Sobran's --
The Real News of the Month
July 2001
Volume 8, No. 7
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
edition).
Address: Sobran's, P.O. Box 1383, Vienna, VA 22183-1383
Fax: 703-281-6617 Website: www.sobran.com
Publisher's Office: 703-255-2211 or www.griffnews.com
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
CONTENTS
Features
-> The Moving Picture
-> The Great American Novel (with out-takes)
-> From Federation to Monolith
The Loose Leaf
Nuggets (plus Exclusives to this edition)
List of Columns Reprinted
FEATURES
The Moving Picture
(pages 1-2)
Senator James Jeffords of Vermont, long a
Republican, has effectively switched to the Democratic
Party. Well, why not? Are the two parties all that
different? The Republicans are writhing because Jeffords
has shifted the balance of power in the Senate, giving
the Democrats a 51-to-49 majority; but how can they
really complain? If our major parties were really opposed
on principle, this sort of conversion would be
impossible. Imagine (say) a Libertarian toying with the
idea of becoming a Communist. Democrats are praising
Jeffords's "conscience" and "courage." Just what has this
shrewd career move cost him? By exploiting his leverage
he's become the instant pet of the media and his new
party.
* * *
Somehow -- call it prophecy, call it clairvoyance --
I *knew* the execution of Timothy McVeigh would be
postponed. It just couldn't happen without a hitch, could
it? He gloated to the end that the final score would be
in his favor, 168 deaths to 1. It becomes narrower when
you count the 93 people of Waco he was avenging. And
numbers aside, his atrocity has actually made Waco seem
less fiendish in comparison. Most people vaguely excuse
anything done in the name of law enforcement (even if
they don't know what law was being enforced), whereas
they are shocked by *unauthorized* mass murder.
* * *
Speaking of which, Mother Waco herself -- Janet Reno
-- says she may run for governor of Florida. How would
she go about wooing Miami's Cuban vote? One wag suggests
that she adopt this campaign slogan: "Reno -- She'll Get
the Kids out of Your House."
* * *
The love life of New York's Mayor Rudy Giuliani is
getting to be like THE SOPRANOS you can't help knowing
about it even if you're trying not to pay any attention.
Donna Hanover, the estranged Mrs. Giuliani, has won a
court ruling that, for the children's sake, Rudy's
mistress, Judi Nathan, may not shack -- er, visit -- him
in Gracie Mansion. Rudy's lawyer Raoul Felder has blasted
Donna (on Mother's Day!) as an "uncaring mother." Details
of Rudy's impotence have been leaked to the press. New
Yorkers are longing for the sobriety, dignity, and
decorum of Ed Koch.
* * *
Over the past few years, William Kristol and David
Brooks of the neoconservative WEEKLY STANDARD have become
media-ubiquitous apostles of something they call
"national greatness conservatism." Their progress has
been noted by Franklin Foer, who writes in THE NEW
REPUBLIC that they now "champion campaign finance reform
and environmental protection. They oppose the Bush
administration's proposed repeal of the estate tax
because, as Brooks puts it, 'We should be concerned with
the widening income gap.' They attack corporate power
with Naderesque ferocity." And they favor a militarily
aggressive foreign policy, with full U.S. support for
Israel and hostility to China. Foer observes that they
also want to detach the Republican Party from the
Christian Right (last year they backed John McCain's
candidacy against George W. Bush). So what's
"conservative" about all this? Or any of it?
* * *
The renewed, endless violence in the Middle East has
inspired all sorts of analyses and think-pieces on how to
get the "peace process" going again. I've yet to see an
explanation of the benefits to ordinary Americans of U.S.
involvement in that hopeless mess. Neither the Zionist
nor the Islamic (or other Arab) cause is linked to any
interest of most Americans. The Jews aren't grateful for
our support, as Ariel Sharon, like his predecessors, has
made clear enough, and Muslims, especially Arabs, hate us
bitterly for it. The fanatics on both sides have one
thing in common, though: they are more rational than we
are. They are at least fighting for things that are holy
to them. Just what are *we* hoping to get?
* * *
Actually, I can answer that last question: "we" are
going to get reelected. What we are pleased to call our
"elected representatives" are bought and/or intimidated
by the Israeli lobby. (The Israeli journalist Ari Shavit
has remarked, with no more than modest realism, that the
U.S. Congress is "in our hands.") So there will be no
sanctions against Sharon for his defiant use of American
F-16s to strike Palestinians in the occupied territories;
just as there have never been sanctions against Israeli
espionage and technology theft, or against the 1967
Israeli assault on the U.S.S. Liberty that killed 34
American sailors. By an interesting coincidence,
Congressman James Traficant, an outspoken Ohio Democrat
who is one of the very few members of Congress to
criticize Israel, now faces federal criminal charges for
something or other. The Zionist WEEKLY STANDARD (see
above) is cackling with amusement at his plight. Another
chapter in the relations between our "reliable ally" and
our prostitute Congress.
* * *
We're told that we live under a system of democratic
self-government -- We the People rule ourselves -- so
that when we pay taxes we are actually taxing, and
paying, ourselves. And the federal debt doesn't really
matter, because, as Franklin Roosevelt taught us, "we owe
it to ourselves." I suppose it follows that when the
Internal Revenue Service menaces us with prison for
failing to cooperate in the confiscation of our wealth,
we are only threatening ourselves.
* * *
A friend of mine can recall his awe, as a boy, at
meeting living veterans of the Civil War. Which prompts
me to reflect that no living American is old enough to
remember living under the U.S. Constitution, and few if
any can recall living before the income tax and the
replacement of the real dollar by the Federal Reserve
Note. Thus living memories become ancient history, people
can hardly imagine what they can no longer remember, and
the customary evils that have replaced sound traditions
come to seem natural, inevitable, eternal.
The Great American Novel
(page 3)
{{Passages in double curly brackets were cut from the
print edition for reasons of space.}}
Time has been unkind to the reputation of Margaret
Mitchell's novel GONE WITH THE WIND. Since the late 1940s
liberal critics have derided it for creating a falsely
glamorous picture of the Old South; a black woman
recently created a stir by rewriting the story from (what
else?) the slaves' point of view. Yet in 1936 GONE WITH
THE WIND was as much a critical as a popular success,
winning rave reviews and a Pulitzer Prize for fiction.
Typical of the currently fashionable derision is the
Princeton historian James M. McPherson, who in DRAWN WITH
THE SWORD writes scornfully of "the moonlight-and-
magnolias GONE WITH THE WIND image of the Confederacy,"
its "distortions and romanticizations." The book
"glamorized the Old South and romanticized the
Confederacy."
Yet GONE WITH THE WIND is anything but a
glamorization of the Confederacy; just the opposite. The
story unfolds amid bitter war and vindictive
Reconstruction. Its hero and heroine are a pair of
scalawags who share none of the illusions of their
compatriots. Rhett Butler, who makes a fortune as a
blockade runner, openly ridicules the notion that the
South can defeat the North in war. Scarlett O'Hara cares
little about the war or the cherished myths of Southern
patriotism; during Reconstruction she, like Rhett, incurs
social contempt and ostracism by shamelessly doing
business with the occupying Yankees. She and Rhett are
bound together by their frankly cynical realism {{amid
the prevailing folly. They have nothing in common with
Robert E. Lee.}}
Their romance itself is hardly romantic. Rhett
treats Scarlett with infuriating mockery; she insults him
in reply, but he laughs it off. Her real love through
most of the book is Ashley Wilkes, who, for all his
Southern gentlemanliness, knows that the South is doomed
to defeat; his code of honor proves archaic, and, unlike
Rhett and Scarlett, he is clearly ineffectual in coping
with war's aftermath. The world has passed such people
by; they're no longer fit to live in it. {{The slaves
have both dignity and individuality: Mammy and Uncle
Peter are quite unafraid to tell Scarlett off. True, they
speak in Negro dialect rather than the king's English;
but then, a surprising number of Negroes did. Mitchell
had merely discovered Ebonics before its time.}}
Far from creating stereotypes, Mitchell (1900-1949)
is the victim of stereotyping. She has been typecast as
the champion of the ancien regime, when she was anything
but. In fact she belonged to a generation of Southern
rebels who rejected Confederate mythology, though they
weren't buying into Northern mythology either. After an
unhappy year at Smith College, she did an enormous amount
of research on her own for the big novel she was writing
during her late twenties. The bulk of the book was
written in three years, but she kept reading history and
economics and correcting tiny details even after the book
was accepted for publication in 1935. Her biographer
Darden Asbury Pyron notes that she anticipated the
iconoclastic economic interpretations of the war later
advanced by Charles and Mary Beard. Rhett's jaunty
debunking of Confederate shibboleths springs from her
research.
{{She was compulsive about getting minutiae right.
"I worry if I don't have ten references for each fact,"
she told one correspondent. "Even if I made an error, I
suppose few people would realize it. No one outside of
north Georgia would know. But I would know and would
probably wake up screaming in the night about it."
But}} Mitchell was above all a masterful
storyteller. Her research never upstages the tale or the
characters. And Rhett and Scarlett are two of the most
riveting characters in fiction. Rhett's mockery of
respectable hypocrisies, his cheerful willingness to
accept his reputation as a scoundrel, and his seeming
indifference to Scarlett's rejections all make him
fascinating both as romantic hero and as ruthless social
commentator. Scarlett's more furtive contempt for
respectability as she scrambles to survive makes her
nearly as irresistible.
After selling the film rights to David O. Selznick
of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Mitchell actually worried that
Hollywood would convey a falsely romantic picture of the
Old South, with opulent mansions featuring Greekish
marble columns. And some of her fears were realized. A
screenwriter's corny prologue informs the viewer, in
cloying terms totally alien to Mitchell, of a vanished
land of "cavaliers," "knights," and "ladies fair"; Max
Steiner's relentlessly gushing music reinforces this
false impression; and the Wilkes mansion, Twelve Oaks, is
everything Mitchell warned against.
Yet even the movie is short on moonlight and
magnolias, and its virtues are largely due to its literal
-- often literal-minded -- fidelity to the novel. The
studio was afraid to offend countless devoted readers
(and Mitchell herself) by altering the sacred text.
And rightly so. GONE WITH THE WIND is a superb and
mature novel, one that makes everything Hemingway wrote
about war and manhood, not to mention women, seem puerile
by comparison. If, while puncturing Confederate
illusions, it also clashes with today's liberal pieties,
that is because it exposes their hollowness too. Like all
great novels, it offers a richly realized world, defying
every narrow philosophy.
From Federation to Monolith
(pages 4-5)
I'm always grateful when liberals come clean about
what they're really up to. A few years ago I praised a
scholar named George P. Fletcher for acknowledging, in an
article in THE NEW REPUBLIC, that we no longer live under
the U.S. Constitution. He argued that this is a good
thing, because the Constitution sustained an obsolete
social order; but at least he didn't pretend, as most
liberals do, that the present political regime is an
organic development of the "living" Constitution.
Now Fletcher (who teaches at the Columbia University
School of Law) has expanded that article into a book. I
regret to say that the book, OUR SECRET CONSITUTION: HOW
LINCOLN REDEFINED AMERICAN DEMOCRACY (Oxford University
Press), has left me considerably less elated than its
seminal article did. Still, it leaves no doubt that the
liberal agenda, as I've always insisted, has no
connection with the Constitution that is still,
officially at least, on the books.
Fletcher states his thesis right up front: "The
Civil War called forth a new constitutional order. At the
heart of this postbellum legal order lay the
Reconstruction Amendments -- the Thirteenth, Fourteenth,
and Fifteenth Amendments, ratified in the years 1865 to
1870. The principles of this new legal regime are so
different from our original Constitution, drafted in
1787, that they deserve to be recognized as a second
American Constitution. The New Constitution established,
in fact, a Second American Republic." Again, "we have
undergone a major disruption in our constitutional
history, which we try to camouflage as a single evolving
Constitution." But the emergence of a second Constitution
after the Civil War "was a historical necessity, and
there is no turning back from the course we then
adopted."
Fletcher faults American historians who "overlook
the consolidation of the United States as a nation in the
mid-nineteenth-century sense of the term." We have, he
says, "experienced a major rupture in our supposed two-
hundred-plus years of continuity under the same legal
order. The lawyers who rarely look beyond our borders
employ a methodology of 'original intent' that can only
make Continental Europeans smile at our simple-
mindedness." We can't have those sophisticated Europeans
smiling at us, can we? The consolidations of Germany and
Italy, one might observe, were followed by National
Socialism and Fascism, along with two world wars; the
appropriate lesson may not be the one Fletcher intends.
Perhaps the Framers of the first Constitution were
correct in their suspicion of "consolidation."
The appeal to "original intent," moreover, is not a
naive plea for archaism. It's a recognition of the need
for stability in law, and therefore in the language of
law. The historical understanding of the Constitution's
meaning is, as Madison said, the only rational foundation
for its proper interpretation. Otherwise, we are at the
mercy of the fanciful notions of modern justices who want
to superimpose their own pet policies on the document
under the guise of constitutional imperatives.
The principles of the two Constitutions, Fletcher
stresses, are "radically opposed to each other." The
first established a limited federation among the
*states*; the second established a monolithic *nation*
"dedicated to the proposition that all men are created
equal," and empowered, moreover, to *make* them equal.
As his use of Lincoln's words indicates, Fletcher
believes that this second Constitution was actually
founded, not in the postwar amendments, but in the
Gettysburg Address. And he thinks we should finally
acknowledge our "secret" Constitution.
How can this be, when the Gettysburg Address had no
legal force at all, but was merely one man's 272-word
rhetorical performance? Fletcher has a woolly notion that
the "nation" somehow gestated within the forms of the
original Constitution until it was ready to be "brought
forth" at Gettysburg in 1863. The Civil War established
it as a fact that the United States were a single entity,
from which no state could withdraw.
Like other champions of Lincoln, Fletcher gives him
credit for doing precisely what he denied any intention
of doing; he also overlooks Lincoln's hardly liberal
views on race. Far from seeking a revolutionary
transformation, as his more hysterical enemies charged,
Lincoln consistently professed to be "preserving the
Constitution" and "saving the Union" -- the Union "as of
old," slavery and all, until he decided to emancipate
slaves in the seceding states. Even then, he conceived
this emancipation narrowly, as a war measure, which he
might order for the purpose of suppressing rebellion, but
which Congress had no power to enact under the
Constitution. (He thought it likely that the courts would
strike down, as unconstitutional, the Emancipation
Proclamation.)
Lincoln did say, at Gettysburg, that "our fathers"
had "brought forth a new nation" in 1776, never mind that
the Declaration of Independence spoke only of 13 "free
and independent states," not a single monolithic
"nation." Still, it was the original "nation" he said he
was trying to save; he didn't say or imply that he was
transforming it. The founding generation, which adopted
the Constitution, was hostile to the very idea of a
single "consolidated" government of the kind Fletcher
prefers (and falsely projects onto the past).
Needless to say, Lincoln never suggested that a new
Constitution was being enacted; even if he had wished it
(and there is no evidence that he did), he could never
have proclaimed it publicly. Nor did those who framed and
ratified the postwar amendments suggest that they were
doing any more than adding a few clauses to the one and
only Constitution. These clauses did give the federal
government new powers over the states, but the
Constitution was otherwise intact.
Later rulings by a liberal U.S. Supreme Court vastly
expanded the reach of these amendments, especially the
Fourteenth, which has become an all-purpose battering ram
against state and local laws the Court dislikes; but
those rulings are clearly untenable. If the Fourteenth
meant everything the Court has said it means, then later
amendments -- ensuring Negroes and women the vote, for
example -- were superfluous. Nobody in 1865-70, or long
afterward, thought the Fourteenth Amendment virtually
repealed the Tenth, which reserves to the states and the
people all the powers not delegated to the federal
government. It was generally agreed that a federal income
tax, a national prohibition of liquor sales, and
expansion of the franchise required formal changes in the
Constitution. Otherwise, the Fourteenth Amendment would
have been an omnibus measure, granting limitless power to
the federal government -- and, incidentally, abolishing
federalism.
Lincoln himself opposed amending the Constitution at
all in 1848, on grounds that "it can scarcely be made
better than it is." Even when taking gross liberties with
it during the Civil War -- liberties that amounted to
blatant violations -- he retained odd scruples against
loose interpretation. He also consistently opposed
allowing the judiciary to usurp the political and
legislative processes, as in the Dred Scott decision.
Though he favored the Thirteenth Amendment, he might have
had reservations about the Fourteenth and Fifteenth --
and certainly about the later misapplication of the
Fourteenth.
But Lincoln isn't the point here. We tend to forget
the rest of the dramatis personae of the period; and what
Fletcher is tacitly admitting is that the Confederacy was
essentially right, and the Union forces wrong, about the
real meaning of the original Constitution. Since the
"new" Constitution was only made manifest at Gettysburg
in 1863, the South, in 1861, was fighting, just as it
claimed to be, for the old Constitution, an order of
confederated sovereign states. The North was fighting,
whether it knew it or not, for a novel and as yet
unarticulated principle of monolithic nationhood. Under
that principle the states would be reduced to mere
provinces, holding their powers only by sufferance of the
almighty Union. This is what Fletcher is saying, without
quite realizing it.
Of course many Northerners sensed what was at stake
and hoped the original Constitution would be preserved.
Some caviled at the Gettysburg Address on grounds that
the war was (as Lincoln himself had at first avowed) a
war to save the Constitution, not to induce "a new birth
of freedom," whatever that might mean. But the
Constitution itself became a casualty of the war.
To put it even more plainly, the Constitution is
dead. We may, if we like, say that we now live under a
"new," a "secret," or a "living" Constitution, but that
doesn't change the fact. It merely tries to disguise it.
To live under a Constitution whose meaning may be changed
at will by those it is supposed to restrain is like
having a butcher who can redefine ounces and pounds at
his own whim: it rather defeats the purpose.
Lawless rulers usually plead that they are obeying a
"higher law." Fletcher not only admits this -- "Those who
fight in the name of the higher law allow themselves to
sidestep the rules" -- but approves of it: "The faith in
principles of higher law explains why Lincoln, in the
aftermath of war, was committed to articulating a new
foundation for the Union. It accounts as well for
Lincoln's casual [!] attitude toward formal
constitutional institutions, such as the writ of habeas
corpus. It also explains why, after Lincoln's
assassination, the radical Republicans in Congress used
allegedly [sic!] illegal means to coerce the South to
accept the Fourteenth Amendment." Allegedly? If it was
necessary to "coerce" ratification, that ratification was
contrary to every principle of law. No agreement signed
under duress is valid. So the very basis of the "new"
Constitution is void.
If Lincoln and the Unionists have to be defended
this way, it's hardly necessary to indict them. Still, it
would be suicidal for the current regime to undercut its
own legitimacy by acknowledging that the old Constitution
died long ago, with the Confederacy. The "secret"
Constitution must remain secret.
THE LOOSE LEAF
It occurs to me that if the late TIMOTHY McVEIGH had
performed 168 abortions, the federal government would
have gone out of its way to protect him. +++ GEORGE
STALLINGS, formerly known as Father Stallings, before he
became founder and self-installed archbishop of the
renegade African American Catholic Congregation, has
taken another step away from mainstream (or, as he would
say, white racist) Catholicism: he has married a Japanese
woman, in a ceremony conducted by the REVEREND SUN MYUNG
MOON. +++ Among many others united in wedlock in the same
extravaganza was the 71-year-old Archbishop (for real!)
EMMANUEL MILINGO, an eccentric African who had already
been stripped of his archdiocese by the Vatican for his
erratic behavior. He and the missus plan to have kids. At
least he doesn't appear to reject HUMANAE VITAE.
A newly discovered alleged portrait of SHAKESPEARE
at 39, transparently inauthentic, is causing excitement
in the press. Who is the subject, really? Dunno. But the
labeling, which not only names him as Shakespeare but
gives his dates of birth and death, is anachronistic and
must have been added long after the picture was made. +++
Inspired by JIM JEFFORDS, JOHN McCAIN is flirting with
defection from the GOP too. He says he has no intention
of doing so. You don't have to like the Republicans to
feel their pain as these media-coddled "moderates" have
opportune attacks of "conscience" (aka ego). +++ Why did
it take Jeffords so many years to figure out that he was
a liberal Democrat? It was obvious long ago. +++ The
DEMOCRATS' Senate edge may be short-lived: New Jersey's
BOB TORRICELLI, who lives in the fast lane, is said to be
on the verge of indictment on bribery and corruption
charges.
The critics have been unkind to the new flick PEARL
HARBOR, but it seems to be a TITANIC-scale hit with young
viewers, who don't seem to mind a scene in which
FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT displays his determination to win
the war by miraculously rising from his wheelchair and
standing unassisted. Naturally, the movie features a love
story. No, it doesn't involve FDR and JOE STALIN. +++
Former CBS reporter BERNARD GOLDBERG, a reformed liberal,
writes in the WALL STREET JOURNAL that DAN RATHER once
described the NEW YORK TIMES to him as "middle of the
road." Sure, if the road is in North Korea. That explains
a lot about Dan's slant on the news.
O.J. SIMPSON has been offering advice to fellow-
widower ROBERT BLAKE, who must be very grateful for help
from such a quarter in his hour of need. +++ BILL CLINTON
has been spending a lot of time in Ireland lately. After
ST. PATRICK went to all that trouble to rid the Emerald
Isle of snakes! +++ The NATIONAL ENQUIRER reports that
Bill's spiritual counselor JESSE JACKSON is trying to
dump his wife, ever so gently, so he can marry mistress
KARIN STANFORD. +++ The tabs are also saying that TED
KENNEDY and current wife VICTORIA REGGIE are more or less
finished. But remember, he's still good on women's
issues. +++ The eternally delightful BOB NEWHART, in a
commencement speech at Chicago's Loyola University,
offered this tip on how to appear intelligent: "You don't
actually have to be intelligent, if you can just create
the perception. This can usually be accomplished by a
reference to KAFKA, even if you have never read any of
his -- or her -- work." You have to admire the comic
artistry that can get a howl out of a pronoun. +++ In
some of this year's other commencement addresses, BRYANT
GUMBEL bemoaned "the plight of people of color," MARIO
CUOMO bemoaned poverty, and TONI MORRISON bemoaned most
everything. Sounds exciting, eh? Guess you had to be
there. +++ Former senator BOB KERREY is still being
treated as a victim because some people want to know if
he's a murderer. Someone (I forget who) has asked whether
NEWSWEEK would have sat on the story as it did if the
subject had been PAT BUCHANAN.
The JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, so-called, is renewing its
disgraceful efforts to strip JOHN DEMJANJUK, now 81, of
his citizenship. Last time, you'll recall, the old man,
after an ordeal of several years, was ultimately
acquitted -- in Israel! -- of being an infamous Treblinka
concentration camp guard known as "IVAN THE TERRIBLE"; it
later transpired that the government had hidden some
documents contradicting its own charges. Now he's accused
of being someone else at a different camp. Nearly half a
century after Joe McCarthy was discredited, anti-Nazi
hysteria marches on. +++ The fourth ALI-FRAZIER fight
ended with Ali winning by a decision -- only this time
the fighters, LAILA and JACQUI, were the daughters of the
two former champs. A chip off the old block, Laila called
her opponent "ugly" and "ignorant." Civilization marches
on.
NUGGETS
TACIT ADMISSIONS DEPT.: Noticed how many liberals demand
the death penalty for those who kill abortionists? They
thereby admit that the death penalty *does* deter after
all: they know it deters doctors from performing
abortions, and they also expect it to deter anti-
abortionists from deterring doctors from performing
abortions. You never hear them say: "If we kill anti-
abortionists, we're no better than they are." Or maybe
they just want revenge. (page 8)
CALLING ALL LOGICIANS! The media are devoutly observing
the twentieth anniversary of the emergence of AIDS.
Unlike lung cancer, which has been used to justify a
government crackdown on tobacco, AIDS isn't even causing
second thoughts about the sexual revolution. On the
contrary, it's still being used to legitimize
homosexuality (and, of course, new "humanitarian" tasks
for the government). Go figure. (page 11)
Exclusive to the electronic version:
ENDLESS EMERGENCIES: Being ignorant of the physical
sciences, I have no idea whether global warming and other
alleged environmental dangers are for real. All I do know
is that environmentalism has been eagerly embraced by the
Usual Suspects as warrant for expanding the role and
power of the state -- their favorite "solution" to
everything they define as a "problem." Has Al Gore ever
discovered a problem whose solution would require *less*
government? Has he ever seen government itself as a
problem?
CLARION VOICE OF TYRANNY: California's Attorney General
Bill Lockyer has come right out with it: he *favors*
homosexual rape in prisons. Denouncing Kenneth Lay,
chairman of Enron Corporation, who hasn't even been
charged with breaking any law, Lockyer told a press
conference: "I would love to personally escort Lay to an
8-by-10 cell that he could share with a tattooed dude who
says, 'Hi, my name is Spike, honey.'" Lockyer doesn't
just admit the reality of prison rape; he sees it not as
a horror, but as part of the punishment he can inflict on
enemies of the state. Even if they're not criminals.
REPRINTED COLUMNS (pages 7-12)
* Pedophilia and Hypocrisy (May 8, 2001)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/010508.shtml
* Hate Mail (May 10, 2001)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/010510.shtml
* Finding Evil (May 15, 2001)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/010515.shtml
* Dylan versus the Sixties (May 24, 2001)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/010524.shtml
* Casey at the Court (May 29, 2001)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/010529.shtml
* Slavery in Perspective (May 31, 2001)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/010531.shtml
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
See http://www.sobran.com/e-mail.shtml
or http://www.griffnews.com for details and samples
or call 800-513-5053.
Copyright (c) 2001 by The Vere Company. All rights
reserved.
Distributed by the Griffin Internet Syndicate
www.griffnews.com with permission.
[ENDS]