“The 15% Solution,” Serialization, 12th Installment: Chapter Eleven 2009: The Proclamation of Right Presidential Decree No. One

Note: The Preface and Chapters One through Ten can be found here: The 15% Solution

by Jonathan Westminster, Ph.D. aka Steven Jonas, MD, MPH
Featured Writer
Dandelion Salad
crossposted on TPJmagazine.us
January 23, 2011

This is the twelfth installment of a project that is likely to extend over a two-year-period from January, 2010.  It is the serialization of a book entitled The 15% Solution: A Political History of American Fascism, 2001-2022.  Herein you will find Chapter 11.  This chapter presents the “Proclamation of Right,” decreed by President Jefferson Davis Hague of the American Christian Nation Party, presented to the nation on Easter Sunday, 2009.  An earlier Constitutional Amendment has already established that homosexuality is a matter of choice.  Hague’s decree established it as a crime.

Under the pseudonym Jonathan Westminster, the book is purportedly published in the year 2048 on the 25th Anniversary of the Restoration of Constitutional Democracy in the Re-United States. It was actually published in 1996 by the Thomas Jefferson Press, located in Port Jefferson, NY.  The copyright is held by the Press.  You can find a complete archive of the chapters published to date on TPJmagazine.us (lower right hand corner of the home page, http://tpjmagazine.us/15percent) as well as the Disclaimer, the cast of characters, the author’s bio., cover copy, and several (favorable) reviews.

A recent commentator had this to say about the book: “I am in the middle of reading  The 15% Solution.  For some reason I assumed it was a recent publication.  About 100 pages in I looked to see when it was published.  It was published in 1996.  That absolutely shocked me. What it was saying then is exactly what is happening now.  The race-baiting, anti-homosexual crap that takes one’s attention away from what is actually happening, and it was written about 15 years ago.  Even the 14th amendment controversy is discussed in this book, as well as so much more – ownership of the media, talk radio, etc.  This is truly frightening, and if the Dems do not wake up and fight, I fear there is much worse to come.”  Indeed!

Chapter Eleven 2009: The Proclamation of Right Presidential Decree No. One:

The Proclamation of Right (Easter Sun­day, March 29, 2009)

Section 3 of the 31st Amendment to the Constitution of the Unit­ed States has es­tablished that the human aberration ho­mo­sexuality is a mat­ter of choice.  Homo­sexuality and its associat­ed behaviors, pe­dophilia, sadism, and masochism, are all ab­nor­mal, wrong, unnatu­ral, and per­verse, as well as sins against God.  They are to be dis­couraged, avoid­ed, and yes, con­demned.

Despite the measures taken pursuant to Section 3 of the 31st Amend­ment, in the eyes of God and every right‑thinking Amer­ican, homosexu­ality and its associated perversions still consti­tute a plague upon our land and people.  Therefore, pursuant to the powers vest­ed in me by Section 6 of the 32nd Amendment to the Constitution, I hereby decree a special national emergen­cy in order to deal appro­priately with this plague.

As of this holy day, in homage to our almighty God, in rec­ogni­tion of His declaration that homosexuality is the worst kind of per­version, I hereby declare that homosexuality, in action or thought, is a crime.  The Congress and the legislatures of each state are hereby empowered to enforce this Proclamation in any manner of their choosing.  They will be supported by the pow­er of the Federal government to the full extent of the law.

Author’s Commentary

Much of the defining language of President Hague’s statement was drawn directly from that of an Amendment to the Constitution of Ore­gon, a state in which the Constitution could be amended through the process of Initiative and Referendum (see Chapter four).  First pro­posed in 1992, adoption of the Amendment was defeated by the voters in that year, but eventually passed, in 1998.  The Amendment read (Egan):

“Section 1.  This state shall not recognize any categorical pro­vi­sion such as ‘sexual orientation,’ ‘sexual preference,’ and simi­lar phras­es that includes homosexuality, Quotas (sic), mi­nority sta­tus, affir­mative action, or any similar concepts, shall not apply to these forms of con­duct, nor shall government pro­mote these behaviors.

“Section 2.  State, regional and local governments and their proper­ties and monies shall not be used to promote, encourage, or facili­tate homo­sexuality, pedophilia, sadism or masochism.

“Section 3.  State, regional, and local governments and their depart­ments, agencies and other entities, including specifically the State De­partment of Higher Education and the public schools, shall assist in setting a standard for Oregon’s youth that recognizes homosexu­ality, pedophilia, sadism and masoch­ism as abnormal, wrong, un­natural and perverse and that these behav­iors are to be discouraged and avoided.

“Section 4.  It shall be considered that it is the intent of the peo­ple in enacting this section that if any part thereof is held un­constitutional, the remaining parts shall be held in force.”

Homophobia in the Law

Restrictions had been placed on public and private homosexual be­hav­ior and “thought” by Federal and state legislation written pur­suant to Section 3 of the 31st (Morality) Amendment.  (That Amendment you may recall, following the precepts of former Vice‑President J. Danforth Quayle [De Witt] and oth­er Right‑Wing Reactionaries of the Transition Era, declared that homosexuality was a matter of choice [see also Chap­ter seven].) Some of that legislation was modeled on the provi­sions of the Oregon measure as well as that of a similar one known as “Colora­do Amendment 2,” which first made its appearance in that same year.

However, all of this, the President told the people, was not consid­ered to be “enough” to deal with the “threat.”  Thus, according to Hague, issuance under the Presidential decree power of the Proclama­tion of Right was absolutely necessary if morality, and by implication the Re­public itself, were to be saved and redeemed in the eyes of the Lord.

After Hague issued the Proclamation of Right, some states enacted legislation placing homosexuals entirely outside the protection of the law, and disenfranchis­ing them.  A forerunner of this action was the enact­ment of the “Nuremberg Laws” against the Jews by the Nazi Ger­man Reichstag on September 15, 1935, that eliminated most civil rights and liberties protections for Jews living in Nazi Germany).  As Prof. Lucy Dawidowicz once wrote (1975):

“These laws legitimated racist anti‑Semitism and turned the ‘pu­rity of German blood’ into a legal cat­egory.  They forbade mar­riage and extra­marital rela­tions between Jews and [other] Ger­mans and disen­franchised those ‘subjects’ or ‘nationals’ of Ger­many who were not of  ‘German’ blood.”

Details of just how the determinations of “homosex­ual” were to be made, by whom, and with what ap­peals procedures, were not included in any of these statutes.  That followed the pattern of the “homo‑quarantine” (they meant “isolation”) proposals that were made by some Far Rightists during the Transition Era for dealing with the AIDS problem: no details on who, where, by whom, for how long, at what cost, to be paid for by whom, and so forth.  These details had also been ignored in the Colorado and Oregon Amendments and their cam­paigns.  In practice, the legislation passed pursuant to the Hague decree was enforced with what might be politely called “rough justice,” usual­ly meted out by the Helmsmen (see below).

The Politics of My­thology

It is a fascinating commentary on the projection and use by Right‑Wing Reaction of what Alex Poughton referred to as the “Politics of Mythology” (see Chap­ter six) that in both the old Oregon initiative and the very first Presidential decree issued by Hague, homo­sexuality was directly linked with “pedophilia, sa­dism, and masochism.”  It was well‑known at the time of the first introduction of the Oregon measure that the vast majority of sex abusers of children of either gender were heterosexual males, 60 percent of them family members of the abused child, and fewer than 5 percent of them strangers to the victim (Groth).

Further, there was no evidence to show that (pre­sumably sexual, but otherwise undefined) “sadism and masochism” were any more widely associated with the sexual practices of homosexuals than with those of heterosexuals.  But once again, in the 90s it was considered unfair to confuse Right‑Wing Reac­tionaries with facts.  Both at that time and later, if the Right‑Wing Reactionaries in question were homo­phobic, racist, misogynist, or otherwise xenophobic, and also possibly prone to violence, it was considered unwise to do so as well.

The Politics of Homophobia

As detailed earlier in this book (see Chapters four, six, and seven), homophobia had been a major ele­ment in the Republican‑Christian Alliance’s drive to virtually complete control of the government both at the Federal and state levels.  I have previously cited the statement by the Rev. Pat Robertson commenting on tactics and strategy used in the 1992 elections (Right‑Wing Watch): “As an issue in American poli­tics, abortion is no longer current. . . . The ‘gay is­sue,’ however, proved promising.”

In 1995, in a fund‑raising letter (June, 1995), the Reverend Jerry Falwell posed the question: “Has America become ‘One Nation Under Gays?'”  He then went on to tell his readers that “the radical gay agen­da is destroying America!” And what precisely was that country‑destroying agenda?

“Homosexual Demand #1: Passage of a Gay Civil Rights Law.

“Homosexual Demand #2: Massive increase in spend­ing for AIDS research and patient care.

“Homosexual Demand #3: An end to ‘family’ related discrimi­nation against gays, lesbians, etc.

“Homosexual Demand #4: Acceptance and promotion of the gay life­style within the educational system.”

And that was it, not underinvestment, the “free market” and its neces­sarily accompanying greed run wild, or institutionalized and politi­cal racism, but those four elements of some imaginary national homo­sexual manifesto.  They were “destroying America.”  One could imag­ine none of those things being done (and they weren’t), and the country still be­ing in a pretty bad way (it was).  But that didn’t stop Falwell or his colleagues in Right‑Wing Reaction from using the arguments over and over again.  After all, they thought it was good politics, if nothing else.

As early as 1985, at a conference entitled “How to Win an Elec­tion,” the future patron of Jefferson Davis Hague, Newton Gingrich, spoke about Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. “AIDS,” as it was known, was a painfully debilitating condition that almost invariably lead to death.  It was later shown that in many of its victims AIDS was asso­ciated with a wide variety of diseases that generally weakened the im­mune system, some of which diseases were sexually transmitted.  How­ever, it had been quite incorrectly thought for quite some time that the appearance of AIDS had some special linkage to homosexuality.  (The homophobes never abandoned that view.)

In any case, in 1985 when Gingrich addressed the issue AIDS pre­sent­ed as a serious public health threat, one that was poorly understood.  An increasing number of people, many of them happening to be homo­sexual, were suffering terribly from the condition.  At that time, ad­dressing a Right‑Wing Reactionary political planning conference, the future speaker of the House of Representatives had this to say about it (The Freedom Writer):  “AIDS is a real crisis.  It is worth paying atten­tion to, to study.  It’s something you ought to be looking at.”

“Ah ha,” you might say, “your arch‑Right‑Wing Reactionary is show­ing concern about AIDS and its victims, and thinks something should be done to deal with it.”  Well—no.  Our “Mr. Newt” as the Right‑Wing Reaction­ary political flack Rush Limbaugh inexplicably liked to call him, was not showing concern about this new disease and its victims.  Rather he was showing concern about the potential to ex­ploit this grow­ing health and health care problem for Right‑Wing politi­cal purposes.  For he had gone on to say:

“AIDS will do more to direct America (sic) back to the cost of violating traditional values, and to make America (sic) aware of the danger of certain behavior than anything we’ve seen.  For us, it’s a great rallying cry (emphasis added).”

As noted in Chapters four (see esp. the quote from Quindlen) and nine, and illustrated here by Robertson, Falwell and Gingrich, an im­portant part of the Right‑Wing Reactionary strategy was the “Politics of Difference,” the development of “enemies,” the use of, as Sklar termed it (1995), the “Snake Oil of Scapegoating.”  The purpose was to pro­vide a focus for rage and a distractor of anger that might otherwise be turned by the American people on the true causes of their dissatisfac­tion with their lot.

Accomplishing this end proved to be a challenge towards the mid­dle of the Transition Era, following the collapse of the old Soviet Un­ion in 1989.  The “Commies,” both domestic and foreign, had provid­ed a convenient enemy for over 40 years.  But memories of them were rap­idly becoming extinct, especially among a US population that had so little appreciation for or understanding of history. Anti‑black racism was a constant, of course.  But homophobia proved very useful.

The phenomenon of homophobia was in fact perfect for Right‑Wing Reactionary political exploitation.  It went much deeper into the uncon­scious of many people than either anti‑communism or choice‑control in the outcome of pregnancy did.  It appealed to the sexual drive, issues of sexual identity, sexual insecurity, the fascination with the ultimate sexu­al symbol, the gun, especially the pistol.  (In right‑Wing Reaction­ary propaganda, homophobia and fear of “gun control” were often closely linked.)  These were all issues that psychologically drove the Right‑Wing masses in the old U.S.

“The Helmsmen”

As mentioned briefly in the last chapter, early in 2009, appropriate­ly enough on Friday the 13th of February in that year, Hague estab­lished an armed force called “The Helmsmen,” HM for short.  Neither of the military nor of the Federal, state, or local po­lice, the HM was an arm of Hague’s new American Christian Nation Party.  They were described as “those with their hands on the helm of the ship of God’s state.”

In this, as noted in the last chapter, in composi­tion, role, and func­tion the HM had much in com­mon with Adolf Hitler’s “Brown Shirts,” the SA (Sturmabteilung), as they existed before the establish­ment of the national German government called the Third Reich.  They also had much in common with Benito Mussolini’s Black Shirts in Italy before the establishment of the fascist state there in 1922.  The HM would also quickly come to have much in com­mon with the Latin American “Death Squads” of the latter half of the 20th century.

Following the establishment of the New American Re­pub­lics in 2011, the HM would come to combine the functions of the SA, its suc­cessor in Germany, the SS (Schutzstaffel, the “Black Shirts”), and the Gesta­po (Geheime Staatspolizei, Secret State Police), as well as the Death Squads.  However, in all of its ac­tivities, just as the SS was at­tached directly to the German Nazi Party, not to any branch the Ger­man gov­ernment, the HM would be attached directly to the ACNP.

Therefore, in addition to a wide variety of respon­sibilities for force­ful political repression, it was also charged with carrying out a variety of “moral polic­ing” duties on behalf of the Party. Since this was the case, of the secret police/public state terrorist organi­zations known throughout the world, the HM was perhaps, ironically, most similar to the Muslim fundamentalist Iranian “Komitehs.”  They too combined a supposed “moral” regulatory function with their main role as physically violent political repressors.

There was an interesting historical circle connecting the Helmsmen with the Komitehs.  In 1953 in Iran, a coup had overthrown a popularly elected Premier, Muhammed Mussadegh.  It was engineered by the old U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and lead on the ground by one Kermit Roosevelt, a son of the 26th President of the United States, The­odore Roosevelt.  The CIA replaced Mussadegh with a man who had been an open admirer of Adolf Hitler, Muhammed Reza Shah Pahlevi.  He was the son of a former Army officer who himself had taken power from the previous ruler in a coup in 1921.

The “Shah,” as he called himself, needed a secret police for politi­cal repression, and the CIA created and trained one for him.  It was known as Savak.  It was also known as one of the most brutal secret police forces in a world of many highly brutal such organizations (many of them trained by the CIA).

In 1979, the Shah’s regime was overthrown by an even more re­pres­sive one, that of the Islamic Fundamentalist Ayatollah Khomenei.  The Savak essentially remained in place for the Fundamen­talist regime, which simply converted it into the Komitehs.  In the wan­ing days of the old U.S., a group of top‑ranking officers of the Komitehs, considered to be an expert in combining the “moral policing” and secret police func­tions, came over to help train the first core group of Helmsmen.  They were returning the CIA’s “favor,” as it were.

The membership of the HM was originally drawn from the ranks of the armed wings of the various Far Right groupings that Hague had drawn into the ACNP.  As far back as 1994, Randall Terry, founder of the militant anti‑freedom‑of‑choice‑in‑the‑outcome‑of‑pregnancy organi­zation Operation Rescue, had established a “leadership institute” to train “a cadre of people who are militant, who are fierce, who are un­merci­ful” (Stark).  He said at the time that “the battle for America’s soul” would produce “turmoil and disruption that will make the civil war look civil.”  In that he was prescient.

Some of the men and women first recruited to the HM already had significant experience in political violence.  This stemmed, for example from the days in which they had destroyed most of the public elective pregnancy termination clinics and had intimidated or mur­dered enough legal abortion providers to drive the rest, qualified and unquali­fied, underground.  Homophobic violence, of course, was fea­tured by these groups as well.  From the perspective of its creators, the HM would get off to a good start.

The HM also attracted many members to its ranks from the well‑established Right‑Wing Militia movement (ADL).  It had experi­enced virtually unfettered growth from the time late Transition Era Republican leadership had sanctioned its “anti‑(Federal)‑government” philosophy (although, of course, “not its methods”) (Newsday).  That growth had been accelerated by the repeal by 2003 of all state laws (which had never been enforced in any case) that banned private militias and armies.

A Curley Oakwood Radio Broadcast Transcript (March 30, 2009)

Thank God, my friends, thank God, my friends, my friends—Thank God!  For through the mouth of Brother Hague, He has spoken.  And He has spoken on our beloved and Godbless‑ed nation’s greatest prob­lem: the plague of faggots!  Oops, sorry. I guess I’m just not being politically correct there.  I meant to say the plague of fairies.

We are finally going to get some action, some real action, going on here.  Now my friends, it’s not as if this hasn’t been called for a long time.  It has.  Why way back in the 90s, the good old Rev. Jerry [Falwell] said (1993):

“The battle lines are now drawn.  If the gay agenda for America succeeds . . . you as a Christian will lose many of your rights.  Our churches will be under attack.  We will no longer be one nation under God.  There is no middle ground.  For Christians, there can be no peaceful co‑existence with those Sodomites whom God has given over to a reprobate mind.  IF THE GAYS AND LESBI­ANS WIN THIS STRUGGLE . . . AMERICA WILL BE ON A ONE WAY STREET TO SOD­OM AND GOMOR­RAH. . . . I am not going to sit back and let our precious nation be swept away by this demonic assault on our Chris­tian values.”

At about the same time, the eminent Keith Fournier, the Ex­ecu­tive Director of the Rev. Pat’s American Center for Law and Justice said (1994):

“There’s nothing compassionate or socially desirable in toler­ating, much less legislating, immorality, and yet we are coming to believe there is.  We have bought the lie of the militant ho­mosexual commu­ni­ty—namely it is ‘compassionate’ to elevate a disordered appetite to a civil right [emphasis added].”

And finally, ladies and gentlemen, permit me to sum up with a tren­chant quote from the well‑renowned John Eldridge of Fo­cus on the Fam­ily (Freedom Writer):

“I would not say this in other cultural contexts, but the gay agenda has all the elements of that which is truly evil.  It is decep­tive at every turn.  It is destroying the souls and lives of those who embrace it.”

Well, at that time Mr. Eldridge felt he couldn’t say what was in his heart, in “other cultural contexts,” meaning that  outside world domi­nat­ed by the liberalniggerloving media and the cul­tural elite, if you know who I mean—are you listening Holly­wood?  But he could have now, and the President has said it for him.

Well, Mr. President.  Now that you’ve said it, I hope you’ll show some cojones (see, I’m multi‑lingual—no ethnic bias here) and do some­thing about it.

And while I’m at it, ladies and gentlemen, let me just men­tion, let me just comment briefly, on the President’s best tool (if I may use that term) for doing something about it, if you know what I mean.  I am referring of course to our new arm of disci­pline, The Helmsmen.

The Helmsmen are the People’s Guides.  They make sure that the Ship of State is always held on the course designed for it by the Presi­dent and the Party.  We value our freedom and we know how to handle it.  But at the same time, we know that there are still plenty of secret liberalniggerlovers, faggots, blacks, spics, and other weak‑minded peo­ple who they influ­ence around.  They remember the bad old days when you could say and think just about anything you wanted.  And they’ll abuse that freedom if left to their own devices.

We know that all men, even the best members of the Party, need guidance; that without it we all will descend directly into sin.  So we have the Helmsmen, on the street, in our homes whenever with God’s guidance they see the need, in all public places.  They are always on the lookout to uphold and defend the our nation’s bedrock values of God, Church, and Family.

I have a message for you, my friends, and for all of our cou­rageous Helmsmen, who are all my friends.  The Helmsmen have a job to do, and they are going to do it.  And my oh my, is our country going to be a better place for it.  God bless each and every God‑fearing American.  Good night.

A Connie Conroy Note (February 14, 2009)

Some people think that the Helmsmen were named for the late Sena­tor Jesse Helms.  To be sure, we owe a great deal of our think­ing to him.  It was a national tragedy that he died be­fore he could see the greatest that his type of thinking has pro­duced for our coun­try.  He was one of the few men in the old niggerlovingliberal Con­gress who knew which end was up, that, for example, if there was a national holiday for Mar­tin Luther Coon, the U.S. of A. didn’t have long to go.  And as it turned out, he was right.  The Prez sez that if he had lived, he would have had a very important seat in our gov­ernment.  But it’s just coinci­dence that the Helmsmen are called what they are.

Oh yes.  Wish I had a Valentine today.

An Alex Poughton letter

August 18, 2009

Dear Karl,

Curiouser and curiouser.  Funny things are happening in the follow‑up to Hague’s anti‑gay decree.  The homosexual popula­tion here has long since either gone to ground or, if they could afford it, moved to another country, if they could find one that would take them.  Yet Hague chose to go after them, by mak­ing their sexual orientation, de­fined as “choice” in the U.S. Constitution of all plac­es, a crime, of all things.

Then, however, he takes no steps to officially enforce this new “law” at the Federal level, although his new “Helmsmen” are ru­mored to be having an “unofficial” go at it.  Neither do very many of the states move to enforce it, although some move quickly to de­prive any homo­sexuals who would dare to let it be known that they are such of any civil rights.

So the general opinion in the diplomatic and foreign‑journalist com­munity is that with the number of closet gays in the Gov­ernment and the military, if there were to be a real crackdown, it could be very embar­rassing.  Or that Hague is just sucking up to the Reli­gious Right and showing how de­voted to “God’s Way” he really is, at least in word if not in deed.  Or perhaps it’s both.

You know  that for years the Religious Right has made a big deal about what a sin, sin, sin homosexuality is.  The Bible tells us it’s bad, bad, bad, you know, so it must be so, so they tell us.  Apropos of that posi­tion, although it means nothing here now, I came across an interesting piece written by a liberal churchman in the mid‑90s.  His view of what the Bible really has to say on the issue was rather at odds with the usual Right‑Wing presentation of it  back then.  I thought I would share a few quotes from the article with you (Gomes).

“Christians opposed to political and social equality for homo­sexu­als nearly always appeal to the moral injunctions of the Bible, claiming that Scripture is very clear on the matter and citing verses that support their opinion. . . . They do not, how­ever, necessarily see quite as clear a meaning in biblical passag­es on economic con­duct, the bur­dens of wealth and the sin of greed.

“Nine biblical citations are customarily invoked as relat­ing to homo­sexuality.  Four (Deuteronomy 23:17, I Kings 14:24, I Kings 22:46 and II Kings 23:7) simply forbid [di­rectly or by implication] prostitution, by men and women.

“Two others (Leviticus 18:19‑23 and 20:10‑16) are part of what Bib­lical scholars call the Holiness Code.  The code explic­itly bans homo­sexual acts.  But it also prohibits eating raw meat, planting two different kinds of seed in the same field and wearing garments of two different kinds of yarn.  Tattoos, adul­tery, [incest], and sexual intercourse during a woman’s menstru­al period are similarly outlawed.

“There is no mention of homosexuality in the four Gos­pels of the New Testament.  The moral teachings of Jesus are not con­cerned with the subject.

“Three references from St. Paul are frequently cited (Ro­mans 1:26‑2:1, I Corinthians 6:9‑11, and I Timothy 1:10).  But St. Paul was concerned with homosexuality only be­cause in Greco‑Roman culture it represented a secular sen­suality that was contrary to the Jewish‑Christian spiritual idealism.  He was against lust and sensuality in anyone, including heterosexuals. . . .

“And lest we forget Sodom and Gomorrah, recall that the story is not about sexual perversion and homosexual prac­tice.  It is about inhospital­ity, according to Luke 10:10‑13, and failure to care for the poor, ac­cording to Ezekiel 16:49‑50: ‘Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sod­om, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daugh­ters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and the needy.’  To suggest that Sodom and Gomorrah is about homo­sexual sex is an analysis of about as much worth as suggesting that the story of Jonah and the whale is a treatise on fishing.”

As you know, Karl, I’m no biblical scholar.  And certainly the “innerancy boys” read what Prof. Gomes read and saw the stuff quite differently.  But that really is the point, isn’t it?  The Bible is open to interpretation.  The Fundamentalists are minis­ters, some of them Bap­tists.  But Prof. Gomes was a Baptist minister too.

There is nothing I can find, even in the Bible, that says that one Bap­tist minister is any more qualified to give the final word on what the Word is and means than any other Baptist minister.  But of course, that kind of reasoning wouldn’t stop even one preacher who claims that the Bible is “innerant” from doing so, and proclaiming that he (and it is usually a “he”) knows for sure just what it “innerantly” means.

Well, theology and Bible interpretation aside, there’s one oth­er curi­ous thing about this whole thing I want to mention.  (I do go on so, don’t I?)  In the grand scheme of things that are going on here, one has to wonder why Hague chose this one as the issue on which to issue his first decree, after having had the decree power for three years or so, what with there being so few iden­tifiable gays and lesbians left here.

I wonder if this was really just sort of a dry run.  Try out the techni­cal features of the clause.  See how the Congress and what’s left of “public opinion” reacts. Well, in the event, all that stuff went very smoothly for Hague.  And he relinquished his decree pow­er in less than 60 days.  But I just wonder if there isn’t some­thing bigger coming.

All the best,  Alex


ADL: Anti‑Defamation League, Beyond the Bombing: The Militia Men­ace Grows, New York: 1995.

Bradsher, K., “Gap in Wealth In U.S. Called Widest in West,” New York Times, April 17, 1995.

Dawidowicz, L.S., The War Against the Jews, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1975, p. 63.

De Witt, K., “Quayle Contends Homosexuality Is a Matter of Choice, Not Biology,” New York Times, September, 14, 1992.

Egan, T., “Oregon Measure Asks State to Repress Homosexuality,” The New York Times, August 16, 1992.

Falwell, J., Fund‑raising letter: “WARNING: DO NOT ALLOW CHIL­DREN TO VIEW THE CONTENTS OF THE ENCLOSED SEALED EN­VE­LOPE” [Author’s Note: which contained photos of males kissing in public, women uncover­ing their upper bodies in public, and mild cross‑dressers], Spring, 1993.

Falwell, J., Fund‑raising letter: “Has America Become One Nation Under Gays?” June, 1995.

Fournier, K.A., “Appetite of Civil Right,” Law and Justice, Vol. 3, No. One, 1994, p. 1.

Freedom Writer, “Inside Glen Eyrie Castle,” August, 1994., p. 1.

Gomes, P.J., “Homophobic? Re‑Read Your Bible,” New York Times, August 17, 1992.

Groth, A.N., cited in Meehan, B.T., and Graves, B., “OCA [Oregon Citizens Alliance] stirs emotions with its 2nd flier,” The Oregonian, September 25, 1992.

Newsday, “Gingrich: Fear of Feds is Genuine,” May 8, 1995, p. A5.

Right‑Wing Watch, “Getting Ready for ’94 and ’96,” December, 1992, Vol. 3, No. 3.

Sklar, H., “The Snake Oil of Scapegoating,” Z Magazine, May, 1995, p. 49.

Stark, K., “Call It Pro‑Death,” The Nation, August 22, 29, 1994, p. 183.

The Freedom Writer, “Newt Set Strategy For Religious Right—10 Years Ago!” February, 1995, p. 19.


1.         There is no indication or evidence that J. Danforth Quayle, the Rev. Pat Robertson, the Rev. Jerry Falwell, Newton Gingrich, Pastor Peter J. Peters, Keith Fournier, John Eldridge, the Christian Coalition, or any of the other histori­cal person­ages or organizations mentioned in this chapter or elsewhere in this book in a similar man­ner, would necessarily have supported or approved in any way of the Jefferson Davis Hague’s “Proclamation of Right,” or any of its prede­cessor or successor laws, regulations, policies, or procedures, or of any of the events that occurred in the United States or the New Ameri­can Republics at any time in the future, subsequent to his announce­ment of it and the implementation of the policies carried out pursuant to it.

2.         “Commie” was a 20th century pejorative vernac­ular term applied to a wide variety of persons, ranging from members of the tiny Commu­nist Party/USA, through almost any citizen of the old Soviet Union, to many political progressives, whether Communist or communist or neither, both at home and abroad.

3.      The term “politically correct” was a left‑over from Transi­tion Era Right‑Wing Reactionary attack vocabulary.  Oakwood and a few others still used it, although the Right‑Wing Reac­tionary state and Federal governments had long since removed any public or private attempts to limit what was then called “hate speech.”  “Hate speech” was the term used to characterize the increasingly vio­lent and virulent personal verbal attacks upon individuals and groups related to skin color, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and the like, that had taken place with increasing frequency towards the end of the Tran­sition Era.

The Right‑Wing Reactionaries of the Era had applied the term “political correct­ness” in a derogatory fashion to any attempts by liber­als and progressives to cause a general or specific moderation of such attacks.  Those attempts, it should be noted, were circumscribed and had had a limited ameliorating effect at best.  By the early Fascist Pe­riod they had generally come to an end, under a relentless Right‑Wing Reac­tionary onslaught spuriously based on “defending the First Amendment.”

Not unexpectedly, the Right‑Wing Reactionaries trotted out the First only to de­fend hate speech, not any other kinds of unpopular speech, such as that of crit­ics of the old Viet Nam War.  (Consistent with the concept of freedom of speech, much hate speech could have been circumscribed by invoking the old English common law inten­tion­al tort of assault: creating in another the apprehension of imminent physical harm.  But the liberals never seem to have made use of that concept, one that is ensconced in our Constitution, of course.)

Be all this as it may, Oakwood and his ilk still went after the long‑gone chal­leng­ers of hate speech years later, using the “politically correct” label, just as during the late Transition Era Limbaugh and his ilk had gone after the long‑defunct “Counter‑Culture” even though likewise at its peak the latter had had a limited influ­ence on the nation as a whole.

4.         Eldridge was speaking, it has turned out, at a secret meet­ing of anti‑homosexual‑rights groups in the Glen Eyrie Cas­tle outside of Colora­do Springs, CO, held in the spring of 1994.

5.         Poughton was right.  There would be “something bigger coming,” two years down the road.  Hague was sparing in his use of the decree power under the old U.S. Constitution.  But the next time he used it would spell the end of that docu­ment in all but name.


The original edition of “The 15% Solution” is available on Amazon.com and on BarnesandNoble.com. The 2004 print-on-demand re-issue from Xlibris is also available on Amazon.com and on BarnesandNoble.com. You will find a “Sub-Home Page” for the serialization at the lower right-hand corner of the Home Page for www.TPJmagazine.us. It contains such items as the Disclaimer, cast of characters, author’s bio., cover copy, and several (favorable) reviews, and will have a full archive of all the chapters as they are published over time. The serialization is also appearing on www.BuzzFlash.com, Dandelion Salad; The Greanville POST; and TheHarderStuff newsletter.

Jonathan Westminster and biography are based on a pseudonym.

Steven Jonas, MD, MPH is a Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY) and author/co-author/editor of 30 books. In addition to being a Columnist for BuzzFlash, Dr. Jonas is also a Contributing Author for TPJmagazine; a Featured Writer for Dandelion Salad; a Senior Columnist for The Greanville POST; a Contributor to TheHarderStuff newsletter; a Contributor to The Planetary Movement; and a Contributing Columnist for the Project for the Old American Century, POAC.

from the archives:

The 15% Solution: A Political History of American Fascism, 2001-2022 Preface

“The 15% Solution,” Serialization, 5th Installment: Chapter Four 2002: The Preserve America Amendment (30th)

“The 15% Solution,” Serialization, 7th Installment: Chapter Six 2004: The First Hague

“The 15% Solution,” Serialization, 8th Installment: Chapter Seven 2005: The Morality Amendment (31st)

“The 15% Solution,” Serialization, 10th Installment: Chapter Nine 2007: The Supremacy Amendment (33rd)

One thought on ““The 15% Solution,” Serialization, 12th Installment: Chapter Eleven 2009: The Proclamation of Right Presidential Decree No. One

  1. Pingback: The 15% Solution: A Political History of American Fascism, 2001-2022 | Dandelion Salad

Comments are closed.