The Real News of the Month

October 2003
Volume 10, Number 10

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: 703-281-1609 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.

  -> Gaining Respect
  -> Peacetime Notes (plus Exclusives to this edition)
  -> Jefferson's Disciple
  -> From Federation to Monolith
Nuggets (plus Exclusives to this edition)
List of Columns Reprinted


Gaining Respect
(page 1)

{{ Material dropped or changed solely for reasons of 
space appears in double curly brackets. }}

     A dear and wise friend asks why I persist in 
associating myself with what are called "right-wing 
fringe groups" (though he doesn't use this phrase 
himself). He believes that by doing so I've hurt my 
reputation and my career. He stresses that he would never 
suggest that I compromise the truth as I understand it, 
but he wishes I'd choose my company more carefully.

     He may well be right. He is a man of deep 
conviction, who has managed to thrive without the 
slightest sacrifice of integrity, and I should probably 
try to follow his admirable example. But I can't.

     Over the past few years I've addressed many 
"right-wing fringe groups," of which the most 
controversial -- no, the most notorious; you're only 
"controversial" if you have respectable supporters as 
well as detractors -- are undoubtedly the Institute for 
Historical Review and David Irving's Real History 
conferences. I've also spoken to Catholic groups, 
pro-life groups, libertarian groups, conservative college 
groups, anti-war groups, neo-Confederate groups, the 
Council of Conservative Citizens,  {{ Shakespeare 
authorship dissenters, and various other gatherings, }} 
few if any of which could be called liberal. {{ In 
February I'm scheduled to speak at the annual American 
Renaissance convention. }} (Once upon a time I spoke to 
neoconservative audiences too, and I'd do so again, but 
for some reason those invitations have pretty much ceased 
to come.)

     Liberalism and its cousin, neoconservatism, rely on 
conservatives who crave respectability to divide the 
right wing for them. It works like a charm. Once a man 
(or a group) has been tainted as "extremist," "racist," 
"Nazi," "anti-Semitic," "Holocaust-denying," or just 
vaguely "bigoted," the Respectable Conservatives will 
finish the job. They will faithfully observe and enforce 
boycott and blacklist, until the right wing has been 
purged of real enemies of liberalism.

     The target doesn't have to be a real bigot, of 
course. But it doesn't matter. Once he's defined as an 
a priori bigot, nothing he says counts in his favor. In 
fact he probably won't even be quoted. If he fails to 
emit flagrantly bigoted words, that just proves that he's 
a "smooth," "cunning," "urbane" bigot who knows how to 
conceal his ascribed true nature. ("He can't fool us!")

     The archtype of the Respectable Conservative is Bill 
Buckley, who had to work very hard to earn his 
respectability. After being tarred as a Nazi and 
crypto-Nazi for many years, he learned to play by the 
liberal-neocon rules, excommunicating and repudiating not 
only actual bigots, but libertarians, Objectivists, 
Birchers, Old Rightists, and other proscribed 

     Eventually he {{ managed to scrape off the swastika 
that had been painted on him. He }} had done enough real 
damage to the right wing to merit liberal-neocon 
acceptance, which he gratefully accepted. {{ As a result, 
he hasn't said anything interesting in decades. I 
observed the process up close. As a young man, I'd 
worshipped him. I was outraged when he was smeared by 
liberals (some of whom later became neocons). But after 
working for him for ten years I confided sadly to a 
fellow journalist: "I used to want to be like Bill. Now I 
dread ending up like him." }}

     Maybe my friend is right. Maybe I've been 
excessively defiant. But today the conservative movement 
is dead, while pretending to have won a war in which it 
surrendered long ago. Conservatives may not know it, but 
they are all effectively liberals now. And at least I 
have the satisfaction of being able to say "they," not 
"we." Sometimes you have to choose between respectability 
and self-respect.

Peacetime Notes
(page 2)

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

     Did anyone foresee that occupying Iraq might be a 
little harder than defeating it in war? Not the Bush 
administration, it seems. A real resistance has erupted. 
"Bring 'em on," said President Bush. The Iraqis were glad 
to oblige. American and British troops are being killed 
by snipers; the UN's Baghdad headquarters has been bombed 
and its chief diplomat killed; a major mosque has also 
been bombed, and a leading "moderate" ayatollah also 
killed. The Bush gang calls the resistance (what else?) 
"terrorism." But only occupation forces, their adjuncts, 
and collaborators have been targeted. Some might call it 

*          *          *

     Writing in the WALL STREET JOURNAL, brainy Paul 
Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of whatever and mastermind of 
the war and occupation, manages to use the word 
"terrorism" and its variants 15 times. Not to mention 
"the free world," "extremists," "resolve," and all that. 
It's a piece of crude agitprop that might shame a North 
Korean commie hack. It's also a sign of the Bush crowd's 
desperation. Contrary to all official assurances, the 
U.S. troops aren't coming home soon, and the seized Iraqi 
oil assets aren't paying for the operation.

*          *          *

     Saddam Hussein is apparently still alive, cheering 
on the resistance from his secret lair. A big help he is. 
Why doesn't he provide the "terrorists" with those 
"weapons of mass destruction" we know he has?

*          *          *

     Is the torch passing to a new generation? The buzz 
has it that David Brooks of the neocon WEEKLY STANDARD 
will soon replace William Safire as the "conservative" 
columnist of the NEW YORK TIMES. And neocon David Frum is 
rumored to be in line to succeed Richard Lowry as editor 
of the formerly conservative NATIONAL REVIEW. Can't say 
I'm surprised. I may soon hold the distinction of editing 
the last remaining non-Zionist publication in the United 

*          *          *

     Twentieth Century Fox, which usually distributes Mel 
Gibson's films, won't be handling his next one. That 
would be THE PASSION, Gibson's own reconstruction of the 
hours leading up to the Crucifixion. Rupert Murdoch, who 
owns Fox, "doesn't need the aggravation," according to an 
executive of another studio. The Forces of Tolerance 
dislike Gibson's old-fashioned Catholicism and charge 
that the film will incite anti-Semitic violence. Fat 
chance. More likely they're afraid it will incite 
conversions to Christianity.

*          *          *

     To the consternation of liberals everywhere, the 
U.S. Constitution made a rare appearance when Alabama's 
Chief Justice Roy Moore defied a Federal court's order to 
remove the Ten Commandments from a state building. He was 
duly suspended from office, but not before he'd reminded 
millions what the Constitution actually means. Thomas 
Jefferson would have applauded.

*          *          *

     Let's not lose our perspective when Federal 
spending, deficits, and the total debt are reckoned in 
trillions of dollars. Trillions may sound like a lot, but 
at least we aren't talking about *real* dollars.

Jefferson's Disciple
(pages 3-6)

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

     The War between the States was both a military 
contest and a struggle over the American constitutional 
tradition. The Northern states were led by a president 
who claimed philosophical descent from Thomas Jefferson, 
and especially the Declaration of Independence. But the 
South claimed Jefferson's legacy too.

     In an 1859 letter Abraham Lincoln wrote, "The 
principles of Jefferson are the definitions and axioms of 
free society." He went on: "All honor to Jefferson -- to 
the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for 
national independence by a single people, had the 
coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce into a 
merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, 
applicable to all men and all times." In a Philadelphia 
speech in 1861, a few days before his inauguration as 
president, he said, "I have never had a feeling 
politically that did not spring from the sentiments 
embodied in the Declaration of Independence." And in his 
most famous speech of all, the Gettysburg Address, 
Lincoln invoked the Declaration's "proposition that all 
men are created equal." He felt he needed the full 
authority of Jefferson and his "proposition" to justify 
making war on the seceding states.

     When Lincoln appealed to the Declaration, it was 
always to echo that proposition. Since then countless 
others have followed his example, citing "equality" as 
the great central principle of American politics. For 
many, equality is something not merely to be recognized, 
but something yet to be *achieved.* The government must 
not only treat men -- all men, and women too -- as 
equals; it must *make* them equal. Anything less, we are 
told, would be a "betrayal" of the "promise" of America.

     The most ambitious liberals go far beyond Lincoln. 
They want the government to make people equal in every 
respect, by constant intervention in educational and 
economic life, abolishing traditional limits on the 
authority and power of the state. There is no end to the 
grand project of equalizing. At times it requires the 
state to commit the very racial discriminations liberals 
used to oppose, as long as those discriminations are made 
on behalf of the putatively "disadvantaged." In a 
practical sense, nobody knows what equality will mean 

     What did it mean to Lincoln? Chiefly, it meant only 
one thing: that slavery was wrong. The Federal Government 
had no constitutional power to touch slavery within the 
states where it already existed, but it must regard it as 
an evil and prevent its spread into new territories. At 
the same time, it did *not* mean that the Negro must be 
the political and social equal of the white man, even in 
the free states. He supported the harsh black code of his 
own state, Illinois, denying Negro citizenship. He 
emphatically favored, and worked for, the "colonization" 
of free Negroes outside the United States. Even as 
president, he sought a constitutional amendment to 
authorize Federal spending to colonize "free colored 
persons" abroad.

     Oddly enough, this is one point on which Jefferson 
and Lincoln agreed. Jefferson believed that slavery was 
wrong in principle and hoped for its peaceful abolition, 
to be accompanied by "deportation" of the freed Negroes 
to Africa. He joined Henry Clay's American Colonization 
Society toward that end; five other former and future 
presidents, including Lincoln, also joined, along with 
two chief justices of the United States, several U.S. 
senators, and other prominent Americans. It seemed the 
only hope of getting rid of slavery without creating a 
permanent racial problem.

     Otherwise, Lincoln had little in common with 
Jefferson. Lincoln ignored -- if he was even aware of -- 
the nuances of Jefferson's political thought. Lincoln had 
a limited education; Jefferson had an extremely 
cultivated mind and read Greek, Latin, and French as well 
as English literature, including the sciences. He had 
participated in the great debates at the American 
founding and had a deep knowledge of all the issues at 

     "Four score and seven years ago," as Lincoln 
understood history, "our fathers brought forth on this 
continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and 
dedicated to the proposition that all men are created 
equal." This famous sentence drastically abridges and 
distorts what actually happened, and Jefferson would have 
repudiated it.

     First, of course, the Declaration said nothing about 
a monolithic "new nation." It declared that the 13 
colonies were now "Free and Independent States," each 
having "full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract 
Alliances, establish Commerce, and do all other Acts and 
Things which Independent States may of right do." Lincoln 
reduced this to a claim of "national independence by a 
single people."

     The Declaration appealed to the republican principle 
that "all men are created equal," but only as a 
justification for asserting the states' independence from 
the hereditary British monarchy. It didn't "dedicate" the 
states (much less "a new nation") to that principle. 
There was no hint that the principle might ultimately be 
applied to slavery; the colonists were quite untroubled 
by that possibility, if it occurred to them at all. In 
fact, one of the Declaration's grievances, as Jefferson 
Davis would later note, was that George III had incited 
"domestic insurrections" -- slave revolts -- in the 
colonies. These egalitarians meant to keep their 

     Yet Lincoln contended, in his first inaugural 
address, that an indissoluble Union had been ratified by 
the Declaration, and "further matured" in the Articles of 
Confederation and the Constitution. Here the plain words 
of the Articles contradict him: "Each state *retains* its 
sovereignty, freedom, and independence ..." (My 
emphasis.) That is, the states were independent not only 
of Britain, *but also of each other.* Because they so 
clearly affirmed this mutual independence during the 
Revolutionary War, the Articles may be seen as a second 
Declaration of Independence.

     Nobody was more insistent on the constitutional 
limits of the Federal Government, and on the prerogatives 
reserved to the states, than Jefferson. Time and again he 
attacked what he saw as Federal usurpations tending to 
"consolidation." In 1791 he opposed the creation of a 
national bank because the Constitution gave Congress no 
power to do it; in 1798 he anonymously wrote the Kentucky 
Resolutions, damning the Alien and Sedition Acts on 
similar grounds; during his first term as president he 
bitterly opposed John Marshall's claims for judicial 
review as another attempt to aggrandize Federal power. 
Jefferson was forever on guard against "usurpations" and 
"consolidation"; both words are tellingly absent from 
Lincoln's vocabulary.

     Later Jefferson would condemn Federal "internal 
improvements" as lacking constitutional warrant. Such 
projects were the basis of Henry Clay's ambitious 
"American System," which Lincoln ardently supported. That 
Federally funded roads, canals, and (later) railroads 
might conduce to general prosperity would have cut no ice 
with Jefferson; at stake was the simple principle on 
which freedom depended: the Constitution didn't authorize 
them, and whatever wasn't authorized was forbidden. The 
Tenth Amendment spelled out the principle that the 
Federal Government had only the powers "delegated" to it 
in the Constitution, but that principle was really 
inherent in the very idea of a written constitution.

     Jefferson clamped onto this point like a bulldog. He 
was always suspicious of arguments for "implied powers" 
of the Federal Government, believing that such arguments 
could lead anywhere, in time undermining all 
constitutional limits.

     So Lincoln's version of the American founding and 
his claim to be a follower of Jefferson were quite 

     The Declaration itself is a secessionist document, 
and Jefferson himself was a secessionist. He usually used 
other terms for secession: "separation," "dissolution," 
or simply "independence." But the issue arose several 
more times in his life, and each time it did he 
recognized withdrawal from the Union as a legitimate 
option of the states, though always one to be taken only 
reluctantly, as a last resort.

     In 1816 Jefferson told William H. Crawford, "If any 
state in the Union will declare that it prefers 
separation ... to a continuance in union ... I have no 
hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'" On another 
occasion he confided to Crawford that he wished states 
favoring "unlimited commerce and war" would "withdraw" 
from the Union.

     Jefferson counseled caution and deliberation before 
taking the step of secession, but he certainly held that 
secession was legitimate. Thus in 1825 he wrote to 
William Branch Giles that we should "separate from our 
companions only when the sole alternatives left, are the 
dissolution of our Union with them, or submission to a 
government without limitation of powers. [But] *between 
these two evils, when we must make a choice, there can be 
no hesitation."* (My emphasis.)

     In one of his last public papers, Jefferson wrote 
that it was better for the states to accede to internal 
improvements, unconstitutional though they were, than to 
withdraw from the Union over them. But the form of his 
argument leaves no doubt of his conviction that leaving 
the Union is always ultimately within the rights of the 
people of the states. Though he cherished the Union, 
unlike Lincoln he didn't idolize it.

    Jefferson never saw the American people as a single 
undifferentiated mass or "nation." They were primarily 
*the people of the states,* in voluntary confederation 
through the U.S. Constitution. The relation of the people 
of Virginia to, say, the people of New York was a warm 
but finally contingent relation; it was real, good, and 
important, but it might, for whatever the people of any 
state deemed sufficient reason, be dissolved. The 
American people existed chiefly in their states. Their 
political confederation, their Federal Union, was 

     The Constitution, their contract, laid out the terms 
of confederation. If those terms were violated, the whole 
contract might be nullified. This should never be done 
rashly; as Jefferson wrote in the Declaration, "Prudence, 
indeed, will dictate that Governments long established 
should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and 
accordingly all Experience hath shewn that Mankind are 
more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than 
to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they 
are accustomed."

     Yet even under the Constitution, Jefferson believed, 
the states remained "Free and Independent States." They 
had delegated a few of their powers to the Federal 
Government, retaining all the rest; and if the Federal 
Government persistently usurped powers properly belonging 
to the states, the injured states might properly consider 
such breaches of the Constitution as dissolving their 
union with the other states, and declare their 
independence again.

     This is a far cry from Lincoln's view of the Union 
as indissoluble and "perpetual," which would mean that no 
matter how grossly the Federal Government might 
transgress its constitutional limits, no state could 
claim a constitutional right to leave the Union. For 
Lincoln the Union was forever sovereign over the states, 
*with or without the Constitution.*

     Jefferson would have regarded this as a monstrous 
doctrine, repugnant to the very idea of constitutional 
government. And of course it isn't to be found in the 
Constitution itself. The Constitution says nothing about 
secession, one way or the other. It doesn't say that 
states may secede; nor does it say they can't, nor does 
it give the Federal Government any power to prevent 
secession. Jefferson would presumably say that the 
principle of constitutional government *presupposes* the 
right to secede; therefore there is no reason for the 
Constitution to spell it out. By breaching the 
Constitution, the Federal Government itself dissolves the 
Union as the Constitution defines it.

     Not that actual breaches of the Constitution would 
be required. Being sovereign, a state might leave the 
Union for any reason, or for no reason. But the decision 
to take so grave a step needs at least a moral, if not a 
legal, justification. In Jefferson's words, "a decent 
Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they 
[the separationists] should declare the causes which 
impel them to the Separation."

     In 1848, the young Congressman Abraham Lincoln had a 
truly Jeffersonian moment. "Any people anywhere," he 
said, "being inclined and having the power, have the 
*right* to rise up, and shake off the existing 
government, and form a new one that suits them better. 
This is a most valuable -- a most sacred right -- a 
right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the 
world." He added that even "any portion" of a population 
might revolutionize within whatever territory they could 
control. The "sacred" right extended to secession from an 
"existing government."

     By 1860 he had abandoned this view of the "most 
sacred right," an emphatic echo of Jefferson's 
declaration. He never fully explained why. That has been 
left to his worshipful exegetes, who try to impute 
thorough consistency to all his utterances.

     As secession occurred and war between the states 
approached, the wisest Southern leaders, among them Davis 
and Senator Alexander Stephens of Georgia (who would 
become Davis's vice president) warned that though the 
Southern states had every right to quit the Union, it 
would be imprudent to do so just then. The rich, 
populous, and mighty North would surely win any war with 
the South. And with Southern Democrats out of Congress, 
Republicans would enjoy a monopoly of political power in 
the Union.

     The Cassandras were exactly right on both counts. 
The North had huge material advantages in wealth and 
population, and Lincoln, with his compliant Republican 
Congress, was quite uninhibited by the Constitution he 
said he was trying to "save."

     Lincoln willfully confused saving the Union -- by 
force, if necessary -- with upholding the Constitution. 
His oath of office required him to do the latter. It did 
not require him, or even authorize him, to prevent 
secession, much less to do so by assuming new executive 
powers. His predecessor, James Buchanan, had taken the 
position that secession was a violation of the 
Constitution, but that he had no constitutional power to 
stop it.

     Once in power, Lincoln claimed unheard-of emergency 
powers. Briefly, he defined secession as insurrection, 
raised troops and money on his own initiative without 
summoning Congress, suspended habeas corpus, arbitrarily 
arrested thousands of dissenting citizens and shut down 
anti-war newspapers throughout the North, and even 
arrested state legislators and local officials who 
refused to support his war. Secession, or even verbal 
support for secession, became treason. Lincoln's 
brainiest apologist, Harry V. Jaffa, remarks, "No 
president before him had ever discovered the reservoir of 
constitutional power contained within [the] presidential 

     All these measures, according to Lincoln, were 
entailed by the proposition that all men are created 
equal. As the seceding states were conquered, Lincoln 
replaced their elected governments with puppet military 
governments answerable to him. This dictatorship was 
wholly unconstitutional, of course; yet Lincoln insisted 
that the Northern cause was "self-government." And in the 
event of a Southern victory, self-government would 
"perish from the earth."

     It's hardly necessary to ask what Thomas Jefferson 
would have thought of all this. For Lincoln, the views 
Jefferson had expressed would have marked him as a 
traitor, an enemy of the United States. The Sage of 
Monticello would have been utterly astounded to hear 
Federal tyranny justified in the name of his Declaration.

     Far from being Jefferson's legitimate disciple, 
Lincoln has bequeathed an anti-Jeffersonian legacy. His 
own champions say as much, though without realizing it. 
Jaffa's "reservoir of constitutional power," which 
Lincoln "discovered," is actually an egregious example of 
the "implied powers" Jefferson feared would result from a 
lax reading of the "necessary and proper" clause of the 
Constitution, as in his National Bank dispute with 
Hamilton -- except that Lincoln went much further than 
Hamilton ever did.

     Since the Civil War, and especially since the New 
Deal, the idea of "implied powers" has enabled the 
Federal Government to claim and exercise innumerable 
powers never delegated in, and alien to, the 
Constitution. Most of the government's present powers are 
claimed under congressional authority to "regulate 
commerce" among the states. In the same spirit, the U.S. 
Supreme Court has found countless implications, hitherto 
unsuspected, issuing from the application of the 
Fourteenth Amendment to the Bill of Rights.

     These implications are typically said to be 
contained in the clauses of the Constitution bestowing, 
rather than limiting, Federal power. Meanwhile, the 
clauses that prescribe boundaries on that power are 
interpreted narrowly, if they are acknowledged at all. 
So, for example, the "right of the people to keep and 
bear arms" is barely noticed, let alone read expansively, 
by the Federal judiciary. The same is true of property 
rights. The Tenth Amendment, far from casting penumbras 
of inhibition on Federal powers, has been reduced to a 
trivial truism, meaning only that the states may have 
those powers that the Federal Government doesn't choose 
to assume for itself.

     In short, states now have all their powers only by 
permission of the Federal Government. This is exactly 
what Jefferson and others meant by "consolidation." 
Federalism has effectively ceased to exist, and the 
states are powerless to restore it.

     That is the final constitutional result of the War 
between the States. Jefferson's revolution has been 
reversed; it is nonsense to speak of "Free and 
Independent States" now. Lincoln achieved what the 
historian James M. McPherson admiringly calls "the second 
American Revolution." George Fletcher credits him with 
creating a second Constitution. Both are right, though 
both shrink from admitting the obvious corollary: that it 
was Jefferson Davis and the Confederacy who were fighting 
for the principles of the *first* American Revolution and 
the *original* Constitution.

     Lincoln can be blamed for a whole tradition of 
selective constitutional interpretation, which allows the 
Federal Government alone to decide authoritatively what 
the Constitution means. This too is precisely what 
Jefferson, in the Kentucky Resolutions, warned against. 
He saw that it must eventually end in boundless Federal 
power. But that, of course, is just what recommends it to 
the voracious Federal Government. Today few Americans 
sense anything amiss in allowing *Federal* courts to 
define *Federal* power; the courts are assumed to be 
impartial arbiters in cases where their own vested 
interests are at stake!

     Lincoln's constitutional victory -- essentially, a 
victory over Jefferson -- is by now nearly complete. A 
president's "greatness" is now reckoned chiefly by his 
success in increasing the power of his office and of the 
Federal Government as a whole. By this measure, Lincoln 
and Franklin Roosevelt are regularly deemed the 
"greatest" American presidents for their ability to 
surmount constitutional obstacles (or should we say the 
obstacle of the Constitution?); with honorable mention to 
Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Lyndon Johnson.

     Not that Jefferson himself was constitutionally 
immaculate. As president, his resolve to uphold the 
Constitution weakened when Napoleon Bonaparte offered to 
sell him a huge swath of North America for less than $15 
million. After a feeble attempt to amend the Constitution 
to legitimate the purchase, he grabbed the deal.

     Thanks to Lincoln, history has forgiven Jefferson. 
Few Americans remember, much less comprehend, what he 
actually said, and his revolutionary philosophy is now 
considered reactionary. The crowning irony is that 
Jefferson's greatest single breach of the Constitution is 
now remembered as his greatest presidential achievement.


LIBERAL DEATH WISH: As expected, the state of Florida has 
executed Paul Hill for killing an abortionist and his 
bodyguard. The usual suspects -- those left-libs who 
condemn capital punishment as "legalized murder" -- were 
strangely quiet about this one. After all, Hill's crime 
was especially heinous: it threatened the precious 
constitutional right of legalized murder. (page 8)

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE: Just how intolerable was the 
tyranny of King George III? Well, in 1764, according to 
Englishman paid an average 25 shillings a year in taxes, 
a colonial only sixpence, one-fiftieth." Just think: if 
we hadn't won our independence, we might still be paying 
at those rates. (page 9)

WHEN HATE IS OKAY: Why is otherwise tolerant progressive 
opinion so judgmental about homophobia? Can't they 
understand that the Good Lord made some of us homophobic, 
and he loves us the way we are? (page 10)

its own version of anti-Stratfordianism. Dominique Labbe, 
a French literary scholar, has caused a national uproar 
by arguing that the great comedies ascribed to Moliere 
were actually written by Pierre Corneille. (page 11)

Exclusive to the electronic version:

CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR DEPT.: Of course we Americans 
wanted self-government, but did we really want quite so 
much of it?

(pages 7-12)

* Quagmire in the Sun (August 19, 2003)

* Abe's Pig (August 21, 2003)

* The Living Dollar (August 26, 2003)

* He Had a Dream (August 28, 2003)

* Unfair, Unbalanced, and Very, Very Funny (September 2, 

* Bad News from Iraq (September 4, 2003)


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) 2003 by The Vere Company -- 
All rights reserved.
Distributed by the Griffin Internet Syndicate with permission.