The Real News of the Month

December 2006
Volume 13, Number 12

Editor: Joe Sobran
Publisher: Fran Griffin (Griffin Communications)
Subscription Rates.
   Print version: $44.95 per year. For special discounted 
   subscription offers and e-mail subscriptions see, or call the publisher's office.

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.


  -> Hate: An Introduction
  -> Winter of Discontent
Sobran's Forum
  -> Toleration or War?
Cartoons (Baloo)
"Reactionary Utopian" Columns Reprinted in This Issue


Hate: An Introduction
(page 1)

[Note: The following is Joe Sobran's speech to the 12th 
Annual SOBRAN'S Charter Subscribers Celebration on 
December 9 in McLean, Virginia.]

     While I was planning today's remarks last week, I 
put aside Plato and Shakespeare long enough to read a 
book called MY FAVORITE SUMMER 1956, by a distinguished 
author named Mickey Charles Mantle. In 1956 I was ten 
years old, and it's still my favorite summer too. I don't 
think Mickey Mantle had a more ardent fan than I was, a 
skinny Little Leaguer in Michigan who had the enormous 
thrill of seeing him hit a home run over the roof of 
Detroit's old Briggs Stadium.

     And what a home run it was. Pop, my brother Greg, 
and I were sitting in the upper deck in dead center 
field, above the 440-foot mark, and the ball cleared the 
right field roof to our left, far over our heads, so it 
must have traveled about 600 feet. And Mantle wasn't 
taking steroids.

     It was a wonderful year for both of us. Mickey was 
only 24 years old himself, not that much older than I 
was; and he won the Triple Crown, leading both leagues in 
batting average, runs batted in, and of course home runs, 
chasing Babe Ruth's season home-run record and propelling 
the Yankees to a world championship. That was exactly 50 
years ago! It was one of the greatest seasons any player 
ever had, and it reached its climax in an exciting World 
Series, the Yankees beating the Brooklyn Dodgers in seven 
games. Several players from each of these mighty teams 
were later elected to baseball's Hall of Fame. There were 
giants in the earth in those days.

     My fifth-grade teacher, Mr. Lawrence, let our class 
listen to the whole series on the radio. I led the Yankee 
faction of the class, and my best pal, Terry Larson, led 
the Dodger faction. The emotional peak came not in the 
seventh game, but in the fifth. The Dodgers had won the 
first two games, with Terry razzing me hard. Then the 
Yankees won the next two, tying the Series up and setting 
the stage for a historic moment I'll never forget.

     In Game Five at Yankee Stadium, the notoriously 
tough Sal (the Barber) Maglie of the Dodgers, of whom it 
was said, with all the era's ethnic insensitivity, that 
he "looked like an ad for the Mafia," pitched against Don 
Larsen (no kin to Terry, by the way) of the Yankees. The 
game was a terrific pitching duel, scoreless until the 
fourth inning, when Mantle got the first hit of the game: 
a home run! That put the Yankees ahead 1 to 0, and no 
Dodger had even gotten on base. Larsen was pitching a 
perfect game! And we saw it all in full color on the 

     In the top of the fifth, the Dodgers' huge first 
baseman, Gil Hodges, hit a screaming line drive to deep 
center field. The fleet Mantle ran at full speed and 
barely grabbed it with what he later called the best 
catch he ever made, his back to the diamond. That was the 
closest the Dodgers came to getting a man on base all 
afternoon. I sweated out the rest of the game until 
Larsen struck out the last batter, Dale Mitchell, to 
complete the only no-hitter in World Series history. 
Nobody has come close to pitching one since.

     Now it was my turn to razz. "How about that, Terry?" 
I shouted. It was no time for Christian mercy.

     To my amazement, Terry took a wild swing at me and 
burst into tears. The class fell silent. Nobody had ever 
seen Terry cry before. Nobody could have =imagined= Terry 
crying. It just never happened. The stern masculine code 
of ten-year-old boys strictly forebade it, and Terry 
Larson, of all people, was the last one who would do it. 
Sal the Barber and Duke Snider might blubber, but not 
Terry. He could have borne a family tragedy stoically 
enough, but the humiliation of his Dodgers? No way.

     Mr. Lawrence quickly urged us to calm down, but 
there was no need. My glee had instantly turned to shock, 
followed by a surge of guilt and pity. What had I done to 
my best pal? A few minutes later I apologized, but Terry, 
always a good sport, made light of his own weakness and 
said he'd acted like a baby. Our friendship survived, 
maybe stronger than ever, but after that traumatic moment 
we never teased each other quite so roughly again.

     Not until recently, anyway. This October, I sent 
Terry an e-mail playfully reminding him it was the 50th 
anniversary of his namesake's perfect game. I hoped the 
old wounds had healed, but his reply struck me as a bit 
humorless. Perhaps under our grizzled exteriors beat the 
hearts of a pair of ruthless ten-year-olds.

     Be that as it may, Mantle's memoir brought back a 
flood of dear memories. But it also gave me another 
shock. He recalled in passing that when the Yankees rode 
the team bus to Brooklyn, thousands upon thousands of 
Dodger fans had lined the streets, jeering, cursing, and 
throwing garbage at them. I'd never known this. It would 
have violated my ten-year-old's notions of sportsmanship, 
such as they were (and are).

     After all, it's only a game, right? That's what I 
always thought, no matter how passionately I played and 
rooted. We were taught that good sportsmanship was 
essential. After our Little League games, we always shook 
hands with the kids on the other team. I was baffled and 
disgusted when I read about (for example) soccer fans 
abroad rioting after games. I was even more shocked when 
I heard news stories here in Virginia about stabbings, 
some of them fatal, after high-school football games. 
Doesn't the very word "sport" preclude such irrational 

     Oddly enough, my thinking about all this was changed 
a couple of years ago by a book called THE ROSARY, by 
Kevin Orlin Johnson. Johnson points out something I had 
never known: that the Church Fathers had condemned all 
sorts of competitive games and sports as immoral, not 
only the violent gladiatorial contests of ancient Rome, 
but even those I'd always assumed to be harmless and 
innocent and even "character-building." Why? Because all 
involved competition, rivalry, pride, egotism, 
humiliation, and other vices, including hatred.

     Before I read this, I'd been vaguely aware of what 
is called the seamy side of sports: gambling, corruption, 
cruelty, violence, lust, and so forth. But I'd always 
thought of all this as incidental and inessential, 
unrelated to, well, to my kids in Little League, to the 
pinochle games my family delighted in, to the brilliance 
of Capablanca's great chess games, to the heroism of the 
Olympics, and to the kittenish rivalry of Terry Larson 
and me. Did all this boil down to hate?

     Such a view seemed awfully stern, even priggish. Yet 
I was forced to see sport in a new way, just as I had 
earlier been forced to reconsider the patriotic view of 
"glorious war" I'd been raised on, which is still so much 
a part of modern American culture. Obviously violence and 
hatred are intrinsic to war. But to sport?

     All of this did set me thinking about the very 
nature of hate. Today we talk a great deal about hate. 
Curiously, we have a huge literature about love, but 
rather little about hate. Although we condemn it, we 
seldom really bother to analyze it. I'd like to deal with 
a basic distinction between two kinds of hatred, which 
are often confused.

     In one sense, hate is natural and even innocent. We 
hate things that cause or threaten pain and other evils. 
This kind of hate is properly called "aversion"; the 
philosopher Thomas Hobbes's term for it is "the desire to 
avert." We may justly feel aversion to people, even types 
or classes of people, who may do us harm or wrong, as 
when we avoid enemies or what we think of as "bad" 
neighborhoods. This hate is defensive, and we may not 
even consider it hate. In Baghdad today the Sunni Muslim 
may reasonably hate the Shi'ite Muslim, and vice versa.

     But obviously aversion can often spill over into 
another kind of hate, which we may call spite or malice: 
the positive desire not to avoid the enemy, but to hurt, 
insult, or destroy him. Neglect of this simple but 
sometimes elusive distinction has caused a great deal of 
confusion and bitterness. Obviously different groups of 
people have different and sometimes conflicting 
interests. But, for example, whites who sense that "civil 
rights" may mean the promotion of blacks' interests at 
the expense of their own rights may be accused of hate -- 
"racism." Gentiles who sense that Zionism or Israeli 
interests may injure American or Palestinian interests 
may likewise be accused of "anti-Semitism." This is 
strange, because the old question "Is it good for the 
Jews?" implies the complementary question "Is it good for 
the rest of us?" And we should be able to ask that one, 
and to answer it frankly, without being suspected of 
anything worse than exercising common sense.

     That isn't all. Today those who oppose the idea of 
same-sex "marriage" are apt to be charged with hating 
homosexuals, now known as "homophobia" (a weird word 
Shakespeare managed to get by without).

     The rock star Elton John, who has "married" his male 
lover, has recently delivered himself of the view that 
religion -- all religion -- ought to be banned, because, 
of course, it produces hate. What kind of hate? Why, 
homophobia! This view of "religion," especially 
Christianity, is a staple of liberalism, particularly in 
the entertainment industry, as witnessed by such films as 
INHERIT THE WIND (made in 1961), where Christians are 
shown as crazy, Darwin-hating bigots; the viewer would 
never guess that the raving fundamentalist William 
Jennings Bryan was in most respects one of the leading 
liberals of his day.

     Not that gay rights had become a liberal cause yet 
in 1961, let alone been a passion of Darwin's a century 
earlier, but ... well, you know. All progressive causes 
eventually converge. And all forms of bigotry and hate 
are ultimately "right-wing." Just what does "right-wing" 
mean? This is always a fuzzy concept in the liberal mind, 
where anti-government anarchists, limited-government 
conservatives, and totalitarian fascists -- not to 
mention monarchists, plutocrats, et cetera, et cetera -- 
are all somehow "right-wing." Homophobes naturally fit 
right into this miscellaneous category. The very attempt 
to delimit marriage rationally seems to be a form of 
invidious prejudice. Logic itself is hate, I gather.

     This is truly absurd. Marriage has always been 
understood as an objective union between a man and a 
woman, for the practical purpose of establishing the 
paternity of children. It therefore can't apply to a 
union of two people of the same sex. It's a simple matter 
of definition. Samuel Johnson once remarked to James 
Boswell that adultery is more serious for a woman than 
for a man because a man's infidelity, though immoral and 
in fact "equally criminal in the sight of God," 
nevertheless "imposes no bastards on his wife," and 
"confusion of progeny constitutes the essence of the 
crime." Of course Johnson wasn't thinking of 
homosexuality, but of the nature of marriage in itself. 
Unlike most people today, he didn't think of marriage as 
particularly connected to romance. Far from it.

     Johnson's view of marriage has nothing to do with 
"hating" anyone. It has everything to do with the nature 
of the two sexes. Dragging "hate" into it merely muddles 
the issue. It is sheer sentimentality to suppose that 
marriage can be something other than it is. What would be 
the point of it if there were only one sex and no 

     And here we may consider a seeming paradox of 
Christianity. On the one hand, our Lord commands us to 
love our enemies. This is hard enough. But he also tells 
us that we are unworthy of him unless we hate our parents 
and children for his sake. Love our enemies and hate our 
families? It seems contrary to reason.

     Jesus does not ask us to pretend that our enemies 
are our friends. He is quite unsentimental about that. He 
assumes that we have real enmities -- again, objective 
relations -- that can't be wished away. He warns us to 
expect to be hated and persecuted. By whom? By "the 

     How are we to resolve this? "Be wise as serpents, 
but harmless as doves." We may practice aversion but not 
spite. Again and again, we are told, he and his apostles 
took defensive and evasive action "for fear of the Jews." 
Fear, not spite. Fear is a form of hate, but it is very 
different from malice. It's the desire to avoid, not the 
desire to harm. And the desire to avoid may be entirely 
compatible with genuine love, or charity, which is not an 
emotion but an act of will.

     Our literary heritage has much more to say about 
love than about hate. But leave it to Shakespeare to 
write with profound insight into both emotions. One of 
his deepest insights about hatred -- in the sense of 
spite, not aversion -- is its self-destructive nature. 
His most famous example is Iago, who hates Othello and 
Cassio so extremely that he is finally consumed by his 
own unfathomable malice.

     But Shakespeare offers two different, and 
instructive, studies of hate in HAMLET. Hamlet is 
commanded by his father's ghost to "revenge his foul and 
most unnatural murder." And he certainly hates Claudius, 
who has not only killed his father in the most 
treacherous way, but has also seduced and married his 

     Yet Hamlet, though he seems to recognize revenge as 
his duty, can't quite bring himself to do it. For one 
thing, he says, "the spirit that I have seen may be a 
devil," who seeks "to damn me." And as a Christian, 
though he doesn't put it this way, he knows that revenge 
is a mortal sin, however he may try to justify it. His 
own soul is at stake. We, too, have mixed feelings about 
the mission of vengeance. (Claudius himself is tortured 
by guilt.)

     But then comes something that criticism of the play 
has strangely neglected. After Hamlet, in a mad moment, 
kills Polonius, mistaking him for Claudius, Polonius's 
son Laertes demands his own revenge on his father's 
killer. Here are Laertes's words:

      To hell allegiance, vows to the blackest 
      Conscience and grace to the profoundest pit!
      I dare damnation. To this point I stand,
      That both the worlds I give to negligence,
      Let come what comes, only I'll be reveng'd
      Most throughly for my father.

     Later he adds that he would willingly "cut 
[Hamlet's] throat i' th' church."

     This may sound like mere rant, but it expresses the 
kind of hatred of which Hamlet is not really capable. 
Hamlet doesn't quite "dare damnation," and it's notable 
that he passes up the chance to kill Claudius at prayer, 
though the reason he gives has been much debated. To 
quote our friend Dr. Johnson again, Hamlet's professed 
reason -- that unless Claudius is damned, his revenge 
will be imperfect -- "is too horrible to be read or 

     Hamlet may say he wants Claudius to go to hell, but 
Laertes says he is willing to go to hell himself. And 
this is the very nadir of hate -- to hate so bitterly as 
not to care what it may do to yourself, to your own soul. 
Hamlet has shrunk from suicide. Laertes's boundless 
wrath, however, is indeed suicidal.

     Liberal ideology talks as if hate were usually 
directed against whole categories of people; but in the 
real world, as in Shakespeare, it's most often felt 
toward individual persons. Even in wartime, as Paul 
Fussell observes, soldiers are more apt to hate their own 
officers than the nominal enemy. The enemy merely wants 
to kill you, while your immediate officer is apt to 
humiliate you. And this is why Iago hates Othello and 
Cassio; without intending to, they have injured his 
pride. Iago says of Cassio that he has "a daily beauty in 
his life / That makes me ugly." And this points to 
another root of real hatred: envy of the superior.

     Prince Hamlet is a delicately poised enigma, to 
himself and us, but Laertes is transparent: he's a 
reckless avenger. But for that very reason it's Laertes 
who makes the diabolic nature of revenge absolutely 
clear. Finally, when he is about to stab the unsuspecting 
Hamlet with the poisoned foil, he says, "And yet it is 
almost against my conscience." Then he and Hamlet, both 
avenged, die in mutual forgiveness. It's a terrible mess, 
but somehow, in spite of everything, a note of grace has 
crept in. Human genius can hardly go further.

     In the end we are left to ask ourselves the perhaps 
unanswerable question: What would Mickey Mantle make of 
all this?

     That aside, we see where real hate, soul-eating 
malice, can lead us. It's an emotion that we are 
witnessing all over the world, from divorce courts to 
fanatical religious wars and suicide bombers. We speak 
too readily of hate over mere differences of opinion, as 
if criticism of political claims were a form of 
persecution. I myself have become a little weary of 
hearing about lynch mobs, slavery, Hitler, and the 
Holocaust every time someone tries to bring a sense of 
proportion to hysterical claims of victimhood.

     After all, the kind of hate liberals imagine to be 
pretty much ubiquitous -- they seem to believe that women 
and minorities =never= have a nice day -- requires not 
only near-idiocy, but a lot more time and energy than 
most of us have. There's only a certain amount of 
mischief you can reasonably blame the Jews for. After six 
years of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, I think we should 
give the gentiles some credit, too.

     One final point. Lots of people deplore sex and 
violence in movies, and I think it's obvious enough why 
pornography is immoral. As for violence, which after all 
is only simulated on film, I think we need to be clear 
that what's wrong with it is very specific: that it's not 
just violence we enjoy, but usually =vindictive= violence 
-- violence with some moral pretext. The audience seeks 
to be entertained by having its vengeful impulses 
stimulated. The villain makes us hate him, so we feel 
morally justified in taking pleasure when the hero takes 
violent revenge on him. We practice hating, so to speak, 
even if those we hate are purely imaginary characters. 
And we come out feeling "moral" when we have actually 
been corrupted.

     Much more could and should be said on this, but I've 
probably said enough for now. After all, this is only an 
introduction to hate.

Winter of Discontent
(page 2)


Dear Mr. President:

     If you receive e-mail messages from Nigeria 
beginning with the word "Congratulations!" don't answer 

Joseph Sobran

*          *          *

     This great nation is in the throes of Obama fever, 
not even dampened by the revelation that Barack's middle 
name is Hussein. President Barack Hussein Obama? I guess 
we've gotten over 9/11!

*          *          *

     Ruth Marcus of the WASHINGTON POST remarks on "the 
clanging disconnect between the Republican Party's 
outmoded intolerance and the benign reality of gay 
families today." Just what does "outmoded intolerance" 
mean? Unfashionable? Formerly, but no longer, justified? 
What has fashion to do with right and wrong? And imagine 
a liberal using the other phrase without the word "gay." 
"The benign reality of (normal) families"? I ask again: 
Don't these people listen to themselves?

     If Miss Marcus is any guide, only homosexuals 
realize "family values" nowadays. Hillary, take note: It 
no longer takes a whole village to raise a child; a 
couple of dykes will do.

*          *          *

     They never fail: Front-page headlines in the NEW 
YORK TIMES ("Augusto Pinochet, 91, Dictator Who Ruled by 
Terror in Chile, Dies") and the WASHINGTON POST ("A 
Chilean Dictator's Dark Legacy") said it all. We can 
safely predict some very different headlines when Fidel 
Castro kicks the bucket. I vividly remember the TIMES's 
1976 editorials when China's Mao Zedong and Spain's 
Francisco Franco died a few weeks apart: Mao was a 
progressive "leader" who, despite a little rough stuff, 
had brought his country forward; Franco was a reactionary 
"strongman" with no such redeeming achievements. When is 
a dictator not a dictator, but a "leader"? When he's a 

*          *          *

     Neoconservative heavy hitter Robert Kagan, author of 
DANGEROUS NATION, deprecates the deprecation of America's 
"messianic impulse." He argues that this country has 
always been more imperialist than otherwise, ever 
spreading -- by arms, if necessary -- "the universal 
principles of liberalism embedded in the Declaration of 
Independence." And Kagan thinks this is, on the whole, 
fine. Never mind what the Declaration's author and his 
tradition have said; "History is not on their side."

*          *          *

     Aren't all these arguments about America's global 
role a bit presumptuous? They presuppose an era of 
prosperity and surplus that has hitherto supported huge 
military expenditures abroad, but which may soon come to 
an end. In his recent book, EMPIRE OF DEBT, Bill Bonner 
argues powerfully that America's days as a rich country 
are numbered. If the dollar collapses and we find 
ourselves eating out of garbage cans, we won't even be 
able to contemplate such expensive hobbies as spreading 

*          *          *

     If you'd like a little relief from all the bad news, 
you may enjoy the great Bob Newhart's memoir of his 
career in comedy, I SHOULDN'T EVEN BE DOING THIS! I've 
been a fan of Newhart's relaxed hilarity since my early 
teens, nearly half a century ago, and this endearing 
little book has made me only more ardent.

*          *          *

     Speaking of humor, I suspect that one of the great 
faults of traditional Scriptural translation, especially 
the King James Version, has been to make Jesus sound so 
awfully solemn, almost forbidding. Surely his parables 
and paradoxes display wit, irony, a sense of fun, even a 
certain delight in surprising and shocking our 
expectations. "It's all true, but it's not quite what you 
bargained for, is it?" he seems to smile. He was an 
absolutely innocent and virtuous man, yet, after all, the 
kind of guy rather disreputable people could welcome to 
their parties. Even his enemies never thought to call him 
a prig; why, oh why, do so many Christians make him sound 
like one?


Toleration or War?
by Doug Bandow

     The conventional wisdom is that the West should 
combat terrorism by exhibiting religious toleration 
towards Islam. If only Christians recognize Islam as a 
"religion of peace," it will be so.

     It's a cheerful thought but has constantly run afoul 
of reality. After all, when the Pope noted the 
unexceptional historical truth that Mohammed expanded his 
influence through the sword, Muslims went on a violent 
rampage around the world. Before that was the endless 
caterwauling in Islamic countries over publication of 
cartoons that criticized Mohammed.

     Assume for the sake of argument that the Pope's 
comments were unfair and that the cartoons were 
offensive. But no more unfair and offensive than the 
treatment of =Christian= images in Western nations. And, 
even more important, no more unfair and offensive than 
the treatment of Christians and Christian images in 
Muslim nations.

     Indeed, most of the nations hosting vociferous mobs 
supposedly aggrieved by the latest Western blasphemy do 
more than just suppress any public display of 
Christianity; these countries actively persecute or 
acquiesce in the persecution of Christian believers.

     In some nations the oppression is overt: try to 
worship publicly in Saudi Arabia, for instance. Try to 
share your faith in Iran. In many other nations 
persecution is private but systemic, allowed if not 
encouraged by the authorities. In some instances the 
formal government is irrelevant: try to hold a Christmas 
service in Iraq.

     As I travel the globe, I keep looking for evidence 
that Judaism and Christianity are advancing their faiths 
through violence. Strangely, I have yet to discover 
Christian converts filling a truck with dynamite and 
destroying a mosque. Or congregants at a Jewish temple 
torching a Muslim madrassah. I'm looking for cases of 
Mormons hijacking a plane to crash into downtown 
Islamabad, Hare Krishnas kidnapping and beheading Muslim 
aid workers, and Bahais taking over a cruise ship and 
tossing overboard a handicapped, elderly Muslim. I'm 
still waiting.

     In fact, the worst religious persecution comes in 
Islamic nations. In Indonesia I saw churches and a Bible 
school that had been destroyed by Muslim mobs. In March I 
met a Christian pastor whose wife lost a leg in a bombing 
at their church; their home was burned down the following 
year. A few years ago I walked through Christian 
neighborhoods in the town of Ambon, burned down by Muslim 

     In Bangladesh I met a young Christian woman who fled 
her village after being kidnapped and forced into a 
marriage by a Muslim family. I talked to Christians 
threatened with violence after their conversions.

     In Pakistan I stayed with a Christian family in 
hiding after the father, a convert to Christianity, fled 
to America to escape death threats. His wife's relatives 
hoped to kidnap their children. In that country churches 
have been bombed and congregants assaulted; Christians 
are prosecuted for blasphemy if they deny the essential 
tenets of Islam.

     In all of these nations economic, legal, political, 
and social discrimination is rampant. Government services 
and benefits are denied to Christians. Even when public 
officials don't incite violence, they rarely attempt to 
prevent it. Muslim killers or rioters are rarely 
arrested, let alone punished.

     Yes, Christianity once relied on the sword. But the 
problem of Islam and violence is not confined to the 
past. It is very much part of the present.

     Islamic protests against the slightest Western 
criticism of or doubt about the religion of Mohammed ring 
hollow. Many Muslims appear unable to defend their faith 
through anything but intimidation, violence, and 

     Does what we say in the West bother Muslims in the 
Middle East and elsewhere? They have little cause to 
complain so long as Islamic states fail to recognize that 
people created by God in his image should be left free to 
decide whether and how to follow him. A coerced 
conversion yields no glory to God, even if his name is 

     How about a deal? We in the West won't talk about 
the unpleasant beginnings of Islam or publish nasty 
cartoons about Mohammed. In return, Muslim nations will 
stop killing and persecuting Christians and will give 
Christians the same freedoms that Muslims enjoy in the 

     Fair enough?

Doug Bandow is vice president of policy at Citizen 
Outreach and the author of FOREIGN FOLLIES: AMERICA'S NEW 
GLOBAL EMPIRE (Xulon Press). He is working on a book on 
international religious persecution.


REPRINTED COLUMNS ("The Reactionary Utopian")
(pages 7-12)

* The Jim Webb I Met (November 30, 2006)

* The Atheist's Pulpit (November 23, 2006)

* Apocalypse Soon (November 17, 2006)

* The Republican Future (November 9, 2006)

* Election Projections (November 6, 2006)

* Normal Brains (Novemberr 2, 2006)


All articles are written by Joe Sobran, except where
explicitly noted.

You are receiving this message because you are a paid 
subscriber to the Joe Sobran column or a subscriber has 
forwarded it to you.

If you are not yet a subscriber, please see
for details or call 800-513-5053.

Copyright (c) 2006 by the The Vere Company, All rights reserved.

[ ENDS ]


All articles are written by Joe Sobran, except where

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) 2006 by The Vere Company -- 
All rights reserved.
Distributed by the Griffin Internet Syndicate with permission.