The Real News of the Month

June 2002
Volume 9, No. 6

Editor: Joe Sobran
Publisher: Fran Griffin (Griffin Communications)
Managing Editor: Ronald N. Neff
Subscription Rates.
   Print version: $44.95 per year; $85 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 1-800-513-5053. Allow
   4-6 weeks for delivery of your first issue.

{{ Emphasis is indicated by the presence of asterisks 
around the emphasized words.}}

  -> The Moving Picture
  -> My Faith: A Brief Defense
Nuggets (plus Exclusives to this edition)
List of Columns Reprinted


The Moving Picture
(pages 1-2)

     Writing in the NEW YORK TIMES, Garry Wills argues 
that the Catholic hierarchy owes the faithful and the 
world an honest accounting of their handling of "the 
sexual abuse of minors." He's absolutely right. But the 
sexual liberalizers -- including Wills himself -- should 
come clean too. This scandal is not just about a vague 
"sexual abuse of minors"; it's about the *homosexual* 
abuse of young *males.* It has resulted from the 
appallingly lax enforcement of Catholic morals, 
particularly in the seminaries, one of which has become 
notorious as "the Pink Palace."

*          *          *

     After a few days of pretending to waver, the Israeli 
government of Ariel Sharon has decided to ban a United 
Nations investigation of its attack on West Bank 
Palestinians. Sharon charges that the inquiry would be 
prejudiced against Israel -- so prejudiced, apparently, 
as to invent atrocity stories out of thin air. Even if 
so, why doesn't Sharon invite truly neutral investigators 
who might prove Israel's innocence of such charges? The 
aging Butcher of Beirut knows very well what any honest 
inquiry would find. Even the few witnesses who have 
gotten to the scene report the overpowering stench of 
corpses from beneath the rubble.

*          *          *

     Not all of Sharon's American support comes from the 
powerful Jewish lobby; much of it comes from 
conservatives -- not only the hireling conservatives in 
the media, but from fundamentalist Protestants who hope, 
quite literally, that the battle of Armageddon is at hand 
and want to bring it on. This isn't exactly the sort of 
foreign policy George Washington recommended. But what's 
really scandalous is the total indifference of these 
Christians to the suffering of their defenseless, pacific 
fellow Christians in the Holy Land, even in Bethlehem 

*          *          *

     The latest theme of Zionist propaganda is that 
Europe has reverted to anti-Semitism. Evidence? European 
sympathy for the Palestinian cause and dislike of Israel; 
scattered burnings of synagogues; a few beatings of Jews 
by street thugs; criticisms of Israel by the French 
ambassador to England at a London dinner party; and the 
strong showing of Jean-Marie Le Pen in the first round of 
France's presidential election. Since most of the 
criminal violence seems to be the doing of Arab 
immigrants, and none of it has the support of any 
European government, the "proof" is pretty thin. (Haven't 
Jewish groups always pushed for open immigration?) As for 
Le Pen, who got less than 20 per cent of the vote, his 
chief targets are those very immigrants; and the "anti-
Semitic" government has fined him heavily for his mild 
remarks about Jews. In sum, "anti-Semitic" means 
insufficiently pro-Israel.

*          *          *

     Which reminds me. Abe Rosenthal, you'll recall, 
recently surmised that the French are already planning 
concentration camps for the Jews. He has rather 
mysteriously dropped the subject. It seems to me that so 
serious a charge should be pursued. Of course it wasn't 
serious, in the sense that Rosenthal didn't really mean 
it and takes no responsibility for making it. So casual 
are imputations of deadly anti-Semitism nowadays. So 
casual, and so meaningless.

*          *          *

     Speaking of Le Pen, the Socialists he edged out 
rallied behind the corrupt "conservative" Jacques Chirac 
to defeat the "extremist." Which tells you all you need 
to know about the principles of "mainstream" parties in 
modern democracy. (As if you didn't already know.) The 
chameleons always unite against men who keep their true 

*          *          *

     Overdue but welcome is Kenneth R. Timmerman's new 
(Regnery). The title says it all: it's an examination of 
Jackson's lucrative career as a racial blackmail artist. 
Though his fraudulence has always been visible to the 
naked eye, Kimmerman has unearthed the bodies and found 
the witnesses, prominent among whom is Jackson's 
impenitently criminal half-brother Noah Robinson Jr. The 
conservative and neoconservative media are boosting the 
book; the liberal media are ignoring it. But it may at 
last put a crimp in Jackson's sordid and aggressive 
operations. By now this veteran jive artist -- excuse me, 
"civil rights leader" -- can afford to retire anyway.

*          *          *

     Still on Lyndon Johnson's case is Robert Caro. Knopf 
has just published the third volume of his huge biography 
JOHNSON. It's 1,167 pages long and leaves one volume to 
go. I have no intention of reading the whole thing, but 
according to the reviews, Caro has softened on his 
subject. Sure, he shows us the same vividly boorish bully 
we met in the first two volumes -- humiliating his 
underlings, forcing his secretaries to take dictation 
from his toilet seat, cheating flagrantly on his devoted 
wife -- but, after all, the larger-than-life Texan, in a 
heroic act of self-transcendence (which, however, 
dovetails with his presidential ambitions), finally 
forces a "historic civil rights bill" through Congress! 
To Caro, it's apparently a paradox that a nasty customer 
like Johnson should be in the end an instrument of the 
holy cause of expanding the Federal Government. Progress 
sure works in mysterious ways, don't it?

*          *          *

     Back in the Sixties, my mild dislike of the squalid 
actor Robert Blake was intensified when I saw him on the 
TONIGHT show scolding Bishop Fulton Sheen for the sins 
and hypocrisies of the Catholic Church. Even then I 
suspected that Blake was not quite the man to be talking 
down to the Church, or to Bishop Sheen. Now Blake has 
been arrested for the murder of his trampish wife. I'm 
unable to work up much sympathy for him.

*          *          *

     Congressman Dick Armey of Texas, champion of low 
taxes and property rights, has told HARDBALL's Chris 
Matthews that he favors expelling all Arabs from the West 
Bank. There is plenty of room for a Palestinian state in 
the Arab countries, he explains. That's right: this 
principled Republican affirms the Jewish state's 
prerogative to drive people out of their homes.

*          *          *

     Press reports that Bill Clinton wanted his own TV 
talk show challenged the imagination. How could he bring 
it off? After all, the format of such shows is pretty 
rigid: the host begins with a ten-minute monologue of 
off-color Clinton jokes. He'd be up against his own 

My Faith: A Brief Defense
(pages 3-6)

     In 1960, when I was 14, I decided to become a 
Catholic. Both of my parents and my stepfather were 
lapsed Catholics, many of my relatives and neighbors were 
active Catholics, and the atmosphere I lived in was very 
Catholic; so my conversion wasn't the long and difficult 
journey many converts have undergone. For me it was more 
nearly a homecoming.

     I never thought of Catholicism as an immigrant 
religion and didn't even realize that anyone ever had. We 
were all normal Americans; my male relatives had all 
fought in World War II or Korea, and nobody doubted their 
patriotism. They never felt they had anything to prove in 
that respect.

     Their confidence was bolstered, I now understand, by 
the hospitality of the native Protestants, who by then 
were disposed to be friendly to Catholics. In fact the 
Catholic Church in those days was making many converts 
among Protestants. (Hollywood had also discovered that 
Catholicism was a picturesque religion; and that 
Catholics bought a lot of tickets.) It was easy for a boy 
my age to get the strong impression that Protestantism 
was an anteroom to Catholicism; the Catholic Church's 
claim to be the fulfillment of Christianity seemed very 
plausible. Everything that was strong and convincing in 
Protestantism seemed even stronger and more convincing in 
Catholicism; the weak or "liberal" side of Protestantism, 
as far as I could see, simply didn't exist in 

     During my conversion, I encountered only one 
exception to this interfaith goodwill: in my best friend, 
Bruce Hays. He was a wonderful companion, intelligent, 
hilarious, and utterly decent. But Bruce was undergoing 
his own conversion at the time: raised a tepid Methodist, 
he was becoming an ardent Baptist, and he took a dim view 
of the Catholic Church, which, like most serious 
Protestants, he saw as un-Scriptural. We argued 
incessantly and sometimes bitterly. Whenever he raised an 
objection I couldn't answer, I went to the local parish 
priests, or to the seminarians who taught me catechism, 
or to my own growing collection of books on the Catholic 
faith, including a Bible with annotations explaining the 
Scriptural foundations of Catholic doctrine. (I recently 
got in touch with Bruce for the first time since high 
school; we are both grandfathers now, and he is a 

     In those days Catholic apologetics were assured and 
aggressive. I was soon convinced that the Church would 
have an answer for every criticism. For me, the clinching 
argument was simply that the authority of the Bible 
itself rested on the Church. It was the Church herself 
that had established the Scriptural canon, long before 
Luther. Unless she was divinely guided, how could 
Protestants be sure that she had chosen the right books 
out of the welter of gospels, epistles, and other early 
Christian literature? And if she was divinely guided, by 
what authority did the Protestant reformers reject 
several books of the Old Testament that had been accepted 
by all Christians until the sixteenth century? (Luther 
also wanted to reject the Epistle of James!) Even today, 
most Christians, including the Eastern Orthodox, accept 
the old canon.

     Besides, the Bible as we know it hardly existed 
until the invention of the printing press and the spread 
of literacy (one of the great Protestant achievements, by 
the way). It was several centuries before the canon was 
even defined; the Scriptures had to be copied by hand; 
personal ownership of a Bible, now routine even among 
Catholics, was nearly impossible before Gutenberg. The 
daily life of most Christians had been sacramental, not 

     In fact the Protestant exaltation of the Scriptures 
was somewhat un-Scriptural. The principle "sola 
Scriptura" is not to be found in them. St. Paul assures 
us that the Scriptures (in the plural; he never calls 
them "the Bible") are divinely inspired, but he doesn't 
suggest that they negate the authority of the Apostles as 
given by Christ, much less that reading the Scriptures is 
on a par with receiving the Sacraments in Christian life. 
Moreover, St. Paul seems to be referring to the Old 
Testament; he may not have realized that other inspired 
books (including the Gospels) were yet to come, and he 
doesn't seem to claim inspiration even for his own 

     As far as we know, Christ never told the Apostles to 
write anything. He directed them to *preach* the Gospel, 
to baptize, and above all to commemorate him by 
reenacting the Last Supper. He said, "Take and eat; this 
is my body," not "Take and read: this is my book." If he 
had meant a book to be the decisive authority for the 
Church, surely he would have written it himself!

     All this is not to belittle the Scriptures, holy and 
precious as they are, but only to say that until fairly 
late in Christian history, they could never have had the 
central place in Christian worship the Protestants have 
given them. I won't dwell here on other problems 
Protestantism raises, except to note, as Catholic critics 
have often noted, that the principle of private 
interpretation, uncorrected by the authority of the 
Church, could only lead to endless division among 
Christians. And of course most Protestants today are 
hardly aware that what they call "the Bible" -- a neatly 
printed and packaged object -- excludes seven books still 
accepted by the great mass of the world's Christians.

     While Bruce and I were having our debate, I read a 
wonderful little book which I have often reread since 
Robert McAfee Brown and Gustave Weigel, S.J. The book is 
long out of print, but worth digging up. Both men were 
theologians, and both wrote with extreme courtesy and 
charity; but Father Weigel's searching criticism of 
Protestantism still seems to me entirely persuasive and 
even prophetic.

     Writing in the early days of the ecumenical 
movement, when "dialogue" had not yet become a cliche 
(let alone a verb!), Father Weigel was candid enough to 
say that a Catholic can't join in the kind of dialogue 
the Protestant hopes for; because, if he accepts the 
infallibility of his Church, he is simply not available 
to conversion. But the Protestant is under no such 
limitation; and Father Weigel goes on to explain, with 
great eloquence, that this is indeed the fatal weakness 
of the Protestant position. In the end, it cedes 

     Of course we have to distinguish between the 
Protestant culture, which has no center of gravity, and 
certain specific and well-defined versions of 
Protestantism, such as the fundamentalist creeds. The 
latter do hold their ground; but for that very reason 
they aren't interested in ecumenical dialogue. They 
believe in changeless truths and they see nothing to 
negotiate. And at least they have the right idea: Christ 
wasn't into dialogue and he didn't urge his disciples to 
dialogue either. The Christian may be, *must* be, meek 
and humble of heart; but he must never compromise the 
divine truth he is commanded to share with all the world.

     But it has always seemed to me that even the 
fundamentalist does compromise the truth on one vital 
point: the Eucharist. I don't see how anyone can deny 
that Christ meant the words "This is my body ... This is 
my blood" literally; and that his disciples took them 
literally. The Last Supper was the most solemn moment of 
his life, the very moment at which we would expect of him 
a stupendous revelation, not a mere metaphor or figure of 
speech. And it came. Here was the body that would be 
sacrificed, the blood that would be shed in redemption, 
under the appearances of bread and wine (foreshadowed in 
his miracles with bread and wine). For him to have 
demanded a merely symbolic memorial of himself would have 
been wholly inadequate to the occasion.

     This was the fulfillment and explanation of the 
"hard saying" which, according to chapter 6 of John's 
Gospel, caused many disciples, quite understandably, to 
fall away. On that occasion Christ didn't call them back, 
explaining that he was only giving another parable or 
symbol. He let them leave. Their shocked impression that 
he was speaking literally was quite correct.

     St. Paul likewise warns that if we eat this Bread 
and drink this Chalice unworthily, we are "eating and 
drinking damnation" to ourselves, because they are in 
fact the very Body and Blood of Christ. This hardly makes 
sense if we are taking only ordinary bread and wine.

     This is why the early Christians were accused of 
practising a cannibalistic ritual. If they had been 
Protestants, they could easily have defended themselves 
by pleading that the bread was only symbolic. Evidently 
they didn't.

     Those early Christians were very tough. Thousands of 
them endured the most horrible tortures the Roman 
authorities could think up, rather than commit the 
slightest act of hypocritical idolatry to the emperor. Is 
it even conceivable that they would have quietly accepted 
the introduction of idolatry *in their own worship?* If 
they had regarded the Eucharist as mere bread, they would 
have raised a storm of protest at any attempt to pretend 
that it was the very Body of the Lord. The "idolatry of 
the Mass" would have been condemned long before the 
Protestants came along. No greater sacrilege could have 
been imagined. The Church would have split violently. Yet 
nowhere in the history of the early Church do we find the 
slightest demurral. For centuries all Christians accepted 
the divinity of the Eucharist.

     There are other indications. An early bishop of 
Alexandria decreed that no menstruating woman might 
receive the Eucharist; Garry Wills, who denies the 
doctrine of transubstantiation, unwisely cites this fact 
as proof of the early Church's misogyny. Be that as it 
may, it certainly proves that the early Church regarded 
the Eucharist not as a mere symbol, but as something that 
must be zealously protected from any form of physical 
defilement. To us the bishop's position may seem a rude 
superstition; but then, that is exactly how Catholic 
belief in the Eucharist seems to Protestants.

     We might almost say that denial of that belief, 
universally shared by the early Church, is the only thing 
nearly all Protestants (except a few Anglicans who don't 
consider themselves Protestants) still have in common. No 
positive belief unites them; this negation does.

     Finally, we may recall that the early Christians 
received Communion far more rarely, and after far more 
rigorous fasting, than today (when frequent Communion is 
encouraged) -- another eloquent testimony to how 
sacrosanct the primitive Church considered the Eucharist. 
This is further confirmed by the care taken to avoid 
dropping eucharistic fragments during the Communion rite. 
It would be impossible to profane mere bread.

     Over the centuries, Protestant worship moved further 
and further from the Mass. Though it has recently begun 
to restore parts of the old liturgy here and there,  it 
no longer even speaks of "the priesthood of all 
believers"; without the Eucharist, there is no need of 
any priesthood or liturgy, let alone bishops, apostolic 
succession, teaching authority, papacy, and all the other 
developments that proceed from the institution of the 
Eucharist. Even at its best -- at its most faithful to 
such original doctrines as it retains -- Protestantism 
has always seemed to me sadly dated, while at its worst 
it has always seemed faddishly up to date.

     At any rate, Protestantism as a whole is so 
fragmented that if any part of it has maintained full 
fidelity to Christ's teaching, it must be such a small 
and elusive part as to make a mockery of Christ's promise 
to be with his Church even unto the end of the world. And 
just where was his true Church during the centuries when 
all Christians believed that he was physically present in 
the Eucharist? I could never escape the conviction that 
if his Church still exists, it must be something like the 
Catholic Church; and the only church like the Catholic 
Church is the Catholic Church itself. The only churches 
that resemble the Catholic Church even superficially are 
too local and schismatic for the resemblance to be 
compelling. Everything I found beautiful in Protestantism 
I found complete and perfected in Catholicism.

     Every error leads eventually to absurdity. To take a 
secular example, the U.S. Supreme Court is reluctant to 
admit error; it generally pretends even that its 
predecessors have never erred. Rather than correct 
earlier errors, it builds on them as precedents, until it 
drifts further and further from the plain and obvious 
meaning of the Constitution and notoriously flouts common 
sense. The whole process of judicial self-discrediting 
has taken only a century of so.

     If the Catholic Church had fallen into error 
centuries ago, the corollaries of her first error would 
have likewise become grossly obvious over time, each 
error begetting more and worse errors. But, quite to the 
contrary, the whole structure of her teaching remains at 
least highly plausible. One may reject her stubborn 
teaching on divorce or birth control, but she can hardly 
be accused of either inconsistency or the sort of 
consistency that finally becomes absurd. And her critics' 
case against her usually boils down to nothing more than 
the objection that she is out of step with the latest 
opinion polls, a criterion that doesn't even pretend to 
be Scriptural.

     To anyone who hungers for truth, the Church's 
indifference to opinion polls can only be a 
recommendation, even a consolation. Christ warned his 
followers to expect worldly scorn and persecution. These 
are in fact the very marks of his Church. When I fell 
away from the Church in the mid 1960s, embarrassingly 
soon after my conversion, I was disturbed by the changes 
introduced after the Second Vatican Council, which caused 
me to doubt the permanence of Catholic teaching; but I 
was still deeply impressed by the Church's refusal to 
budge on birth control. The critics, some of them 
seemingly devout Catholics, said that this teaching had 
never been dogmatically defined, and that it could be 
modified without injury to the central doctines of the 
Church. But their real argument seemed to be that the 
Church was standing alone against the whole world; which 
I thought was just what the Church was supposed to do. To 
that extent, at least, she was acting like Christ's 
Church. If she had buckled, I probably would never have 
come back.

     It wasn't just that the Church was stubborn on this 
point; I also suspected that she was right. After all, 
the world itself, not so long ago, had regarded birth 
control with disapproval and disgust. Why was that 
mutable world supposed to be normative for the Church? 
The longer she held out against the glib rationalists, 
the more my old love for her surged back. There was 
something wrong with birth control, for the same reason 
that there was something beautiful about making babies. 
And nobody else was willing to say so. Surely there were 
at least some Protestants who still felt, as their 
ancestors had felt, that contraception was at least 
morally dubious and, when used as a mere convenience, 
especially degrading to marriage.

     Suddenly large families, which I'd always felt were 
one of the great joys of life, were regarded as vulgar. 
We were warned about the "population explosion" and 
progressive voices murmured that birth control might have 
to be made compulsory. When progressives rediscovered the 
importance of "reproductive freedom," they meant only 
abortion. And the liberal churches followed these ghastly 
fashions. Only the more stalwart conservative Protestants 
-- those who remained closest to Catholicism -- refused 
to join the parade.

     The more these progressive fads raged, the more I 
understood what Chesterton meant when he said that only 
the Catholic Church can save a man from the degrading 
slavery of being a child of his time. Chesterton often 
describes Catholicism in such terms as "sane" and 
"healthy" -- words that exactly capture my own sense of 
it. The Church held chastity, marriage, and procreation 
as norms; some deviations might be tolerable at best, but 
none could claim moral parity.

     The current scandals in the Church, though they give 
glee to the progressives, prove only that the failure of 
Catholics to live by Catholic teaching can have the most 
terrible consequences. In fact the scandals are a direct 
consequence of following, instead of resisting, the 
fashions of the world. The American bishops have become 
almost unbelievably negligent since the last Council. 
But, true to form, the progressives blame the horrors of 
sexually predatory priests on the very rules that are no 
longer enforced. If that were so, the problem would have 
been more severe in the days when discipline was strict, 
and the laxity of recent decades would have improved 
matters. This is so obvious that only a liberal could 
miss it.

     An honest Protestant Christian, who remains faithful 
to the truths the first Protestants shared with 
Catholicism, may logically insist that the Reformation 
was necessitated by the errors of the Church, as he 
conceives them. But can he really deny that, on balance, 
the chief historical result of the Reformation was a vast 
dissolution of Christian culture, so that even most 
Protestants today are hardly Christians at all? One after 
another, the old doctrines, including the divinity of 
Christ, have faded away, along with the old morality; 
most nominally Christian churches have been absorbed by 
the secular world.

     This process of dissolution began very soon after 
the first Lutheran protests; and it continues today, when 
the sons of Christian Europe are casually living lives 
that would have shocked their forefathers, and even their 
long-term survival is in doubt. If the true Church of 
Christ was liberated by the Reformation, it is hard to 
identify that Church today among the myriad 
denominations; but it is not at all hard to identify a 
thousand evils, including countless false churches, that 
were also liberated when the authority of the Catholic 
Church was broken.

     I am convinced that millions of Protestants are only 
waiting to be invited back into the Catholic Church. All 
that is missing is Catholic evangelical zeal, which was 
so vigorous when I was young and has been so 
conspicuously absent since the Second Vatican Council. 
These Protestants aren't really heretics; they never 
committed heresy themselves, they merely inherited an 
abridged version of the Faith, and they have been 
faithful to as much of it as they know. They would find 
fulfillment and joy in Catholicism; and the worst mistake 
Catholics make is to dilute the Faith in the hope of 
making it more appealing. No soul full of faith, hope, 
and charity is attracted to a lowest common denominator.

     Christianity now stands with its back to the wall. 
It desperately needs reunion. To my mind this can only 
mean the return of our Protestant brothers to the 
Catholic Church. We Catholics must plead: "Dear brothers, 
we love you, and we want you back!"


HYSTERICAL PERSPECTIVE: After I wrote in praise of Thomas 
DiLorenzo's new book, THE REAL LINCOLN, in my column of 
January 17, 2002 ("Lincoln's Feet of Clay"), I got an 
unsigned e-mail message accusing me of "bashing a man who 
has been dead for 137 years. Why don't you pick a fight 
with someone who is alive and can defend himself?" I've 
dropped plans to challenge Julius Caesar's historical 
reputation. After all, the poor guy has been dead for 
more than 2,000 years. (page 6)

CASTING AGAINST TYPE: The other day I finally saw the old 
movie NORTH STAR -- one of a spate of pro-Soviet 
Hollywood films made at the urging of Franklin Roosevelt 
during World War II, to dispel "prejudice" against "our 
Russian allies." And it certainly employed the 
appropriate red and pink talents to glorify the Workers' 
Paradise: Lillian Hellman wrote the script, Lewis 
Milestone directed, Aaron Copland supplied the soundtrack 
music. The least authentic touch (of many) is Walter 
Brennan as a Russian peasant, addressed as "comrade." 
(page 6)

GO FIGURE DEPT.: I'm bemused by press accounts of the 
assassination of the Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn, an 
open homosexual who was called "right-wing" because he 
opposed immigration. Maybe he feared the Muslim influx 
would threaten such venerable Dutch traditions as 
euthanasia and same-sex marriage. (page 9)

SEMANTIC NOTES: Neoconservatives have coined the delicate 
euphemism "regime change" for the policy of overthrowing 
foreign governments and replacing them with American 
puppet rulers. Query: Would restoring the U.S. 
Constitution count as "regime change"? (page 12)

Exclusive to the electronic version:

FIDEL AND HIS FRIEND: Jimmy Carter has been taking heat 
for his goodwill visit to Cuba. Frankly, I can't see why. 
At least he got old Fidel Castro to don respectable 
business attire, if not to shave. Like all surviving 
Communist rulers, Castro is bankrupt and seems to be 
looking for a decorous way to liberalize a wee bit. If 
Carter's trip made any difference, it was probably for 
the better.


* Protestant America (April 11, 2002)

* The Zionist Dream (April 16, 2002)

* Where to Look for Evil (April 18, 2002)

* Israel's Idiots (April 23, 2002)

* The Catholic Ogre (April 25, 2002)

* An Apocalyptic Foreign Policy (April 30, 2002)


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) 2002 by The Vere Company -- 
All rights reserved.
Distributed by the Griffin Internet Syndicate with permission.