FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF, with "adult content." So it was 
wonderfully apt that his farewell address was upstaged by 
a sex scandal involving his "spiritual counselor," Jesse 
Jackson. The next day, with equal fitness, Clinton became 
the first president to leave office with a plea bargain. 
On his last half-day, with shameless crassness, he gave 
presidential pardons to his half-brother and numerous 
pals and cronies, notably the fugitive financier Marc 
Rich, whose ex-wife Denise, a major Democratic donor, had 
pleaded his case for a year during a hundred visits to 
the Clintons. Even the NEW YORK TIMES took note with a 
shocked editorial. Thus ended perhaps the most ethical 
administration in our nation's history.

*     *     *

   Jackson's penitential retirement from public life 
lasted nearly a *whole weekend*. It was literally a 
sabbatical: a single Sabbath. And the reason soon became 
clear: he had a big Wall Street fundraising gala 
scheduled for the following Thursday, organized by his 
colleague-rival Al Sharpton. A day earlier, in fact, a 
huge $7 billion bond deal had been closed by the Wall 
Street Project, and "Jackson's cronies got a cut of the 
action," according to the NEW YORK POST. Jackson's 
specialty is the corporate shakedown, extracting big 
bucks from businesses by pressuring them to hire his 
racial-sensitivity "consultants." Neither the press nor 
the government seems to want to investigate his curious 
finances; he hasn't been audited since 1982, even though, 
according to Bill O'Reilly, his Rainbow Push Coalition 
claimed $1.2 million in travel expenses and submitted no 
receipts. "You try that," suggests O'Reilly.

Exclusive to the electronic version:

   SOBRAN'S has lost a dear and most delightful friend, 
former Congressman John Schmitz, who died of cancer at 
70. In 1972 John got more than a million votes when he 
ran for president on the American Independent Party 
ticket. His jaunty wit annoyed Richard Nixon and Ronald 
Reagan, both of whom found him intolerably conservative; 
he found them unbearably funny. Though John was a serious 
and principled man, you couldn't talk to him for five 
minutes without encountering his marvelous sense of the 
ludicrous. Politics always made him laugh. He took a 
merry pride in living in the Capitol Hill house once 
occupied by Joe McCarthy. What great company he was! Our 
deepest sympathy to those who will miss him even more 
than we will, his wife Mary and his family.

(page 2)

   In 1972 I helped to arrange a speech by Rep. John G. 
Schmitz in Chicago for Illinois Young Americans for 
Freedom. The 42-year old lame-duck congressman had 
annoyed the Republican Party in Orange County, 
California, home of Richard Nixon, by his staunch, 
unwavering conservatism, and Nixon himself wanted him out 
of the Congress. Inspired by Schmitz's speech to our YAF 
convention, I cast my first presidential vote for him. He 
received more than 1 million votes in 32 states, a very 
large showing for a minor-party candidate.

     John Schmitz died in January at the age of 70. He 
had had prostrate cancer for eleven years, but it had 
been in remission most of the time and he looked and felt 
healthy up until the last few weeks of his life when the 
cancer returned and spread uncontrollably.

     Without ever asking him, I knew why he felt Joe 
Sobran to be a kindred spirit: John was pushed out of the 
GOP, and even out of some conservative circles, for being 
too conservative -- and for telling the truth.

     John was a SOBRAN'S Charter Subscriber and his 
sparkling personality lit up our annual events. At the 
celebration in 1997, he had the audience in stitches with 
his wit: "There are right tackles, right corners, right 
ends, and even right wings in hockey," he said. "My 
position on the team, and yours, Joe, is that of 'right 
but.' The way you play this position of 'right but' is to 
speak the truth and say it like it is. Then your friends 
come up to you and whisper in your ear, 'Joe, you're 
right, but ...'"

     John was also a devout Catholic who preferred the 
pre-Vatican II Mass in Latin. The readings at his funeral 
Mass, which he helped to select, were: Revelation 19:11-
16 describing the destruction of the pagan nations by a 
rider called "The Faithful and True" on a white horse; 
II Timothy 2:8-13 ("The Word of God is not fettered"); 
and Psalm 62 ("Only in God is my soul at rest"). The 
Gospel reading was John 6:51-58 ("I am the living bread 
come down from heaven").

     Because he was a colonel and an aviator in the 
Marine Reserves, John had a full-fledged military burial 
at Arlington Cemetery, complete with a three-gun salute.

     As a state senator, John helped to bring about the 
conversion of a brilliant young staffer to Catholicism 
(even serving as his godfather) and took him to 
Washington when he was elected to Congress. That staffer 
was Dr. Warren Carroll, who later founded Christendom 
College and who has written a number of invaluable books 
on the Catholic faith and history. Thus John is 
indirectly responsible for the founding of Christendom 
College. Warren Carroll, who gave the eulogy at John's 
funeral, said that his former boss was "a great and 
highly principled man" whom he was "proud to have 

     The family has put up a website that includes his 
complete bio, photographs, and other items:

     Schmitz's campaign slogan was "When you're out of 
Schmitz, you're out of gear." SOBRAN'S and your friends 
will be permanently out of gear without you, John. Our 
prayers are for the repose of your soul and the 
consolation of your family.

--- Fran Griffin

(page 3; material exclusive to the electronic version is 
included in curly brackets, { thus })

   Are we really rid of him at last? Instead of moving to 
Hollywood, where he belongs, it now appears that Bill 
Clinton will reside in Washington as a Senate spouse, 
relishing his celebrity until such time as he is run out 
of town on a rail. We should have known we wouldn't be 
rid of him without a struggle.

   How will history rank Clinton among presidents? That's 
easy: the funniest. He has no competition.

   NBC's wee-hours wag Conan O'Brien has written a 
hilarious piece for TIME magazine on Clinton's appeal. 
Yes, he was great for business: O'Brien imagines a feast 
at which comedians are glutted with the early Clinton 
scandals, can't eat another bite, back away from the 
table as they pick the last bit of Travelgate from 
between their teeth, when suddenly Clinton reenters 
"wheeling in the flaming Baked Alaska that is Monica 

   But Clinton's real interest, O'Brien says, isn't 
limited to comedians. He is "our first cartoon 
president." Like a cartoon character, he is totally 
indestructible. No matter how many anvils fall on his 
head, no matter how often he is dropped into the Grand 
Canyon, no matter how many cigars explode in his mouth, 
he always bounces back, unhurt, cheerful, and ready for 
more. { He turns those around him into cartoon figures 
too: Kenneth Starr becomes Yosemite Sam, complete with a 
sword and a big hat with a buckle on it, eternally 
frustrated in pursuit of his invulnerable quarry. }

   No solemn analysis has captured it better. We've had 
eight years of low -- very low -- comedy. Its legacy is 
the word "Clintonian." Political theory and principle 
stand speechless before this incredible character. 
Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson were serious 
villains, and we can discuss what they did to this 
country in terms of constitutional law and philosophies 
of government. But Clinton makes it hard to keep a 
straight face. After his two terms, one still wants to 
say: "This is a joke, right?"

   Not that there weren't serious moments and serious 
consequences. Clinton contributed grandly to the moral 
and cultural rot that afflicts this country, promoting 
abortion, sodomy, and other vices, with corollary horrors 
like government-funded experiments on dead fetuses. His 
possible role in the death of Vincent Foster, his wife's 
boyfriend, remains a mystery. He used the war powers of 
the extraconstitutional presidency to bomb his way out of 
impeachment, an act that should have resulted in his 
removal by itself (if only Republicans didn't see bombing 
a few foreigners as proof of executive mettle). Whatever 
was wrong with the federal government when Clinton took 
office, he aggravated it.

   Whether cavorting with Monica on company time, 
discussing his underwear preferences in public, or 
sniping ungraciously at his successor in his final days, 
Clinton conducted his presidency with a total lack of 
dignity. Self-respect was alien to him. He { laughed 
gamely (as Hillary smoldered beside him) when shock-jock 
Don Imus, at a National Press Club banquet, made zipper 
jokes at his expense; what else could he do? By then he 
had } made decorum a thing of the remote past, bringing 
tacky farce to the Oval Office and the Lincoln Bedroom. 
Everything entrusted to him, possibly including nuclear 
secrets, was for sale.

   { When President George H.W. Bush tried to raise "the 
character issue" in the 1992 campaign, it sounded 
grouchy. We soon learned how right Bush was. Clinton 
predicted that his would be "perhaps the most ethical 
administration in our nation's history" and called his 
wife "the most ethical person I have ever met." As usual, 
Clinton's words became memorable only when experience 
cast its ironic light on them. He didn't inhale, he 
didn't have sex with that woman, the era of big 
government was over: he backed into BARTLETT'S. }

   Then there was { his supporting cast of gargoyles: 
Janet Reno, Madeleine Albright, Donna Shalala, James 
Carville, Joycelyn Elders, Webb Hubbell, Dick Morris.... 
But above all, there was } Hillary, the most detested 
first lady in American history, who owed her status as 
the nation's foremost feminist entirely to the fact that 
she was married to a president and stuck out a rotten 
marriage only because she loved power as much as he did. 
She not only got away with her own share in their crimes, 
but wound up with a seat in the U.S. Senate to boot.

   Clinton was an embarrassment for liberals and a 
disaster for conservatives. He abandoned the conventional 
left-wing postures of liberalism, giving the market 
reasonably free rein, bucking the labor unions on free 
trade, striking conservative attitudes here and there, 
and proclaiming the end of "the era of big government." 
He proved more venal than any Republican, raising funds 
by hook and crook. His sexual scandals exposed feminists 
as absurd hypocrites: faced with evidence of his serial 
groping and even an alleged rape, they forgot about 
"sexual harassment" (in which powerful white males prey 
on women in the office), made excuses for him, and 
attacked his accusers. All the same, he found ingenious 
new ways to centralize power in the federal government 
and the executive branch in particular.

   But there was no particular theme in Clinton's 
presidency, no guiding philosophy. His only consistent 
concern was power, which he flagrantly used for his own 
benefit. Right to the end he seemed to be an impostor in 
the office. Somehow he made it to the finish line. Our 
only consolation is that he won't be remembered for the 
things he wants to be remembered for. He will be 
remembered for ... the things everyone remembers.

(pages 4-6)

     In the evening of November 9, 1863, President 
Abraham Lincoln went where he often went for amusement 
and relaxation, to Ford's Theater. On this particular 
evening he "rapturously" applauded a rising young star, 
24-year-old John Wilkes Booth, performing in a revival of 
an old hit called THE MARBLE HEART. One critic called him 
a "popular young tragedian, who appears to have taken our 
citizens by storm."

     When told of Lincoln's admiration, Booth snarled 
that he would "rather have the applause of a nigger." 
This seemed unlike him; he was known to both family and 
friends as a genial and light-hearted young man, handsome 
and attractive to both sexes, something of a playboy. But 
politics had embittered his temper. Not knowing this, 
Lincoln sent word that he would like to meet Booth. Booth 
ignored the invitation.

     Lincoln was also to see the actor in HAMLET, RICHARD 
III, and other Shakespearean roles. Fate smiles grimly 
here; Lincoln was our most Shakespearean president in 
more ways than one, and Shakespeare was his link to his 
assassin. In killing Lincoln, Booth thought he was 
reenacting one of his stage roles, that of Brutus 
striking down the dictator Caesar: leaping from the 
balcony to the stage, he cried Brutus's legendary (though 
not Shakespearean) words, "Sic semper tyrannis!"

     But Lincoln's favorite play was MACBETH. He had 
read it often, he wrote to the actor James Hackett, 
"perhaps as frequently as any unprofessional reader.... I 
think nothing equals MACBETH. It is wonderful." He had 
seen Booth in that role too.

     Lincoln's fascination with this play is itself 
fascinating. He knew that much of the country regarded 
him as a Macbeth -- a tyrant, a usurper, a murderer, and 
his conscience may have prompted him to ask whether he 
could be reasonably seen in that light. He had expected a 
quick end to the "rebellion," but the war had dragged on 
for years, claiming hundreds of thousands of lives. Many 
Northerners clamored for a peaceful settlement. If the 
war was not justified, Lincoln had much to answer for, 
infinitely more than he could have imagined at the 

     Apart from the scale of violence against the South, 
including its civilian population and their property, 
Lincoln aroused angry opposition in the North. "Saving 
the Union" had required him to transgress against the 
Constitution and civil liberties; he acted as a dictator, 
assuming both legislative and executive powers. An 
Illinois newspaper accused him of "seeking to inaugurate 
a reign of terror in the loyal states by military arrests 
... of citizens without a trial, to browbeat all 
opposition by villainous and false charges of disloyalty 
against whole classes of patriotic citizens, to destroy 
all constitutional guarantees of free speech, a free 
press, and the writ of habeas corpus." His biographer 
David Herbert Donald notes: "Editors feared that they 
might be locked up in Fort Lafayette or in the Old 
Capitol Prison in Washington if they voiced their 
criticisms too freely, and even writers of private 
letters began to guard their language." (Addressing a 
group of Indian chiefs in the White House, Lincoln urged 
them to emulate white civilization: "We are not, as a 
race, so much disposed to fight and kill one another as 
our red brethren." Donald says drily: "The irony was 

     As the ghastly war continued inconclusively, Lincoln 
must have pondered Macbeth's words:

                                       I am in blood
      Stepp'd in so far, that should I wade no more,
      Returning were as tedious as go o'er.

Lincoln's conscience never became as hardened as 
Macbeth's. He had never sought power out of personal 
vanity; he always appealed to principle and tried to 
justify his actions constitutionally. Still, he found 
himself mysteriously enmeshed in evil and waste beyond 

     In scale of character, in eloquence, and in impact 
on his country, Lincoln had the dimensions of a 
Shakespearean tragic hero. Aristotle wrote in his POETICS 
that tragic action must have "magnitude"; and Lincoln's 
action certainly had that quality. He also displayed the 
tragic flaw of rash judgment; despite his deliberation, 
he had ignored the advice of his cabinet by launching war 
over Fort Sumter, failing to foresee the madly 
disproportionate violence that would ensue from a 
legalistic dispute over secession.

     Lincoln can be best understood in the light of A.C. 
Bradley's great analysis of Shakespearean tragedy. The 
tragic hero's "fate affects the welfare of a whole nation 
or empire." Bradley adds: "The calamities of tragedy do 
not simply happen, nor are they sent; they proceed mainly 
from actions, and those the actions of men." We feel, as 
we watch, "that the calamities and catastrophe follow 
inevitably from the deeds of men, and that the main 
source of these deeds is character."

     The tragic hero is neither saint, villain, nor 
passive victim: he is the cause of his own and his 
society's ruin, in spite of his own intention. As 
Aristotle says, the ruin of a purely innocent man is not 
tragic; it is injustice. That of a purely evil man is not 
tragedy, but justice. That of a passive victim is mere 
accident, which isn't tragic either. But as Bradley says: 
"That men may start a course of events but can neither 
calculate nor control it, is a *tragic* fact."

     Lincoln was driven to meditate on his relation to 
the events he had set in motion. By the fall of 1862 he 
was reflecting: "In the present civil war it is quite 
possible that God's purpose is something different from 
the purpose of either party." In 1864 he wrote: "I claim 
not to have controlled events, but plainly confess that 
events have controlled me." Was he trying to disclaim 
responsibility? He always insisted that the South "began" 
the war, which, even if true, would not necessarily mean 
that the South bore the guilt for what the war became. 
Perhaps sensing this, he referred the problem to 
Providence, which had allowed the war to continue and 

     In his second inaugural address, in March 1865, 
Lincoln said: "Both parties deprecated war; but one of 
them would *make* war rather than let the nation 
survive; and the other would *accept* war rather than 
let it perish. And the war came." The balanced rhetoric 
is used to express an imbalance of blame: the South 
*made* war (to *destroy* the Union), the North merely 
*accepted* war (to *save* the Union). "Neither party 
expected for the war the magnitude, or the duration, 
which it has already attained."

     He went on:

      Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same 
      God; and each invokes His aid against the 
      other. It may seem strange that any men should 
      dare to ask a just God's assistance in wring-
      ing their bread from the sweat of other men's 
      faces; but let us judge not that we be not 
      judged. The prayers of both could not be 
      answered; that of neither has been answered 
      fully. The Almighty has His own purposes.

Here he frames the war simply as a war between freedom 
and slavery, implying that God has mysteriously withheld 
a quick and just victory from the evidently righteous 
side, in contrast to the side that hypocritically prays 
while exploiting slaves.

     Finally, Lincoln offers a new theodicy: he supposes 
that a just God "wills" that the war continue "until 
every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by 
another drawn with the sword" -- as if the number killed 
by slavery matched the number of the war dead (more than 
600,000)! Lincoln's pre-war words against slavery, which 
he viewed as temporarily tolerable, had never suggested 
that it approached such a level of atrocity. But the 
scale of the war he had waged forced him to escalate his 
rhetoric in self-justification. In Lincoln's mind, at 
least, the horrors of slavery seem to have intensified 
enormously during the "rebellion." That might explain why 
what began as a debate should end as a holocaust.

     Again let us hear Bradley on tragic action. He cites 
a line from HAMLET as encapsulating Shakespeare's 
philosophy of tragedy:

      Our thoughts are ours, their ends none of our 

The words "their ends," Bradley explains, mean

      the issues or outcomes of our thoughts, and 
      these, says the speaker, are not our own. The 
      tragic world is a world of action, and action 
      is the translation of thought into reality. We 
      see men and women confidently attempting it. 
      They strike into the existing order of things 
      in pursuance of their ideas. But what they 
      achieve is not what they intended; it is ter-
      ribly unlike it. They understand nothing, we 
      say to ourselves, of the world on which they 
      operate. They fight blindly in the dark, and 
      the power that works through them makes them 
      the instrument of a design which is not theirs. 
      They act freely, and yet their action binds 
      them hand and foot. And it makes no differ
      ence whether they meant well or ill. No one 
      could mean better than Brutus, but he con-
      trives misery for his country and death for 
      himself. No one could mean worse than Iago, 
      and he too is caught in the web he spins for 
      others. Hamlet, recoiling from the duty of 
      revenge, is pushed into blood-guiltiness he 
      never dreamed of, and forced at last on the 
      revenge he could not will. His adversary's 
      murders, and no less his adversary's remorse, 
      bring about the opposite of what they sought. 
      Lear follows an old man's whim, half generous, 
      half selfish; and in a moment it looses all 
      the powers of darkness upon him. Othello agon-
      izes over an empty fiction, and, meaning to 
      execute solemn justice, butchers innocence and 
      strangles love. They understand themselves no 
      better than the world about them.... Every-
      where, in this tragic world, man's thought, 
      translated into act, is transformed into the 
      opposite of itself. His act, the movement of a 
      few ounces of matter in a moment of time, be-
      comes a monstrous flood which spreads over a 
      kingdom. And whatsoever he dreams of doing, he 
      achieves that which he least dreamed of, his 
      own destruction.

     Both of Lincoln's inaugural addresses are attempts 
at self-justification. But how different they are! The 
first, in 1861, attempts to blame the coming war on the 
South, but with no conception of what a vast convulsion 
that war will become. Confining itself to secular 
politics, it makes only a glancing reference to God; 
there is no sense of providential mystery about it. 
Lincoln hopes for a sensible settlement on both sides.

     By the time of the 1865 speech, Lincoln has seen an 
abstract argument over constitutional rights transformed 
into true tragedy: a continent of groaning bodies, 
severed limbs, rotting corpses, and sobbing widows. It is 
God's will, he says, not my doing! But he can't forbear 
repeating that the South, the slave states, started it, 
and so bears any guilt that may be assigned to human 

     Still, we realize that Lincoln had chosen a course 
of action that became "terribly unlike" his intention. He 
had "saved" the Union, but the Union that he saved had 
turned into a very different thing from the Union he had 
set out to save.

     It was also a very different thing from the Union he 
dreamed of, in which the "gradual" and "compensated" 
emancipation of slaves would find its "glorious 
consummation" in the colonization of freed blacks outside 
the United States. Following Henry Clay, he had always 
worked to spare the nation a permanent race problem by 
"returning to Africa her lost children." Or, if not to 
Africa, then to some tropical place in Latin America. In 
1862 he had even proposed to Congress a constitutional 
amendment to promote his plan. But the idea never caught 
on, and emancipation came too abruptly for any such 
protracted program as he had intended.

     By July 1864 he had given the plan up. His secretary 
John Hay wrote in his diary: "I am glad the President has 
sloughed off that idea of colonization. I have always 
thought it a hideous & barbarous humbug," and Hay added 
that the "thievery" of those entrusted with establishing 
a black colony in the Panama region had "about converted 
[Lincoln] to the same belief." A new version of 
reconstruction, coming to terms with the presence of free 
blacks in the South, now had to be improvised. And 
Lincoln's dream of a united white America had to be 

     Posterity, forgetting his dream, now treats the 
result of the war as the *fulfillment* of Lincoln's 
intention. The real result may be summed up as the 
destruction of "that balance of power on which the 
perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend" 
-- the words of the 1860 Republican platform, quoted by 
Lincoln in his first inaugural address. Whatever his sins 
and crimes, and they were enormous, Lincoln never 
intended the annihilation of the original constitutional 

     Posterity has also misconceived Booth. He has been 
treated as a lone and insignificant fanatic. He was not. 
He was a citizen of Maryland, the victim of Lincoln's 
greatest outrage against "government of the people, by 
the people, for the people," when he destroyed its 
elected legislature in 1861. Booth and his fellow 
conspirators had reason to believe they were playing 
Brutus to Lincoln's Caesar. Far from being irrational and 
isolated, the assassination of Lincoln had the resonance 
of classical precedent. It was the final and culminating 
outburst of the violent passions he had unleashed.

     Our thoughts are ours, their ends none of our own.


in light of what I have said of Lincoln's dream, to read 
the judgment of the noted ex-slave abolitionist Frederick 
Douglass: "He was preeminently the white man's president, 
entirely devoted to the welfare of white men. He was 
ready and willing at any time during the first years of 
his administration to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the 
rights of humanity in the colored people in order to 
promote the welfare of the white people of this country. 
In all his education and feeling he was an American of 
the Americans. He came into the presidential chair upon 
one principle alone, namely, opposition to the extension 
of slavery. His arguments in furtherance of this policy 
had their motive and mainspring in his patriotic devotion 
to the interests of his own race. To protect, defend, and 
perpetuate slavery in the states where it existed Abraham 
Lincoln was not less ready than any other president to 
draw the sword of the nation. He was ready to execute all 
the supposed constitutional guarantees of the United 
States Constitution in favor of the slave system anywhere 
inside the slave states. He was willing to pursue, 
recapture, and send back the fugitive slave to his 
master, and to suppress a slave rising for liberty, 
though the guilty master were already in arms against the 
government. The race to which we belong were not the 
special objects of his consideration." (page 6)

THE BLOODY SHIRT, AGAIN: John Ashcroft, Bush's choice for 
attorney general, was exposed as a reb-symp when it came 
out he'd said the Confederacy stood for some good 
principles: states' rights, resistance to centralization. 
Despite the predictable howls, it's good to know he has a 
certain immunity to the prevalent propaganda. (page 8)

THE END OF THE BEGINNING? Most first couples, when their 
time is up, leave the White House and return whence they 
came, retiring with quiet decorum. But the decorum-
challenged Clintons will be sticking around, inhabiting a 
big house in Georgetown. Hillaree will be in the Senate, 
Bill will maintain high-profile celebrity. The soap opera 
may be far from over. (page 10)

WHODUNIT? You know about the Shakespeare authorship 
question. A new authorship question impends: Who will 
actually write the book for which Hillary is getting 
$8 million? What makes it such a rip-off is that Hillary 
will make sure the book doesn't come clean on any of the 
questions that pique public curiosity. Which means she 
will have to study every page of it as a precaution. 
Still, $8 million is probably the most anyone has ever 
been paid to read a book. (page 11)

Exclusive to the electronic version:

TOM DIEMER RIP: In early January, Tom Diemer of Cleveland 
lost his long battle to cancer at 65. I had the privilege 
of attending, in the room where he was to die, a Mass 
celebrated by his son Father Michael Diemer, who also 
anointed him. Tom endured pain and faced death with faith 
and courage. Nobody who knew him will ever forget him.


* Don't Cut Taxes -- Abolish Them (January 9, 2001)
* The Cost-Free Smear (January 11, 2001)
* Slavery, No; Secession, Yes (January 16, 2001)
* Jesse Jackson's Contrition (January 18, 2001)
* The Real Jesse Jackson (January 23, 2001)
* None Dare Call It "Killing" (January 25, 2001)


All articles are written by Joe Sobran, except as noted.

You may forward this newsletter if you include the 
following subscription and copyright information:

Subscribe to the Sobran E-Package. 
or for details and samples
or call 800-513-5053.

Copyright (c) 2001 by the Griffin Internet 
Syndicate, All rights reserved.