The Real News of the Month

March 2004
Volume 11, Number 3

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.

  -> The Rise and Fall of the War Nerds
  -> National Security Notes
  -> Here to Stay?
  -> Doubts and Lies
Nuggets (plus Exclusives to this edition)
List of Columns Reprinted in This Issue


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

The Rise and Fall of the War Nerds
(page 1)

     "O that mine enemy had written a book!" A quaint 
complaint. Not only do my enemies write lots of books, 
they always seem to get fat contracts from major 
publishers for writing them.

     Random House has now brought forth AN END TO EVIL: 
HOW TO WIN THE WAR ON TERROR, by David Frum and Richard 
Perle, two of America's foremost neoconservative war 
nerds. Now I think I want to end evil as much as the next 
man, but it strikes me that even winning the War on 
Terror would be only a modest step in that direction, 
since it would do little to end other forms of evil that 
beset us, such as homophobia and mad cow disease.

     I can't say I regard Richard Perle as a personal 
enemy. About a dozen years ago I debated him on whether 
the United States should go to war with Iraq (he was pro, 
I was con), and found him polite and pleasant. Frum is 
another matter. I have to count him as an enemy, I'm 
afraid, since he keeps accusing me of "hating America." 
He's rather free and easy with the word "hate"; as a 
speechwriter for the current President Bush, he coined 
the phrase "axis of hate," which someone upstairs at the 
White House amended to the more famous and familiar "axis 
of evil," but he was glad to take credit for the general 
idea, presumably because to his way of thinking hate and 
evil are pretty much the same thing.

     Hence Frum has taken it upon himself to protect 
America from the likes of me. And I have to hand it to 
him. I'm an American only because I was born here; 
whereas he was born in Canada, and chose to *become* an 
American by immigrating and becoming naturalized, like 
such other Canadian-born American patriots as Mortimer 
Zuckerman and Charles Krauthammer, who, like him, find 
America's democratic values most vividly realized in the 
state of Israel.

     Israel too is a target of terror, hate, and evil, 
hence a natural ally for America. Criticizing either the 
Bush administration or its Israeli twin the Likud 
government is a form of hate. And so on.

     AN END TO EVIL has received a scorching review in 
the NEW YORK TIMES by Michiko Kakutani, who recognizes it 
as the delusional effort it is: an attempt by a pair of 
Jewish intellectual war nerds to justify the Iraq war and 
extend it throughout the Middle East. Though she avoids 
the word "Jewish," she sees exactly what's going on here, 
and she also knows that to identify the ethnic interest 
that unites Perle and Frum -- and Zuckerman and 
Krauthammer, and dozens of others in the vociferous but 
minuscule neoconservative "movement" -- is to court the 
charge of anti-Semitism.

     Her awareness is but one sign out of many that the 
neocon "movement" has peaked. It got its war, but it also 
got a lot more exposure than it wanted, and the game is 
up. The neocons may as well stop pretending that they 
stand for American interests, because they've long since 
stopped fooling the kind of people they most need to 

National Security Notes
(page 2)

     Thinking big, President Bush has decided to revive 
the ailing U.S. space program by putting men on the moon 
by 2020, on Mars by 2030, and eventually "across our 
solar system." It all began with Sputnik, back in 1957, 
but just because we've won the Cold War is no reason to 
stop waging it. We can't risk letting the Russians get to 
Pluto before we do.

*          *          *

     Gridlock in 2004? John Kerry, who has emerged as the 
Democrats' front-runner, may test the electorate's 
tolerance for priggish Massachusetts liberals. But Kerry 
won't be the pushover Michael Dukakis was. He's a 
toughie, and his military record as a decorated veteran 
makes Bush's dodgy National Guard history a risible 
contrast. Anyway, the voters may figure that he can't do 
much harm if he takes office facing a largely Republican 
Congress. Liberals, moderates, and serious conservatives 
should agree that ending the GOP's political monopoly is 

*          *          *

     Though this is undoubtedly the land of equal 
opportunity, one can't help noticing that both Bush and 
Kerry not only went to Yale, but belonged to the 
exclusive and secretive Skull and Bones Society. Small 

*          *          *

     The berserk supreme court of Kerry's state has now 
decided that the legislature must legalize same-sex 
marriage; mere "civil unions" won't meet the 
constitutional standard. Is the court trying to give Bush 
a red-hot campaign issue? It might as well order Kerry to 
pick Barney Frank as his running mate.

*          *          *

     Bush's proposal to let illegal aliens stay in this 
country, provided they have jobs here, is hard to square 
with his policy of screening out every potential 
terrorist entering our borders, especially when he has 
also ordered tightened checks on legal visitors, but you 
have to remember that standards of consistency are always 
relaxed during an election year.

*          *          *

     Why are conspiracy theories supposed to be absurd, 
when governments budget billions for intelligence 
operations that conduct "covert activities" and keep 
countless secrets from their own citizens? I guess we're 
expected to assume that "our" conspirators are protecting 
our freedom. This strikes me as the oddest conspiracy 
theory of all.

*          *          *

     Janet Jackson's strip act during the Super Bowl 
halftime show roused Christian America to a rare and 
astounding roar of protest. For once the media seemed to 
get the message. Profuse apologies were tendered, and a 
few old standards of broadcasting decency were restored. 
Temporarily, at least. And naturally the Feds are getting 
into the act, threatening to "protect" a public that has 
just proven perfectly capable of protecting itself when 
it wants to.

*          *          *

     Jewish groups are still harassing Mel Gibson's 
PASSION OF CHRIST in this country. Instead of quarreling 
with the Gospel accounts, why not just urge their 
Hollywood friends to film the Talmud's version of the 

Exclusive to the electronic version:

     Only a Republican could, as Bush did in his State of 
the Union speech, simultaneously attack Big Government 
and propose a dozen new Federal programs. One of them 
would assist imprisoned felons. Michael Kinsley, my 
favorite liberal, said it best: "Willie Horton, thou 
shouldst be on furlough at this hour!"

*          *          *

     Now that Japanese troops have arrived to help in 
Iraq, it's truly a quagmire. Fifty years from now, Jap 
soldiers will still be holed up there, refusing to 
believe the war is over.

Here to Stay?
(pages 3-4)

     Can civilization exist without the State? No, says 
Professor Randall G. Holcombe of Florida State 
University, writing in the Winter 2004 issue of THE 
INDEPENDENT REVIEW. Holcombe's position might be 
described as one of thoughtful and pessimistic 
libertarianism, summed up in the view that "although 
government may not be desirable, it is inevitable because 
if no government exists, predators have an incentive to 
establish one."

     By "government" he means the State, a legal monopoly 
of power; let us accept these terms for the moment, 
though many anarchists have argued that government, or a 
rule of law, can exist without such a monopoly, through 
voluntary protective organizations. The basic idea, I 
take it, is that since force can never be eliminated from 
human society, there must always be a Top Dog. It's an 
idea that haunts me too. If the State as we know it were 
somehow done away with, it seems likely that some gang 
would eventually replace it.

     On this view, the best we can hope for is to "tame" 
the State, seeing to it that some form of limited 
government prevents totalitarian rule. As Holcombe 
plausibly puts it, "History has shown not only that 
anarchy does not survive, but also that some governments 
are better than others. Therein lies the libertarian 
argument for a limited government."

     But does history really teach such an unequivocal 
lesson? Yes, states have been plentiful (after all, what 
we call "history" is in large part the record of states), 
some states are worse than others, and the differences 
are important. Still, men have lived in many places and 
for long periods without anything we would recognize as 
the State. One may argue, a la Hobbes, that stateless 
societies are doomed to be primitive, and life in them 
"solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short"; hence the 
need of men for a Top Dog "to keep them all in awe." Just 
or not, the Top Dog -- king, chief, pharaoh, whatever -- 
decisively settles quarrels, prevents other quarrels, and 
enables life to go on. Better Stalin than anarchy. Or 
rather, anarchy (according to Holcombe's argument) will 
in any case pave the way for a Stalin.

     History as Americans have learned it is Locke's 
answer to Hobbes: Jeffersonian limited government. 
Unfortunately, even under the cunningly designed U.S. 
Constitution, government didn't stay limited, thanks in 
part to Thomas Jefferson himself (who, Constitution or 
no, couldn't resist the Louisiana Purchase). Abraham 
Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt greatly enlarged the power 
of the U.S. Government -- and abandoned the Constitution 
-- while emphatically proclaiming Jeffersonian pieties. 
Under George W. Bush that government is ready to wage war 
around the world and send men to Mars, without feeling 
that the Land of the Free has changed in principle.

     If this can happen to America, we are forced to 
wonder: Can *any* state remain limited? In other words, 
which is the real fantasy -- anarchy or limited 
government? Maybe both are possible, at least for a 
spell; maybe both are impossible, at least in the long 
run. History, pace Holcombe, doesn't tell us. All it does 
tell us is that men, at various times and in various 
places, have lived with, and without, what we think of as 

     What we do know is that in modern times the State 
has grown to astounding dimensions, beyond any precedent 
in recorded history. In the name of protecting its 
subjects from innumerable alleged evils -- many of them 
created by semantic ingenuity ("discrimination," 
"homophobia," and the like) -- it now invades every nook 
and cranny of human life and society. To call it limited 
is a bad joke.

     The hypertrophy of the State over the last century 
or so is something new under the sun. Whether you like it 
or not, it's an enormous fact of life, comparable to, 
say, the Industrial Revolution in scope, sweep, and 
impact. Yet, unlike other great periods of change 
(Feudalism, the Renaissance, the Reformation), it still 
has no name! Many men are still unaware that it has 
completely changed the nature of social life, though 
everyone vaguely senses it. We notice, applaud, or 
grumble about this or that new feature of State authority 
-- a new tax, rule, or regulation -- without seeing such 
things as part of a comprehensive transformation. We 
accept them as inevitable. We assume not only that the 
State is here to stay, but that it will keep growing, 
expanding, commanding, taxing, and of course intruding. 
That's what it does. That's the way we live now.

     Orwell and others have noticed some of its 
nightmarish features, but without seeing the completeness 
of the change even in its seemingly benign details, its 
"services" as well as its torments. The State's rhetoric 
is, of course, benevolent: It offers to spare us every 
imaginable evil, and its lexicon is full of words like 
"defense," "security," "protection," and "safety" for 
every liberty it strips away.

     Once we naively assumed (at least I did) that the 
best protection we could have was simply an impersonal, 
objective rule of law. Then the State discovered a new 
role for itself: *special* protections for particular 
categories: racial minorities, farmers, laborers, old 
people, women, the handicapped, children, even sexual 
perverts. The roll call of accredited victims continues 
to lengthen, and with it the powers of the State. It 
isn't enough to treat people equally; they must be made 
equal. (And not only people: animals too.) There is no 
end to it. *Limited* government? Don't be silly. The only 
argument now is over what new roles (and powers) the 
State should appropriate. The change is stupendous, truly 
revolutionary, more radical than the change from Tsarism 
to Bolshevism. Terms like "big government" and "creeping 
socialism" are only lazy, inadequate nicknames for it.

     And nobody seems to see it! Hence two of my favorite 
quotations. G.K. Chesterton: "Men can always be blind to 
a thing, so long as it is big enough." And Hugh Kenner: 
"The style of your own period is always invisible." Those 
who do see, and still resist, the great change are said 
to be "ideological," "ultraconservative," "right-wing." 
That is, they have principles, which they realize that 
the State is continually violating.

     Is the great change inevitable? Those who think they 
benefit by it naturally want us all to think so. But to 
say that the State is "here to say" is to make a certain 
prediction. The State is more than organized force; it is 
force endowed with *legitimacy* -- that is, the approval 
of its subjects. And can we say that, as the State keeps 
expanding, its subjects will forever approve of it?

     In the film MILLER'S CROSSING, the urban gangster 
who rules the city is cautioned by his right-hand man: 
"You don't hold elective office in this town, Leo. You 
only run it because people think you run it. When they 
stop thinkin' it, you stop runnin' it." That's legitimacy 
for you. Even the State needs more than force alone. When 
it appears nothing more than a gang, its days are 

     More and more Americans are becoming deeply 
skeptical of the State and its claims. Very few are 
principled anarchists or even libertarians at this point. 
Not many have read or understood the Constitution. But 
mistrust of the government and the two major parties is 
already widespread. More and more people sense that the 
problem isn't just the Republicans or the Democrats, but 
the whole system of organized force. The government 
doesn't even respect or observe its own fundamental law 
as codified in the Constitution. Its legitimacy is 
wearing thin.

     Before 1860 the Abolitionists never remotely 
approached a majority of even the Northern population, 
yet they severely damaged the legitimacy of slavery 
merely by challenging it. Norman Thomas's Socialist Party 
likewise never won an election, but it exerted a strong 
influence on the two major parties. In the seemingly 
invincible Soviet Union, a tiny number of courageous 
dissidents helped bring about the eventual collapse of 
the whole system, which even the most anti-Communist 
Westerners hardly thought possible.

     In the same way, even a small body of articulate 
anti-Statist opinion could change the entire American 
political climate and eventually destroy the legitimacy 
of Leviathan. The State is a human institution, sustained 
by human will. It isn't a given of nature, though it may 
at times seem so. There can be no moral "right" to a 
monopoly of force.

     Once significant numbers of men see that this is 
self-evident, the State will be in real trouble. By the 
standards of the Founding Fathers themselves, the U.S. 
Government has long since crossed the line into tyranny. 
Most Americans prefer not to think it possible. George W. 
Bush himself thinks he is merely carrying on the unbroken 
tradition of 1776. Just as a complacent old party hack 
like Leonid Brezhnev could see himself as the avatar of 
the Marxist faith, so Bush may suppose that by leading 
the American Leviathan into the Middle East and outer 
space he is only doing Jefferson's work.

     There was a time when most people imagined that some 
men could be free only if other men were slaves. Even 
more fantastically, most people still imagine that 
without the State there could be no freedom at all. 
Professor Holcombe is far too rational to believe that; 
but his subtler error, the notion that the State is 
"inevitable," could do its part to keep the State in 
business. It puts him in bad company where he doesn't 

Doubts and Lies
(pages 5-6)

{{ Material dropped from features or changed solely for 
reasons of space appears in double curly brackets. 
Emphasis is indicated by the presence of asterisks around 
the emphasized words.}}

     Well, well. The dust is settling, the shouting has 
died down, and the Bush administration's great pretext 
for war has been all but annihilated. President Bush 
himself, and Secretary of State Colin Powell as well, 
have backed away from their flat insistence that Saddam 
Hussein had "weapons of mass destruction" that could 
threaten the United States and its "friends."

     This tacit but crucial concession comes after the 
sober liberal Brookings Institution issued a study 
concluding that the administration had "systematically 
misrepresented" the supposed Iraqi threat in order to 
herd us into supporting the war. Paul O'Neill, Bush's 
former treasury secretary, has also disclosed that Bush 
wanted war with Iraq even before the 9/11 attacks and 
that he, O'Neill, never saw evidence of the notorious 

     And of course, Bush's own weapons inspector, David 
Kay, has concluded that the weapons most probably didn't 
exist. Kay still favors the war and qualified his 
findings as much as he could, but there was no evading 
the central fact: the Bush administration misled the 
country about the supposedly menacing Iraqi arsenal in 
order to wage war with popular support.

     {{ After the quick U.S. victory, Bush doggedly 
repeated his prediction that those weapons would be 
found. They haven't been, and Bush has quit saying that 
too, though he still says the war was justified -- 
without explaining what war on Iraq had to do with "war 
on terror." }}

     Now the intelligence services are being blamed for 
misleading poor Bush. Here the head spins. Was the 
Central Intelligence Agency the driving force behind the 
war fever? That's hardly the impression we got at the 
time. (And did the CIA mislead the poor neocons too? It 
appears that the administration's "intelligence" included 
disinformation supplied by the neocon-Mossad cabal.)

     In order to get the monkey off his own back, Bush 
has appointed a bipartisan panel to investigate the 
"failure" of the intelligence services. CIA director 
George Tenet, meanwhile, has defended his agency's 
performance with the seemingly reasonable plea that 
intelligence is seldom "completely right or completely 
wrong." But that only undercuts the unwavering claim of 
the administration that it had infallible *knowledge* of 
an Iraqi threat -- even a threat of nuclear incineration!

     Were Bush, Powell, Dick Cheney, and the rest of the 
cast consciously lying? Probably. But even if not, they 
were baldly claiming a certainty that in their 
circumstances couldn't possibly have been warranted. And 
they were counting, quite realistically, on the popular 
faith that they "knew something" the rest of us couldn't 
know and that they could be trusted not to abuse their 
privileged information.

     One phrase was repeated in the Bush crowd's emphatic 
war propaganda. Vice President Dick Cheney told us, 
"Stated simply, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has 
weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is 
amassing them to use against our friends, against our 
allies, and against us." Secretary of Defense Donald 
Rumsfeld assured us, "There's no doubt in my mind that 
they currently have chemical and biological weapons." 
Bush himself said that "intelligence ... leaves no doubt 
that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal 
some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." No doubt 
... no doubt ... no doubt.

     There were slight variants, no less dogmatic: Ari 
Fleischer told the White House press corps that "we know 
for a fact that there are weapons there." Cheney was 
being relatively tentative when he said merely that "we 
believe" that Saddam "has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear 

      Bush himself drove the point home by warning that 
"the smoking gun may take the form of a mushroom cloud" 
-- a line well calculated to terrify a jumpy populace who 
couldn't imagine that a president would say such a thing 

     Surely the intelligence agencies, even knowing what 
their boss wanted to hear, didn't make such absolute 
assertions about Iraq's arsenal. It's grotesque for our 
"democratic leaders" to pass the buck to the unelected 
bureaucrats who serve them.

     And speaking of those weapons, why are they 
euphemistically called weapons of mass "destruction"? 
They are weapons of mass *murder.* But Bush can't afford 
to call them that, because the U.S. Government and its 
little pals in Europe and the Middle East have them too. 
This fact always made it preposterous, in the minds of 
sober people, to assume that if Saddam Hussein got a 
single nuclear weapon, he would immediately drop it on 
someone (or genially pass it along to his enemy Osama bin 
Laden, to use it as he saw fit).

     So it turns out that Bush went to war over a very 
big maybe. But "perhaps" and "probably" were absent from 
his pre-war vocabulary. Yet neither he nor his team nor 
the journalistic flaks for the war concede that Kay's 
findings in any way alter the war's justification, the 
principal justification they themselves offered!

     How can people be so brazenly self-contradictory? I 
posed this question to a friend, who offered an apt and 
amusing parallel. When Bill Clinton denied having had 
"sexual relations with that woman," nearly everyone, 
including top officials of his administration who 
professed to believe him, agreed that if he turned out to 
be lying, he was finished. But when it turned out -- when 
Clinton himself admitted -- that he had indeed been 
lying, it simply *made no difference* to his supporters 
(or to "objective" journalists who had held that such a 
lie to the country would ruin him).

     So it is here, though lying about war is a far 
graver deceit than any lie Clinton told. Virtually no 
supporters of the Iraq war have changed their minds in 
light of Kay's finding that the chief reason given for 
that war was as bogus as millions of people around the 
world had suspected. Never mind the "lessons" of Vietnam 
and Watergate: Much of the American public simply takes 
presidential lying in stride, as long as they consider 
the liar to be lying in behalf of their side.

     The part that shocks me personally is how corrupt 
much of the "conservative" electorate is. During the 
pre-war debate, and even now, I've often been accused by 
pro-war readers of being a "liberal." I trust that my 
whole career has sufficiently acquitted me of this 
charge. But many Americans now assume that any opposition 
to *any* war -- at least a war launched by a nominally 
conservative president -- can only spring from partisan 
or sectarian motives.

     In any war, many innocent people die. An unjust war 
-- a war fought without serious and solid reasons -- is 
therefore mass murder. Hardly anyone denies this in 
principle, yet by now it's widely accepted that 
"conservatism" means the routine approval of war, and 
that to harbor doubts about a war is the mark of a 
liberal whose very patriotism is doubtful. Opponents of 
the Iraq war have even been roundly accused of 
"anti-Americanism." Neoconservative Catholics have even 
criticized Pope John Paul II for opposing the war.

     Sic transit gloria Bushi. The great war president, 
successor of Roosevelt and Churchill, suddenly looks like 
a fool who duped not only himself but his country. He 
roused, and exploited, the most basic instinct of 
self-preservation in the American people, so that he 
could pose as their courageous protector. In addition to 
a huge military deployment, he created an enormous, and 
no doubt permanent, new domestic bureaucracy, the 
Department of Homeland Security, armed with the new 
powers contained in the USA PATRIOT Act. (Which Bush 
still wants Congress to renew this year.)

     The whole situation may fairly be called, to adapt a 
phrase of Saddam Hussein himself, the mother of all 
snafus. It should stand as the supreme object lesson in 
how the State operates. Every possible resource was 
mobilized to meet a phantom "threat." Alarms were 
sounded, propaganda clanged relentlessly, freedoms were 
curtailed, and of course the tax burden swelled -- as 
Bush meanwhile vastly increased the size, scope, and cost 
of the welfare state.

     And "conservatives" fervently support his 
reelection! When they finish conserving this country, 
there won't be much left of it. Without irony, it can be 
said that if the Democrats replace Bush in the White 
House, especially with the Republicans retaining 
dominance in Congress, the results, however annoying, 
will be less comprehensively damaging than under Bush.

     In himself, Bush doesn't appear to be egregiously 
wicked. He's merely a mediocre man in a literally 
superhuman job, wielding far more power over others than 
any man should ever have, and charged with an impossible 
number of responsibilities for that very reason. Given 
what the U.S. presidency has become, this would be true 
of anyone in his place. The trouble is that Bush is 
actually eager to exercise that power, with no sense of 
his unfitness for it. He suffers from delusions of 

     Megalomania might as well be part of the job 
description of the presidency. Nobody of normal humility 
would seek the office and all of what is reverently 
called its "awesome power" -- a regrettably apt term. 
This means we are doomed to be ruled by veritable madmen.

     You needn't worship the Constitution and its Framers 
in order to appreciate that they did, after all, attempt 
to design a federal system in which political authority 
would be widely dispersed, and no "great" man would be 
required for its proper functioning. In their view, 
government -- and particularly the Federal Government -- 
would play only a modest role in the daily life of 
Americans. The chief executive would simply execute laws 
passed by Congress, without assuming royal airs.

     Even so, the difference in quality between the early 
presidents and recent ones is astonishing. It's 
inconceivable that a Bush could have been elected two 
centuries ago, just as it's inconceivable that a 
Jefferson or a Madison could be elected today. In fact 
it's impossible even to imagine Bush, a Yale graduate, 
conversing intelligently with such men.


SUGGESTION: Maybe John Kerry's campaign slogan should be 
"Kill babies, not Arabs!" What a dismal choice voters 
face this fall. The two-party system has really outdone 
itself. (page 4)

lowered the moral threshold for American presidents; Bush 
has also lowered the intellectual threshold -- without 
raising the moral one. (page 8)

O YE OF LITTLE FAITH! As dogs trust their masters and 
children their parents, so Americans trust their 
government. Why? Well, as Gary North observes, simply and 
profoundly, people want to trust those they are dependent 
on. The alternative is disturbing. And the more we depend 
on the state, the harder it is to face the fact that it 
habitually deceives us. So the believers turn angrily on 
the doubters. (page 9)

RELIABLE SOURCES: Some of Bush's pre-war "faulty 
intelligence" may have come not only from the CIA, but 
from our "allies" (Mossad's slogan, remember, is "By way 
of deception you shall make war") and/or hairy 
pseudo-Biblical prophecies about the Middle East. Want to 
bet the Robb inquiry will go into these things?

Exclusive to the electronic version:

THE FIRST AMENDMENT IN ACTION: Janet Jackson's latest 
stunt on network television highlights a fact of life. 
Once upon a time you had to pay for porn. In this 
liberated age, you have to pay extra to avoid it. 
Porn-shunners have become a niche market.  

(pages 7-12)

* Brown Reconsidered (January 13, 2004)

* Election-Year Forecast (January 15, 2004)

* Burton's Lost Hamlet (January 22, 2004)

* A Strategy for Kerry (January 29, 2004)

* An Honest Mistake (February 3, 2004)

* War and Crime (February 5, 2004)


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) 2004 by The Vere Company -- 
All rights reserved.
Distributed by the Griffin Internet Syndicate with permission.