The First Inaugural Address of President Jefferson Davis Hague
Mr. President, Mr. Chief Justice, Mr. Speaker, my fellow Amer i cans under God. I stand here before you today, on the birthday of our Lord Jesus Christ, in all humility awaiting my time to do His bidding. And I can tell you that his bidding now is to fight the good fight, for the Lord, and for you the American people under God.
For there is a religious war going on in this country. And we, the Americans of God, must win it. We must take back our cities, and take back our culture, and take back our country [Buchanan]. To do this, we must return to our Christian roots. If we do not, we will continue to legalize sodomy, slaughter innocent babies, destroy the minds of our children, squander our resources, and yes, sink into oblivion [Robertson].
We are in an eternal battle. The battle is between right and wrong, be tween truth and lies, between life and death. And if we ever forget what it is about, if we think we are in a battle for electing people to hold office, simply controlling political parties, then we will not accomplish what we are to achieve. We need to hold to our principles, and stick to them regardless.
The real enemy is the secular humanist mindset which seeks to destroy everything that is good in this society. The fight that we are fighting, the battle we have joined, is one that encompasses our entire life span. Remember, you have God. You have your families; you have your community, your church community, your neighborhood, and all the things you are concerned about. They have only power. That's all that matters to them. They will fight with everything that's in them to keep that power [Weyrich].
Today we face what I believe is an even greater threat to our lives. The enemy is more insidious, more chameleon"'like than a Hitler. And this enemy is even more deadly. The enemy is lethal and must be stopped [Fournier].
So far from having ended, the cold war has increased in in ten si ty, as sec tor after sector of American life has been ruthlessly corrupt ed by the liberal ethos. Now that the other 'Cold War' is over, the real cold war has begun [Kristol, quoted in Starr].
Yes, we are engaged in a social, political, and cultural civil war. There is a lot of talk in America about pluralism. But you can't have a society whose highest value is merely live and let live. The bottom line is somebody's values will prevail. Some body is going to win this civil war. And the winner gets the right to teach our children what to believe about things like life and death, love and sex, and freedom and slavery.
As I have traveled the length and breadth of this great God"'given land of ours, I have often run into skeptics. They say, "Well, J.D., if there is a civil war going on, where are the two sides?" And my explanation is that on one side there are men and women like Americans under God. People who believe that God is. And believing that God is, they are required, they are obligated to take the positions they take on a whole host of issues. And on the other side of this great conflict there are people at very significant positions in our culture who begin their thinking with the belief that God isn't. They are our enemy [Bauer].
Yes, it is time to take America back, from the liberal politicians who are attempting to erase every evidence of God from public life, from government officials who hide their radical, anti-Christian bigot ry behind a twist ed view of "the separation of church and state," from gay and lesbian radicals who not only claim the right to lead their Godless lifestyle, but demand that we support this abominable behavior, from the radical feminists whose "right to choose" has caused the murder of mil lions of innocent unborn little babies, from the militant left which is the fount of all evil-- take her back from every group or individual that refuses to recognize our beloved nation for what it truly is-- a nation under God! [Falwell]
We are the only society in history that says that power comes from God to you . . . and if you don't tell the truth about the role of God and the centrality of God in America, you can't explain the rest of our civilization. I look forward to the day when a be lief in God is once more at the center of the definition of being an American [Gingrich, 1].
As to the future, if you think about the notion that the great challenge of our lifetime is first to imagine a future that is worth spending our lives getting to, and then, because of the technologies and the capabilities we have today, to get it up to sort of a virtual state, al though that's done in terms of actual levels of sophistication, all that's done in your mind.
And that takes leadership. Most studies of leadership argue that lead ers actually are acting out past decisions. The problem when you get certainty with great leaders is that they have already thoroughly envisioned the achievement, and now it is just a matter of implementation. And so it is very different. And so in a sense, virtuality [sic] at the mental level is some thing I think you find in leadership over historical periods. But in addition, we are not in a new place; it is just becoming harder and hard er to avoid the place where we are [Gingrich, 2].
In fighting this fight to avoid this place, we face an increasingly militant, radical, socialist left. And this is how we are going to win the war against this left. We will use the same strategy General Douglas MacArthur employed against the Japanese in the Pacific in World War II: bypass their strongholds, then surround them, isolate them, bombard them, then blast the individuals out of their power bunkers with hand"'to"'hand com bat. The battle for Iwo Jima [2] was not pleasant, but our troops won it. The battle to regain the soul of America won't be pleasant either, but we will win it [Robertson].
Yes, with your help and God's blessing we will win it. Thank you and good night.
A Connie Conroy Note (December 27, 2004)
We did it! We pulled it off! We got the Prez a good speech, a great speech, if I may say so myself. And after all those drafts he didn't like at all, too. Trying, honestly, honest ly, to come up with a new way to say the same old thing he had been saying over and over in the campaign. And so what did we do? We went back to some tried and true stuff from our "Patron Saints," (if I may say so, revealing my Catholic background -- don't let any of the true Fundy Ministers hear me saying anything like that!): Pat Buchanan, Pat Robert son, Gary Bauer, Jerry Falwell, the Newt Man. [3]
Just took some of their best stuff, threw it together, nobody was the wiser, especially the Prez, and presto! The best speech money could n't begin to buy. And I'll tell you, after old Carney, I think that this young guy is going to be fun!
Author's Commentary
The Hague Heritage
On Tuesday, November 2, 2004, Jefferson Davis (J.D.) Hague was elected as the 45th President of the old United States. He was a great-grandnephew of the pre-World War II Mayor of Jersey City, NJ, Frank Hague, a man who once said (Peter):
"You hear about constitutional rights, free speech and the free press. Every time I hear these words I say to myself, 'That man is a Red, that man is a Communist!' You never hear a real American talk like that."
J.D.'s father, "Big Daddy Hague," was a truck driver who sported the old Confederate States of America flag on the radiator of his 22 wheeler's tractor, and carried a loaded sawed"'off double"'barreled shot gun underneath the passenger seat. It was there, Big Daddy would confide in friends, "to protect myself from the niggers." His choice of name for his second"'born son came as no surprise to his friends, especially since his first-born son "Nat" had been named after Confederate General Nathan B. Forrest. This man's principal claim to fame was that a year after the end of the First Civil War he had founded the virulently anti"'black terrorist organization known as the Ku Klux Klan.
Big Daddy happened to be a passionate reader. His taste in books ranged from those carried in the Paladin Press catalog (1991, focusing on guns, explosives, and survivalism) to those carried in the National Vanguard Books catalog (1993, featuring anti-Semitism, racism, glorification of Hitler's Germany, and children's books).
J.D.'s mother had been an active and vocal member of the movement to harass and assault elective pregnancy termination clinics, their staffs and patients. She had joined the first Northern New Jersey chapter of the militant, violence"'inducing anti"'freedom"'of"'choice organization called "Operation Rescue" when it was founded in the mid-1980s. She had been arrested many times for screaming at staff and patients alike "up close and personal," attempting to physically block clinic en trances, and on suspicion of participation in anti"'clinic vandalism.
One of President Pine's first acts in 2001 had been to order the end to enforcement of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, a Federal law passed by the 103rd Congress that had offered some protection to the clinics. (In ordering the non"'enforcement of existing legislation that he didn't like, Pine was following a well-known Right-Wing pattern. For example, former 1996 Republican Presidential candidate Phil Gramm had declared that if he were elected President, one of his first acts would be to end enforcement, on his own authority, of Federal affirmative action (equal rights in employment) law [Page].)
J.D.'s mother was one of the first in the nation to publicly take advantage of the new Pine policy. She went on to become a national leader of the violence-centered movement spawned by Operation Rescue and its many mutations. Aided by Pine's Executive Order and the subsequent repeal of the FACE Act by the 107th Congress, by the middle of the Pine Presidency, the movement had succeeded in driving out of business most of the open elective pregnancy"'termination centers around the country, even though the procedure was technically still legal.
The Development of the Republican"'Christian Alliance
Hague was the candidate of the newly-formed Republican-Christian Alliance (R-CA). The R-CA had been created at the quadrennial Republican National Convention held in Indianapolis, IN in the second week of August, 2004. It was the final recognition of a reality that had been developing since the Republican National Convention held in Houston, TX August 16"'20, 1992 had adopted a platform largely written by representatives of the Christian Coalition (RNC). Over the intervening 12 years, the dominant and driving force in the Republican Party had become ever"'increasingly the Religious Right, led by its dominant political arm, the Christian Coalition.
It is interesting to note briefly the parallels between the development of the Republican Party in the last decade before the First Civil War and of the Republican"'Christian Alliance in the second decade before the Second (Marsden). In the 1850s, the "Anti-Masons," an evangelical political party opposed to "free thinking" as well as slavery, lead the movement which divided the old Whig Party into two. Subsequently, the Anti-Masons/"Northern Whigs" evolved into the new Republican Party.
In the case of both the latter and the R-CA, a movement that began with moral preaching eventually married itself to political power. It was ironic, of course, that the Republican Party of the Transition Era, the R-CA, and their successor, the American Christian Nation Party (ACNP), would eventually undo much of what the original Republican Party had accomplished when under President Abraham Lincoln it had lead the nation into war over the twin issues of pre serving the Union and ending Negro slavery.
The ACNP would, by creating the New American Republics in 2011, break up the Union, and institute enforced, absolute, racial segregation that to some represented a form of slavery. Prior to the formation of the NAR, although the action had no practical application, it happened that they had, for the symbolic reason of adhering to the "Doctrine of Original Intent" concerning the Constitution, in 2010 among other things repealed the XIIIth Amendment (which had abolished slavery).
It was at the 13th annual "Road-to-Victory" national meeting of the Christian Coalition held at Regent University in Virginia Beach, VA in November, 2003 that Jefferson Davis Hague had gained the Coalition's "highest moral evaluation." (Right up to the adoption of the Supremacy Amendment in 2007, the Coalition was always careful to do nothing to jeopardize its tax"'exempt standing. The adoption of the Amendment had, among other things, lead to the passage of Federal legislation guaranteeing "approved" churches tax-exemption regardless of what activities they undertook. Before that time, however, the Coalition never "endorsed" candidates [Freedom Writer]. It simply "recognized their moral value.") Once having achieved the Coalition's top rating, Hague had the Republican-Christian Alliance Presidential nomination well in hand.
The Political Background of Jefferson Davis Hague
Given Jefferson Davis Hague's background, it would come as no surprise that as President, he would live up to the heritage implied by both his given and surnames, and then some. At age 34 in 1994, Hague had been elect ed to the House of Representatives from a district in Northern New Jersey. He thus be came a member of that year's so"'called "Freshman Class" of Right-Wing Reactionary Republicans. A salesman of heavy-duty truck rigs of the type his father drove, typical of many in the "Freshman Class" before his election he had had no experience in government at any level. He saw government in general and the Federal government in particular as enemies to be subdued, not as a set of institutions there to be made to work for the benefit of all the people, operating under a Constitution that gave the Federal government a broad mandate and responsibility to work on behalf of the public good.
He was from the beginning vocal and vigorous in promoting the whole Right-Wing Reactionary agenda: end welfare, cut taxes, emasculate government regulation and "interference in the free market" with a special emphasis on gutting environmental regulation, significantly reduce legal protections and recourse for both consumers and organized labor, introduce Congressional term limits, and so forth. (That he was especially vocal on the term limits issue is highly ironic in the light of his own later history.) He was also at the cut ting edge of developing the new political racism that began with the Republican anti"'affirmative action campaign first featured in the 1996 elections.
He finely honed the line of assaulting "preferences, quotas, and special privileges for special interests," while proclaiming all the while that he was "no racist," and simply wanted a "color"'blind society" (Wilkins). He also was one of the first to develop the strategy by which the Republicans were able to maintain support for affirmative action programs benefiting (white) women while at tacking those benefiting all persons of color. This tack proved very useful electorally for the Re publicans.
Like many of his Right-Wing Reactionary cohorts supported by the Christian Coalition he had never been particularly religious himself. For example, he had never attended church on a regular basis. (That inconsistency was nothing new for Right"'Wing Reaction. Its patron saint, Ronald Reagan, himself attended church infrequently). It is not even clear that Hague believed in a God conscious of his own person, a key tenet of the New American Religion (Bloom). Nevertheless, throughout his tenure in the House he spent an in creasing amount of time developing his "pro-Christian" position and allegiances. As indicated, this proved very useful to him in the Presidential primaries of 2004.
From 1995 on, he attached himself closely, both physically and ideologically, to Newton Gingrich, the Right"'Wing Reactionary Speaker of the House. And Hague quickly rose through the ranks of the House leader ship, despite his young age. By the time the 108th Congress convened on Monday, January 3, 2003, he had become Chairman of the increasingly powerful House American Morality Committee (HAMC). It was created at the behest of the Religious Right by the 106th Congress. The HAMC had been formed to investigate the "moral decline" of America and propose ways and means to deal with it.
The HAMC
In many ways, the HAMC (House American Morality Committee) was like its ideological predecessor, the old House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC, 1938-1975). The HAMC spent a great deal of time defining groups that supposedly consist ed of "moral enemies of the American Way of Life." It then spent a great deal of time "investigating" supposed members of these supposed groups. A major means for doing this was to conduct highly publicized hearings into the private lives of American citizens, especially prominent ones, who did not buy into the ideology the HAMC represented.
Unlike the HUAC, which focused on political issues, as its name indicated the HAMC focused on "moral" ones. It was especially inter est ed in "sexual morality," sex and sexual identity being almost a matter of obsession for many a Right-Wing Reactionary. Also unlike the HUAC, which never in its entire tenure proposed even one piece of legislation, much less secured its passage, the House American Morality Committee was very busy in both regards.
The HAMC became the most public proponent of the position that private morality should be the subject of the public law, especially the criminal law, the position held so strongly by the Religious Right during the Transition Era (see Appendix IV for a theoretical discussion on this subject by Dino Louis).
The HAMC held the legislating of "moral behavior" to be its highest responsibility. Hague's vigorous and very public efforts in leading this crusade were central in getting him the 2004 Re publican Presidential nomination. He in turn, publicly at least, held the passage of the 31st and 33rd Amendments to the Constitution, (the Morality and Supremacy Amendments respectively [see Chapters seven and nine]), to be the most important achievements of his first term.
The Elections of 2004
By 2004, "The 15% Solution" was in full operation for the electoral benefit of Right-Wing Reaction. The Democratic Party had still not recovered from its Transition Era, Democratic Leadership Council-inspired, "me-too" stupor. The left, such as it was, was never able to develop a solidly American ideology and program that went beyond a Christmas-tree ornament package with individual proposed solutions to individual problems, having nothing to tie anything together into a consistent, politically salable, comprehensive philosophical and programmatic pack age.
Thus, with no viable alternatives to the continuation of Right-Wing Reactionary policies offered by the R-CA, voter turnout remained abysmally low. Hague waltzed in with 55% of the vote, and the Republican Party gained solid two"'thirds"'plus, "Amendment"'guarantee," majorities in both Houses of Congress. As had been the case from 1994 onwards, even though the number of voters choosing the Republicans hovered around 15% of the total number eligible to vote (thus "The 15% Solution"), the victory was hailed by the media as a "landslide."
The First Hague Inaugural
President Hague's First Inaugural Address was delivered from the National Cathedral on Christ mas Day, 2004. Under President Pine, Inauguration Day had been moved from January 20th to that date. The move accomplished the dual purpose of having the new President in place before the new Congress would convene on Monday January 3, 2005, and making a strong Republican nod in the direction of the Religious Right, even before the formalization of the R-CA. The National Cathedral had been taken over several years earlier by the New American Religion (Bloom), the rapidly growing religious arm of the political Religious Right.
The text of the Hague speech contained a peculiar amalgam of styles. On occasion it was quite explicit but in one place it was quite opaque. For a speech that definitively announced to the world that the new U.S. President fully intended to carry out his campaign promises, it had a somewhat jumbled nature and was quite short. However, the latter characteristic was quite common in Hague addresses (and quite the opposite of the usual style of dictators from Mussolini and Hitler through Stalin to Castro, a role Hague would later fill).
Historians of our time generally consider Hague's trade"'mark brevity to be a nod, conscious or unconscious, in the direction of recognizing that a short attention span was characteristic of most of his followers. For many years, historians have been split on what, even in the context of understandable brevity, accounted for the strange nature of the text of his first Inaugural. Indeed, the controversy of the "why and how" raged hot and heavy in certain quarters until it was settled by the recent discovery of the "Connie Conroy Note" which answered the question (see above): the speech was a cut"'and"'past job using various Right"'Wing Reactionary texts from the late Transition Era.
An Alex Poughton letter
December 31, 2004
Dear Karl,
I am writing you on this last day on this dismal year before I dismally go into my cups and hopefully pass out before the cheers of the faithful echo around Washington welcoming in what they expect to be a glorious New Year. Glorious for the faithful, perhaps. But for this increasingly benighted country, I don't think so.
What a speech! First, my suspicion is that few of its words were original. I know I heard several of the most famous 90s quotes from Buchanan and Robertson, without attribution, of course. And towards the end there was something that sounded just like Gingrich. But plagiarism is a detail in the context of the politics of the thing. Hague and his new "Republican"'Christian Alliance" are just ever"'more deeply into the "Politics of Mythology."
You will recall that that strategy was introduced first in the 1980s by Reagan with the use of, for example, mythical "Welfare Queens" and fake quotes from Lincoln (Mitgang). But it was really developed intensively in the 1990s by such people as the Republican ideologue Bill Kristol and the controllers of Rush Limbaugh: inventing some thing, some force, some trend in soci ety, some supposed social policy that really doesn't exist, then getting people to believe that it does, and finally making it into "The Enemy." [4]
The latter was crystallized in this speech by the short section re fer ring to the "enemy's" "insidious, chameleon"'like" nature. That "enemy" is never clearly identified, but presumably the faithful know precisely to whom the reference is being made.
In the 90s, for example, Kristol and his ilk constantly harped on the "Counter-Culture" of the 60s and its impact on American values, in the 90s. They conveniently neglected to define it, of course-- its major social features happened to have been the pro motion of peace, love, and community (Vitello). (They liked to focus on the "sexual revolution" which supposedly accompanied it, but then these guys are all sex"'obsessed anyway.)
They conveniently neglected to point out that there never was a national political leader who ever came close to adopting the "Counter-Culture" as representing his basic values, so it never received that kind of imprimatur. But for the Right-Wing Reactionaries, that lacuna in their logic was just an inconvenient detail.
They also conveniently ignored the fact that the "Counter-Culture" was marginal to most of the lives of many Americans even when it was a some what prominent feature of American life back in the 1960s. And they most conveniently ignored the impact on American life of the Reaganite ideology of "every man for him self and the devil take the hindmost" [5].
That ideology, of course, was very influential in the historical period just prior to Kristol's first rise to prominence in the mid-Transition Era. And because it was associated with a very popular national lead er, and was backed up by his social, political, and economic policies, it happened to have had a much more widespread and extremely deleterious impact on American life than did the "counter"'culture." The Reaganite ideology of the 80s was also the centerpiece of the Limbaugh ideology of the 90s, disguised as "self-responsibility" (both harking back to Herbert Hoover's pre-Great Depression "rugged individual ism"). But Kristol and Limbaugh, and the other promoters of the Politics of Mythology just ignored the historical facts.
Proceeding along these historical lines, in March, 1994, for example, Kristol's ideological soul-mates at the old Wall Street Journal wrote an editorial that actually blamed the murder that month of Dr. David Gunn, the first victim of the violent wing of the forced birthing movement, on the "permissiveness" of the 1960s! Talk of "The Pol tics of Mythology!"
Then there was Limbaugh himself continuing in the spring of 1995 to rail against the Congress as the fount of all evil. He did this was even after Congress had come under Right-Wing Republican control. Back then, despite the power of Bob Dole and Newton Gingrich and the success of Right-Wing Republicanism in the Congress, Limbaugh was already be ginning to call for the election of a "strong leader in the White House," to solve the country's problems, because "Congress couldn't do it." The Politics of Mythology again.
Or take the Religious Right and the Politics of Mythology. For years they regularly railed against the "secular humanists" as the most dangerous enemy of everything that was right about America. In the mid-90s, I know for sure, the leading organization so-labeled by the Religious Right, the American Humanist Association, had all of 5400 full members. Hague took pains to single out the "secular humanists" in his speech, and no one has heard of the American Humanist Association for quite some time now.
In that tradition of creating supposedly powerful enemies where there are none, in his speech Hague talked about:
" A "militant left" when no active left, militant or otherwise, exists in this country-- and hasn't for decades -- proposing to "bombard" and "blast" them, to boot.
" "Radical feminism," when it had been marginalized long before 2004.
" The "promotion of homosexuality by homosexuals," never a feature of the Gay culture, a culture that has for the most part tucked itself well"'back"'into"'the closet in the face o-filled ho mo phobic public atmosphere of 2004.
" The claimed "anti-Christian bigotry" of anyone who dares to simply disagree with so-called "Christian" policies.
" And so on and so forth.
But those who rise to power by generating an ever-rising tide of hate and fear need to keep the supposed enemies front and center. And just as in the 90s, if they aren't here in fact, they have to be invented.
As usual, thanks for bearing with me. You are familiar with the nice things I must say about this place in my regular columns. You are my only outlet for what I know to be the truth.
All the best,
Sincerely, Alex
A Parthenon Pomeroy Diary Entry, December 26, 2004
We did it, we did it. We've finally got the President we need. Wow! 15 years of hard work to get someone who is on our side. He's going to save our country, our freedom, our American way of life. I can't believe it. But I'd better believe it. I do believe it.
This is going to fix things up all right. Jobs for everyone. Cut taxes to the bone. And we can get the coons out of the schools, get sex out of the schools, get those f*ggots out of the schools, get prayer back in, where it belongs. Really keep those damned foreners (sic) out. This is what we need to get America to where it ought to be, to what it can be, to what it always was and always will be. Thanks, God, and thanks Pat, too.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References:
Bauer, G., "Speech," Christian Coalition Road"'to"'Victory Conference, Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA, 1991.
Bloom, H., "New Heyday of Gnostic Heresies," New York Times, April 26, 1992, p. 19 (see also Bloom's The American Religion: The Emergence of the Post-Christian Nation).
Buchanan, P., "Speech," Republican National Convention, 1992.
Falwell, J., Fundraising letter, May, 1993.
Fournier, K., Fund"'raising letter, American Center for Law and Jus tice (Virginia Beach, VA), April, 1995.
Freedom Writer, "Stealth? Deception? You decide," April, 1994, p. 7.
Gingrich, N., 1, quoted in a fund-raising letter, American Humanist Association (Amherst, NY), Summer, 1995.
Gingrich, N., 2, quoted in Kelly, M., "Rip It Up," The New Yorker, Jan. 23, 1995.
Marsden, G., "The Religious Right: A Historical Overview," Chap. 1 in Cromartie, M., Ed., No Longer Exiles, Washington, DC: Ethics and Public Policy Center, 1993, p. 4.
Mitgang, H., "Reagan's 'Lincoln Quotation' Disputed," New York Times, August 19, 1992.
National Vanguard Books, Catalog No. 15, PO Box 330, Hillsboro, WV 24946, 1993.
Paladin Press, Catalog Vol. 21, No. 2, PO Box 1307, Boulder, CO 80306, 1991.
Page, S., "His Stetson's in the Ring," Newsday, Feb. 25, 1995.
Peter, L.J., Peter's Quotations: Ideas for Our Time, New York: Morrow, 1977, p. 46.
RNC: Republican National Committee, The Republican Plat form: 1992, Washington, DC: August 17, 1992.
Robertson, P., quoted in fund"'raising letter of the ACLU, 1993, Freedom Watch, March/April, 1994, Vol. 3, No. 2, and Right"'Wing Watch, Vol. 2, No. 11, Sept., 1992.
Starr, P., "Nothing Neo: Neo-conservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea by Irving Kristol," The New Republic, December 4, 1995, 35.
Vitello, P., "No Sign of Counterculture," Newsday, December 6, 1994, p. A8.
Weyrich, P., quoted in "The rights and wrongs of the religious right," The Freedom Writer, Oct. 6, 1995, p. 6.
Wilkins, R., "The Case for Affirmative Action," The Nation, March 27, 1995, p. 409.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Author's Notes:
[1] There is no indication or evidence that any of the historical figures quoted in the Hague First Inaugural Address or elsewhere in this chapter, among whom are Patrick Buchanan, M.G. Robertson, Paul Weyrich, Keith Fournier, Gary Bauer, Jerry Falwell, and Newton Gingrich, would have supported or associated themselves in any way with any of the actual positions or actions that Jefferson Davis Hague or any members of his government or political parties took, at that time or in the future.
[2] Named for the island on which it took place, "Iwo Jima" marked the penultimate major battle of the Pacific War in 1945.
[3] In her Note Conroy did not identify which sections of the speech were based on the words of which of the "patron saints." But with some detective work and using the process of elimination, it has been possible to determine with a fair degree of certainty just who was responsible for what. The putative sub"'authors are named in the text in [ ], and the putative sources are listed under their names in the reference list at the end of the chapter.
[4] Poughton could also have referred to the use, starting in the 1980s, by Right"'Wing Reaction with help from the Right"'Wing Democrats, of the Immigration (see Chapter 4) and Welfare (see Chapter 7) issues as if they were truly significant causes of the major problems facing the country, which they were not, to promote distraction and hate.
[5] See also the quote from Michael Levin that appears in Chapter seven (below), p. 88
(Article changed on May 06, 2024 at 7:02 PM EDT)
(Article changed on May 06, 2024 at 9:22 PM EDT)
(Article changed on May 07, 2024 at 8:12 AM EDT)
Post Article Comment and Rate This Article
