Sobran's --
The Real News of the Month

June 2001
Volume 8, No. 6

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: $39.95 for 1 year ($25 with a
   12-month subscription to the print edition); $65 for
   2 years ($45 with a 2-year subscription to the print

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


The Moving Picture
(pages 1-2)

     George W. Bush's first hundred days are getting 
mixed reviews. Most conservatives are happy with him; the 
NEW YORK TIMES isn't, barking that he has displayed "a 
deep-rooted, unnuanced, and sometimes almost truculent 
conservatism." If only it were so! George Will finds Bush 
more truly conservative than (gasp!) Ronald Reagan, 
because he has come to terms with the (liberal) political 
culture. With conservatives like this, who needs 

*          *          *

     The TIMES is also fretting that Bush will fill the 
federal judiciary with "ideologues." That apparently 
means people who may interpret the U.S. Constitution too 

*          *          *

     Just as the word "liberal" was long ago hijacked by 
people who don't want to liberate anything, the word 
"conservative" is now claimed by many people who don't 
know what's worth conserving.

*          *          *

     Former Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska (now living in 
New York), decorated for heroism after losing part of his 
leg in Vietnam, has denied a charge that he deliberately 
slaughtered more than a dozen women, children, and old 
men in a Vietnamese village in 1969. He admits that the 
people were killed, but only, he says, when his seven-man 
Navy SEALs team was fired upon in the dark and returned 
the fire, inadvertently killing unarmed people. He says 
the memory of finding their bodies has haunted him ever 
since. But one member of the team, Gerhard Klann, insists 
that Kerrey rounded the people up, ordered them 
massacred, and even helped Klann cut an old man's throat. 
Other members of the team vaguely support Kerrey's 
version, but they are reluctant to talk about the 
incident, and Klann's vividly detailed testimony, unlike 
theirs, can hardly be called self-exculpating. For these 
and other reasons, I find Kerrey's story hard to believe. 
Be that as it may, *every* war produces countless stories 
too ugly to relate. A sufficient reason to avoid war.

*          *          *

     The U.S. House of Representatives has passed, 252 to 
172, a bill making it a federal crime to harm an unborn 
child during an assault on its mother. Abortion advocates 
oppose the act as a backdoor attempt to ban abortion. 
Maybe so, but the fact remains that what it really bans 
is *involuntary* abortion. Once again we behold liberal 
hypocrisy: those who say they are "pro-choice" rather 
than "pro-abortion" should (but don't) oppose the violent 
deprivation of an expectant mother's "reproductive 
choice" -- just as they should (but don't) protest forced 
abortion in China. They aren't just "pro-choice." They 
*love* abortion. But we knew that, didn't we?

*          *          *

     At the same time, we must ask, where does the 
Constitution authorize the federal government to 
legislate in the area of violent crime? Nowhere -- any 
more than it authorized the federal judiciary to strike 
down abortion laws in the first place. Are we now reduced 
to fighting usurpation with usurpation?

*          *          *

     I see that a new biography of Ulysses S. Grant 
contends that he wasn't nearly so bad a president as has 
been assumed. Not that I plan to read the book, but a 
laudatory review set me to thinking. In all these 
presidential ratings games, it's assumed that a "great" 
president is one who usurps as much power as possible -- 
or "uses the office creatively," as they say. Those who 
merely adhere to the oath of office, confining themselves 
to their constitutional powers and duties, are ranked 

*          *          *

     A must for every reference library, I guess: THE 
HOLOCAUST ENCYCLOPEDIA (Oxford University Press), edited 
by Walter Laqueur. Some Jews are so proprietary about 
"The Holocaust" (see "Voracious Victims," page 3) that 
one almost feels that "denying" the Holocaust is more 
offensive than defending it: that Holocaust-obsessors 
would be acutely disappointed if it could be proved not 
to have occurred, or even if, as I suspect, "The 
Holocaust" turned out to be something of a misnomer for 
what actually happened.

*          *          *

     Did the Jews kill Christ? This old question has 
flared up again, thanks to provocative remarks by the 
conservative Paul Weyrich and a basketball player named 
Charlie Ward, both of whom have been duly denounced by 
All Decent Folks. To answer the question affirmatively is 
of course to affront "pluralism" and "tolerance," but it 
should be faced. The Gospels make it clear that both the 
Jewish authorities and the Jewish mob hated Christ and 
demanded his death. It is, however, a perversion to blame 
today's Jews for the Crucifixion. The tragedy is that the 
Son of God was rejected by his own, by God's Chosen 
People; a prophet honored except in his own country, 
weeping over Jerusalem. The tragedy continues in the 
perennial Jewish hatred of Christianity; but I think it 
also implies that if Christ were here today, he would be 
denounced and persecuted by the nominally Christian. The 
Gospels also tell us that his Apostles -- the twelve men 
personally chosen by him -- abandoned him, and even St. 
Peter denied him. We Christians should always ask 
ourselves if we really would have been stronger at the 
moment of truth. The worst mistake you can make about the 
Gospels is to suppose that they refer to other people: 
Jews, Pharisees, and assorted sinners from whom we may 
safely separate ourselves. Christ's real message is: 
*This means you.*

*          *          *

     One reader, alas, took my wry declaration that 
"lapsed Catholicism is the faith of my fathers" 
(SOBRAN'S, April 2001, p. 11) to mean that I'm a lapsed 
Catholic. No, I meant just what I said: I was *raised* a 
lapsed Catholic by my lapsed Catholic parents. When I 
rejoined the Church, I became, so to speak, a *lapsed* 
lapsed Catholic.

*          *          *

     Do you get as weary as I do of PBS Radio reports on 
Buddhist monks trying to quit smoking?

Voracious Victims
(pages 3-5)

<< Material appearing in double angular brackets was 
dropped from the hard copy for reasons of space. >>

     Norman Finkelstein's book THE HOLOCAUST INDUSTRY, 
published by Verso, is barely more than a pamphlet -- 150 
small pages. But it's creating a sensation in Germany and 
Switzerland, two recent targets of Holocaust shakedowns. 
It deserves attention in this country too.

     << Such a book is long overdue. The Holocaust has 
become a racket, and its constant exploitation is so 
coarse as to remind one of Mel Brooks's movie (now a 
Broadway musical) THE PRODUCERS, in which a pair of con 
men, clearly though implicitly Jewish, deliberately 
produce a flop so that they can pocket their investors' 
vastly oversubscribed money: they sell their dupes a 
total of 1000 per cent interest in the loony 
extravaganza, SPRINGTIME FOR HITLER, confidently 
expecting it to close on opening night. Disaster strikes 
when the play turns out to be a smash. >>

     The book's very title is an audacious affront to 
today's secular pieties, and especially to modern Jewish 
chauvinism. Until now, few have dared to say publicly 
what many know or sense: that the Holocaust has been 
turned into a big and lucrative business, run by skilled 
con men. << Despite their animadversions against 
"Holocaust denial," they would be less offensive if the 
whole thing had been a hoax; it's the very fact that they 
are willing to milk real horror for profit that makes 
their enterprise so appalling. >>

     Finkelstein, whose parents' relatives perished 
during World War II, loathes the transformation of what 
he calls "the Nazi holocaust" (small "h") into "The 
Holocaust" -- supposedly the defining event of modern 
Jewish experience, but actually, in his view, an 
ideological construct and a propaganda and blackmailing 
tool for organized Jewish and Zionist interests.

     In his third, longest, and final chapter, "The 
Double Shakedown," Finkelstein shows how a cynical 
alliance among Jewish agencies (the World Jewish 
Congress, the Anti-Defamation League, the Simon 
Wiesenthal Center, and others), American politicians, and 
gullible journalists blackmailed Swiss bankers into 
coughing up $1.25 billion in "reparations," allegedly to 
compensate Holocaust victims whose assets in Swiss banks 
had gone unclaimed for more than half a century. Though 
an audit had found that the actual amount of such assets 
was less than $1 million in today's values, the bankers 
paid up in order to avoid threatened class action suits, 
economic boycotts, U.S. Government sanctions, and really, 
really bad publicity. The Swiss, neutral during World
War II, were being portrayed as heartless accomplices of 
the Nazis, ruthlessly exploiting the victims. (Bill 
Clinton heartily endorsed the campaign.)

     Finkelstein calculates that the number of alleged 
Holocaust survivors, as claimed by the Jewish groups, 
would mean, actuarially, that there was no Holocaust! He 
quotes his mother's earthy question: "If everyone who 
claims to be a survivor actually is one, who did Hitler 
kill?" In other words, the Holocaust Industry virtually 
endorses the "Holocaust denial" it execrates.

     During the vilification campaign against the Swiss, 
Finkelstein further notes, it transpired that there were 
far more unclaimed wartime assets in *American* banks 
(about $6 million) than in Swiss banks. An independent 
commission found that the Swiss had kept strict and 
honest records. Such facts, however, got almost no 
publicity. (Regrettably, Finkelstein says nothing about 
the Industry's efforts to smear and blackmail the 
Catholic Church.)

     The Jewish groups who claimed to represent Holocaust 
survivors argued the urgency of reparations on grounds 
that those aged survivors were dying off rapidly. The 
American news media little noted, nor long remembered, 
that a full year after the Swiss settlement not one dime 
of the "Holocaust booty," as Finkelstein calls it, had 
been paid out to the survivors. But the lawyers, 
including New York's former senator, Alphonse D'Amato 
(credited with "a moral victory and a triumph of the 
spirit" by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu), 
had collected their fees -- in the millions. And much of 
the booty was earmarked not for survivors, but for other 
Jewish causes, such as "Holocaust education."

     Such is the power of the Holocaust Industry. It has 
little to do with actual Jewish suffering. As Finkelstein 
notes, "The Holocaust" became a going concern only 
decades after World War II -- specifically, after Israel 
became a full client of the United States in 1967. Until 
then, he points out, "Not only Americans in general but 
also American Jews, including Jewish intellectuals, paid 
the Nazi holocaust little heed. In an authoritative 1957 
survey, sociologist Nathan Glazer reported that the Nazi 
Final Solution (as well as Israel) 'had remarkably slight 
effects on the inner life of American Jewry.' In a 1961 
COMMENTARY symposium on 'Jewishness and the Younger 
Intellectuals,' only two of thirty-one contributors 
stressed its impact. Likewise, a 1961 roundtable convened 
by the journal JUDAISM of twenty-one observant American 
Jews on 'My Jewish Affirmation' almost completely ignored 
the subject. No monuments or tributes marked the Nazi 
holocaust in the United States. To the contrary, major 
Jewish organizations opposed such memorialization."

     The same was true of Israel. The record from 1948 to 
1967 shows very little interest in the Jewish state among 
American Jews. But Israel's stunning victory over the 
Arabs in the June 1967 Six-Day War changed all that. That 
victory seemed miraculous to the general public, 
including Jews, but it came as no surprise to military 
experts. Be that as it may, Israel and the Holocaust 
together became enormously important symbols to Jews in 
the West. The Holocaust justified Israel's existence, and 
Israel could justify everything it did, however lawless 
and inhumane, as part of its mission to prevent "a second 

     Furthermore, criticism of Jews and Israel could be 
squelched by smearing it as "anti-Semitism." According to 
the emergent ideology linking the Holocaust to Israel, 
anti-Semitism was a perennial trait of gentiles 
(especially Christians) and explained all conflicts, past 
and present, between Jews and non-Jews. In a new twist on 
the doctrine of Original Sin, gentiles were intrinsically 
anti-Semitic. The Holocaust was merely the culmination of 
millennia of irrational gentile hatred of the Jews.

     The great spokesman for this new ideology has been 
Elie Wiesel, the histrionically mournful Auschwitz 
survivor, whom Finkelstein regards, with sheer contempt, 
as a hypocrite and intellectual huckster. Nobody would 
call Wiesel a master of understatement. He once recalled 
that as a youth, "I read THE CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON -- 
don't laugh! -- in Yiddish." (Finkelstein: "THE CRITIQUE 
OF PURE REASON was never translated into Yiddish.") 
Wiesel has also recalled having been hit by a taxi in 
Times Square: "I flew an entire block. I was hit at 45th 
Street and Broadway, and the ambulance picked me up at 
44th." "The truth I present is unvarnished," he says, "I 
can do no other." Wiesel discourses on the unspeakable 
tragedy of the Holocaust for a standard fee of $25,000, 
plus a chauffeured limousine.

     "Indeed," Finkelstein writes, "the whole field of 
Holocaust studies is replete with nonsense, if not sheer 
fraud." He cites several widely hailed Holocaust memoirs 
that turned out, under examination, to be fabrications, 
notably Jerzy Kosinski's PAINTED BIRD and Binjamin 
Wilkomirski's FRAGMENTS. The Jewish establishment, 
including Wiesel, continued to defend both books even 
*after* their exposure. (Wilkomirski, whose real name is 
Bruno Doessekker, not only wasn't a Holocaust survivor; 
he wasn't even Jewish. He spent the entire war in 

     Another recent Holocaust hit was Daniel Jonah 
Goldhagen's historical study, HITLER'S WILLING 
EXECUTIONERS, a comprehensive indictment of Germans as 
murderously anti-Semitic throughout their history. When 
Finkelstein himself co-authored A NATIONAL ON TRIAL, a 
book exposing Goldhagen's shoddy scholarship and gross 
illogic, the entire Jewish establishment denounced him; 
Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League joined 
others in demanding that Finkelstein's publisher halt the 
book. It comes as no surprise that Wiesel praised 
Goldhagen (for a "tremendous contribution to the teaching 
and understanding of the Holocaust") and that Goldhagen 
championed Wilkimorski. Birds of a feather.

     << As for Finkelstein, Leon Wieseltier of THE NEW 
REPUBLIC told Finkelstein's publisher: "He's poison, he's 
a disgusting self-hating Jew, he's something you find 
under a rock." In reply Finkelstein merely notes, "A 
NATION ON TRIAL received endorsements from the leading 
historians on the Nazi holocaust, including Raul Hilberg, 
Christopher Browning, and Ian Kershaw. These same 
scholars uniformly dismissed Goldhagen's book; Hilberg 
called it 'worthless.'" >>

     Finkelstein asks why there should be a tax-supported 
Holocaust Museum in this country, which has no comparable 
museum to memorialize the sufferings of black slaves and 
Indians: "Imagine the wailing accusations of hypocrisy 
here were Germany to build a national museum in Berlin to 
commemorate not the Nazi genocide but American slavery or 
the extermination of the Native Americans."

     But not everyone qualifies for commemoration at our 
Holocaust Museum: "Count Folke Bernadotte is not honored, 
[and] although he ... rescued thousands of Jews, former 
Israeli Prime Minister Yitzak Shamir ordered his 
assassination for being 'too pro-Arab.'" When it was 
debated whether the Gypsies murdered by the Nazis should 
be commemorated, resistance (led by Wiesel) was fierce. 
Finkelstein explains that "acknowledging the Gypsy 
genocide meant the loss of an exclusive Jewish franchise 
over The Holocaust"; and besides, "if the Nazis 
persecuted Jews and Gypsies alike, the dogma that The 
Holocaust marked the climax of a millennial Gentile 
hatred of the Jews was clearly untenable." Result: "In 
the museum's permanent exhibition, non-Jewish victims of 
Nazism receive only token recognition."

     Finkelstein, a liberal, seems sympathetic to black 
demands for reparations for slavery. Here his keen eye 
for the fake fails him. Just as Jews seem to have 
discovered the horrors of The Holocaust belatedly, blacks 
have said little about the legacy of slavery until 
recently. Otherwise shrewd, Finkelstein doesn't perceive 
that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are in the same racket 
as Elie Wiesel. It's all highly suspicious, rather as if 
white Americans should suddenly decide that Great Britain 
owes them heavy monetary damages for generations of 
colonial rule. (I know *my* wounds haven't healed; how 
about yours? And do you know a good lawyer?)

     Gentile attitudes toward Jews can't be reduced to 
"anti-Semitism" and its absence. They also include 
"philo-Semitism" -- which in turn embraces sympathy, 
admiration, affection, and delight. More-negative 
attitudes may be compounded of suspicion, disapproval, 
resentment, and the simple refusal to be bullied. But the 
most widespread gentile attitude toward Jews today is 
simply fear -- fear of Jewish power, fear of being 
smeared as "anti-Semitic."

     If Jews were really helpless victims, this fear 
would truly be irrational. But it isn't. Journalists, 
politicians, and businessmen all know perfectly well that 
they can be ruined if organized Jewish power targets them 
for destruction. Much of what sounds like philo-Semitism, 
when examined closely, is really a desperate effort to 
anticipate charges of anti-Semitism. Many gentiles who 
praise the Jews are actually terrified of the Jews. (I 
forbear to name names here.)

     There is also such a thing as disillusionment and 
disappointment with the Jews (and especially with 
Israel). Some people who begin by admiring Jews 
inordinately wind up feeling let down and betrayed. This 
was my own experience. During the 1967 war, and again 
during the 1973 war, I was passionately pro-Israel. More 
than that, I was strongly pro-Jewish. I regarded the Jews 
with awe as the only ancient nation that had survived 
into modern times; I thought they were still devoted to 
the divine revelation of the Old Testament, if not the 
New, and I believed in what is commonly called "the 
Judaeo-Christian tradition."

     After going to work for NATIONAL REVIEW in New York 
City in 1972, I became confused and puzzled. Growing up 
in Michigan, I'd had fairly little contact with Jews. In 
New York I learned that my naive notions of what Jews 
were applied to very few modern Jews, chiefly observant 
Orthodox Jews; most modern Jews were secularized, 
liberal, irreligious or anti-religious, bound together by 
the triadic ideology of the Holocaust, Zionism, and
anti-anti-Semitism, with a deep and disturbing hostility 
to Christianity.

     Despite constant Jewish complaints about "Christian 
anti-Semitism," I found much more anti-Christian feeling 
among Jews than anti-Jewish feeling among Christians, and 
in fact "anti-Semitism" came to seem to me a code word 
for Christianity itself. On the whole, Jews apparently 
hated Christianity far more than they loved Judaism. Even 
the neoconservative COMMENTARY magazine, regarded as an 
ally by Christian conservatives, ran long articles 
blaming the Holocaust on Christianity. Enmity to 
Christianity almost seemed to *define* modern Jews.

     My philo-Semitism pretty much ended in the early 
1980s. Israel waged a terrible war on Lebanon, madly 
bombing Beirut and killing countless innocent people; at 
the same time I became aware of Israeli treachery to the 
United States, long before it surfaced in the Pollard spy 
case. In the midst of this, Prime Minister Menachem Begin 
bitterly accused the Catholic Church of complicity in the 
Holocaust. Meanwhile, my own sons were approaching draft 
age, and Israel's Amen Corner in this country, as Pat 
Buchanan would later dub it, was egging this country to 
war with the Arabs. No thanks. (I got to know Pat during 
this period, and he and I were becoming disillusioned 
with Israel at the same time; a few years later we would 
both be assailed as anti-Semites; and we would both find 
friends among Orthodox Jews who despised the secularized 
Jews who were smearing us.)

     Today's Jews, left and right, have become whiners. 
The Hebraism of the Old Testament has none of this; even 
its lamentations have dignity and grandeur. The ancient 
Jews were a virile race who knew that God's favor also 
entailed human enmity as a matter of course. The Law set 
them apart from a fallen world, and they segregated 
themselves from its seductions. Their identity depended 
on keeping the Law, not on "being Jewish" -- such talk 
was alien to them, just as the concept of "anti-Semitism" 
is alien to the Hebrew Scriptures. Even some Orthodox 
Jews today are infected with the new, subjective ideology 
of "Jewishness"; but basically they regard the Law as 
divine and objective.

     Nothing about the ancient Jews is more striking than 
their preservation, as Holy Writ, of the divine rebukes 
of them as "a stiff-necked people." Unlike self-
glorifying nations, always the norm for humans, the Jews 
recorded the history of their sins and the tribulations 
they brought on themselves by forgetting the Lord; and 
they have survived long after the vaunting Romans and 
Persians have dissolved like clouds.

     This remarkable capacity for ruthless self-criticism 
is more evident even in an honest secularized leftist 
like Finkelstein than in the "mainstream" Jewish 
chauvinists who dismiss him as a "self-hating Jew." And 
whether or not he believes in God, I can't help feeling 
that God believes in him.

The Loose Leaf
(page 6)

     The divorce of TOM CRUISE and NICOLE KIDMAN 
dominates the tabloids, and I'd forbear comment except 
that Nicole takes exception to Tom's Scientology. She 
wants their kids to be raised as Catholics. From what I 
know of her career, I'd never have guessed that 
promulgating the Faith ranked high among her priorities. 
Glad to know I was mistaken. +++ One of the tabs says 
MARLON BRANDO, at 76, weighs in at 375 pounds, with a 
photo making this estimate all too plausible. And to 
think he won his first Oscar for playing a middleweight! 
Is anyone praying for poor old Marlon? +++ Speaking of 
supplication, Senator HILLARY CLINTON -- the New York 
Democrat, you know -- has been attending prayer 
breakfasts with Republican senators. They say her manners 
have been impeccable. +++ MUHAMMAD ALI has finally 
apologized for his cruel remarks about JOE FRAZIER, whom 
he likened to a "gorilla," inter alia, during their epic 
rivalry in the early 1970s. Ali says he was just trying 
to hype their fights -- a pretty lame excuse for three of 
the most exciting ring combats of all time, which needed 
no hype to boost their intrinsic interest. In his later 
years Ali has been so good-natured that we forget how 
graceless he could be in his prime. He was indeed The 
Greatest, but also, too often, The Meanest. +++ TED 
TURNER says his divorce from JANE FONDA is due in large 
part to her conversion to Christianity. No wonder he 
sneered at his Catholic employees -- who showed up for 
work on Ash Wednesday with smudged foreheads -- as "Jesus 
freaks." Anyone who is still hated by the rich after two 
millennia must be divine. Like Nicole Kidman, Turner is 
an odd minor witness to the Faith.

     I've fallen in love with MARGARET MITCHELL, best 
known as the author of the novel GONE WITH THE WIND. Next 
month I'll defend this book against my own 
preconceptions. For now let me say only that the movie 
gives a false impression of the novel, largely because of 
the lavish, bombastic, bathetic, cloying musical score by 
MAX STEINER. +++ Far from sentimentalizing the Old South, 
Peggy Mitchell, a brainy Smith College graduate, 
punctured its illusions through Rhett Butler -- played to 
perfection by CLARK GABLE, as if the role had been 
written for him. The Oscar that year (1939) went to 
ROBERT DONAT for his worthy performance in GOODBYE, MR. 
CHIPS, but only Gable (or, just maybe, ERROL FLYNN) could 
have endowed Rhett with such memorably virile wit. +++ 
You can say that Gable only played himself, but playing 
oneself on the screen with real power is an underrated 
achievement. Most of the great Hollywood stars "only 
played themselves" -- CAGNEY, BOGART, JAMES STEWART, and 
BETTE DAVIS, to name a few -- and they did it movingly. 
Versatility isn't everything; just creating a durably 
interesting and attractive persona takes a rare kind of 
talent. If Rhett Butler had been Gable's only filmed 
performance, it might have gotten the praise it deserves. 
Sometimes the popcorn-munching fans are wiser than the 
critics. +++ The rest of the casting would be hard to 
improve on. VIVIEN LEIGH (the mistress and future wife of 
LAURENCE OLIVIER, though still unknown in Hollywood) 
played Scarlett O'Hara to perfection, maturing subtly 
from catty teenaged coquette to canny middle-aged 
survivor. +++ And one can hardly imagine anyone but 
Melanie, let alone HATTIE McDANIEL as Mammy. +++ The test 
of an epic film is whether it makes you feel the passage 
of years, and this test GONE WITH THE WIND passes 
superbly. Can it be reissued without that awful music?

     I always enjoy seeing CASABLANCA again, except for 
the pro-war propaganda and the cartoonish nasty Nazis. 
(And I can't imagine a cause worth giving up INGRID 
BERGMAN for.) It's a ravishing love story, with great 
atmosphere and wit -- and music. But the film's director 
and screenwriter, MICHAEL CURTIZ and HOWARD KOCH, went on 
to make MISSION TO MOSCOW, an explicitly pro-Stalin 
stinker unredeemed by any of the charm of CASABLANCA. The 
later film, you'll recall, was made at the urging of the 
Evil One, FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT, who must have been 
delighted with the result: Stalin never looked more 
cuddly. +++ Watching another old movie recently, I was 
reminded of the late comic STAN FREBERG's great line 
about the Roman who goes to the Coliseum with a hot tip: 
"Put a bundle on BEN-HUR in the fifth." I once met 
CHARLTON HESTON and told him how much I'd enjoyed the 
chariot race -- bet he'd never heard *that* one before! 
This is an actor who's done SHAKESPEARE and worked with 
ORSON WELLES, and all anyone wants to tell him is how 
they loved him in that damn chariot.


FAREWELL: I made my little joke about Perry Como (page 
11) before the sad news of his death at 88. Modest, 
grateful, and gracious, he was a fine singer and a dear 
reminder of the prelapsarian days when television felt a 
moral responsibility to the public. (page 8)

THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT? Maybe I'm old-fashioned and narrow-
minded, but I find today's rap stars hard to figure. No 
doubt yesterday's entertainers weren't perfect either. 
Still, I don't recall Perry Como trying to shoot Bing 
Crosby. (page 11)

QUERY: Why don't we build a National Memorial to the 
Victims of Liberalism? (page 11)

TOLERANCE UPDATE: In deference to "gay" sensibilities, a 
Manhattan private school has decided not to observe 
Mother's Day this year. The principal explains that 
"families in our society are now diverse and varied." And 
they say the Sixties were crazy! Today's fanatics make 
Abbie Hoffman look like Robert Taft. And their 
fanaticisms are so *timid.* (Remember when "gays" said 
they just wanted to live and let live?) (page 12)

Exclusive to the electronic version:

ABOMINATIONS: The only kind of person I really hate, and 
I mean *hate,* with utter loathing and contempt, is the 
sort who assumes that keeping abreast of today's fads is 
a moral imperative. By the same token, I respect anyone 
who puts up the least resistance to those fads and 
refuses to be bullied by the Latest Thinking, which is 
always unthinking. I honor the courage of the Orthodox 
Jew, the fundamentalist Protestant, the diehard 
Confederate -- in short, any man who adheres to a 
tradition, however disreputable in contemporary opinion, 
rather than peer pressure. I can even admire a 
"progressive" -- George Orwell, Christopher Hitchens, 
Gore Vidal -- who has the guts to stand alone. I'm 
thinking of you too, Taki.

ALL THE NEWS THAT'S FIT TO SPIN: A study by Dr. Robert 
Spitzer of Columbia University has found that homosexuals 
of both sexes can indeed change their "sexual 
orientation," the most helpful methods among his 200 
respondents (143 men, 57 women) being therapy and prayer. 
Naturally Spitzer, a self-described "atheistic Jew," came 
under fire at once. The NEW YORK TIMES noted that 
Spitzer's "results conflict with another study of gays 
who try to change." Observe the implications of the 
phrase "conflict with." Why not "challenge"? 


* Me and My Family and China (April 3, 2001)

* Taxes and the Modern State (April 10, 2001)

* Washington, D.C. -- Tax Haven? (April 12, 2001)

* The Great "Gay" Racket (April 19, 2001)

* Reparations Now! (April 24, 2001)

* War Hero (May 1, 2001)


All articles are written by Joe Sobran

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 Vere Company. All rights
Distributed by the Griffin Internet Syndicate with permission.