Obama Plays Reagan in Berlin
AIM Column | By Cliff Kincaid | July 24, 2008
In Berlin, Obama almost sounded like Ronald Reagan, who became a strong anti-communist by fighting them in Hollywood.
An interesting contribution to Barack Obama’s campaign shows up in the records of the Federal Election Commission. Casey Kauffman of Al-Jazeera, who lists his occupation as a journalist in Doha, gave the Democratic candidate $500 in February.
Al-Jazeera, which most U.S.-based cable and satellite providers have rejected for airing because of its terrorist links and anti-American programming, probably won’t be playing much of a role in the American presidential campaign. But the contribution is indicative of the bias that infects the media here and around the world.
The depth of the deception that is now underway can be understood by analyzing the significance of Obama’s “I love America” foreign policy speech in Berlin, Germany, in view of the fact that the candidate and his media acolytes continue to conceal the central role that a Stalinist Communist by the name of Frank Marshall Davis played in his upbringing.
In Berlin, Obama almost sounded like Ronald Reagan, who became a strong anti-communist by fighting them in Hollywood. “And on the twenty-fourth of June, 1948, the Communists chose to blockade the western part of the city,” Obama noted. “They cut off food and supplies to more than two million Germans in an effort to extinguish the last flame of freedom in Berlin. The size of our forces was no match for the much larger Soviet Army. And yet retreat would have allowed Communism to march across Europe. Where the last war had ended, another World War could have easily begun. All that stood in the way was Berlin. And that’s when the airlift began―when the largest and most unlikely rescue in history brought food and hope to the people of this city.”
Obama sounded like a veteran anti-communist. But it was completely at variance with what we know about him. Obama closely associated with communists for much of his life and career. We’ve heard about some of them, including communist terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. But one communist that few in the media want to talk about is Frank Marshall Davis, his mentor and father-figure. Davis actually wrote a poem in honor of the Soviet Red Army that Obama denounced in Berlin. This helps demonstrate the magnitude of his flip-flop.
Obama refers to Davis as just “Frank” in his 1995 book, Dreams From My Father, but does note that he was a contemporary of black authors Richard Wright and Langston Hughes. What Obama doesn’t mention is that “Frank” stayed with the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) while Hughes and Wright broke from it. In fact, Davis was so extreme that he accused Wright of “treason” for exposing the CPUSA.
Davis’s influence over Obama is demonstrated by the fact that Obama left Davis in Hawaii, attended socialist conferences and picked Marxist professors as his friends in college, went to Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s church with his children, and then launched his political career in the home of Ayers and Dohrn.
While Ayers gets most of the attention, it is Dohrn who is more important. She refuses to deny credible reports that she planted a bomb that killed a San Francisco policeman. The whole story is detailed in our new AIM Report. But is anybody in the media willing to ask Obama about her terrorist activities?
While Ayers and Dohrn and their comrades took instructions and advice from Hanoi and Havana and even Cuban and Soviet intelligence operatives, Davis was even more notorious. He not only belonged to the CPUSA when it functioned as an apologist for Stalin, but Davis took the Stalinist line when Stalin made common cause with Hitler. The Germans at Obama’s speech might be interested in this aspect of the story. So might an American audience.
We already knew Davis was a Stalinist. NAACP member Edward Berman testified that “comrade Davis” tried to take over meetings of the organization in Hawaii “for the purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line.”
But veteran anti-communist researcher and author Herbert Romerstein has now brought to our attention even more damaging information. He points out that Davis was one of the signers of a statement issued by the League of American Writers in June of 1941 during the Soviet-Nazi Pact.
It said in part, “We have warned that America must be defended not by involvement in this war, or by steps toward dictatorship, or by pursuing a course of imperialist expansion, but by preserving peace and expanding democracy on the economic, political and cultural levels. Today, we must ask whether the present policy of the administration and the program of big business are not leading us toward war and fascism in the name of resistance to war and fascism.”
In other words, as long as the Nazis and the Soviets were allies, Davis didn’t want the U.S. to go to war against the Nazis.
The statement asked a number of questions, including, “How best as writers can we resist the drive toward war and reaction which threatens our democratic culture?” The statement is printed on page 973 of Appendix IX of the Special Committee of Un-American Activities in 1944.
Romerstein comments that “This is clear support of the Soviet-Nazi Pact by Davis a short time before June 22, 1941, when Germany attacked the Soviet Union and the Communist Party line changed from peace to war.”
The point bears repeating: once the Soviets came under attack, the CPUSA line, which was adopted by party member Davis, turned into one supporting war on the Nazis.
This is the man that Obama’s white grandfather selected as the future candidate’s role model and mentor.
And yet on Thursday in Berlin, Obama declared himself on the side of those who opposed Davis. “When you, the German people, tore down that wall―a wall that divided East and West; freedom and tyranny; fear and hope―walls came tumbling down around the world,” he said.
Davis was an apologist for that tyranny. He read his “poems” to a teenage Obama and advised him that black people had a right to hate white people, which certainly helps explain why he would eventually end up in Wright’s church.
Has Obama truly broken with the forces of international communism, which had so much influence over him? If the media don’t ask the question, the increasing numbers of those who know about Davis, Wright, Ayers, Dohrn and other questionable Obama links and associations will see the media coverage for what the McCain campaign labels it―a love affair with Obama. In short, the pro-Obama media bias will backfire in a big way. There is evidence it already is.
Professor Paul Kengor, author of a book about Reagan’s anti-communism, examined the work that Herbert Romerstein and I have done on the Obama-Davis relationship and concludes that the evidence must not be ignored. Yet liberals and “progressives” in the press and elsewhere ignore, distort or downplay it. Some reporters, like Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, have treated it like a laughing matter.
Kengor wonders what the press would think “of, say, a John McCain mentor who had toed the line for Hitler? I can tell you that I, as a conservative Republican, would be pretty darned disappointed and would demand some answers. I would not turn it into a joke. And if McCain did not absolutely, convincingly repudiate it, I absolutely would not vote for him.”
But when it comes to Obama, Kengor notes that, “The end result is that the bad guys on the communist far-left, such as the likes of Frank Marshall Davis, continue to get a pass long after they’ve departed this world, as will those who consider them mentors. These were extreme leftists who hurt liberalism―who hurt some of the dearest liberal causes. Davis, in death, is protected, his dirty work covered up, by a press who must now protect their anointed one.”
Obama, of course, is the anointed one, for the U.S. press as well as reporters for the Arab government-funded Al-Jazeera. Now we witness the latest phase of the love affair as Obama, with the help of the media, portrays himself as an anti-communist in the Reagan mode who truly understands the battle between Soviet tyranny and human freedom and came down on the right side. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The good news is that a Rasmussen poll finds that many people aren’t buying it. It found that 49 percent of voters think that reporters are trying to help Obama win in November. It also found that 45 percent say that most reporters would hide information if it hurt the candidate they wanted to win.
What could that information be? Could it have something to do with Frank Marshall Davis? Or Bernardine Dohrn? Are there more red skeletons in the closet?
Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of the AIM Report and can be reached at
34 Comments
What evidence is there that Davis was a CPUSA member before WWII? In “Obama’s Communist Mentor,” you cite Tidwell’s claim that he joined the CPUSA sometime DURING World War II. Then, in your interview with Bill Steigerwald, you make the unprecedented claim that he was a a “Stalinist” because “he stayed with the Communist Party even after the Hitler-Stalin pact. That’s why I refer to him as `a Stalinist agent’” (see http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/mostread/s_571431.html).
Did you find evidence of his 1930’s membership AFTER your “Obama’s Communist Mentor” column? Or did you just make it up after that column, because it made claims of “Stalinist” easier to sell?
Kincaid wrote: “We already knew Davis was a Stalinist. NAACP member Edward Berman testified that “comrade Davis” tried to take over meetings of the organization in Hawaii “for the purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line.”
We know no such thing. We don’t even know that he was a member in the 1930’s, even though Kincaid suddenly made this unprecedented claim with zero substantiation, in direct conflict with information he originally posted that Davis joined the Party during WWII. We DO know, however, from information posted by Kincaid’s own researcher Herbert Romerstein, that Edward Berman was a haole attorney who had just joined the NAACP the previous year.
We DO know, however, from information posted by Kincaid’s own researcher Herbert Romerstein, that Edward Berman believed there was NO segregation in Hawaii. One need only look at Niihau to disprove his assertion. Although segregation was on a much smaller scale than in the mainland, it did exist. Some landlords would not rent to members of certain ethnic groups. With an ongoing power struggle within the Honolulu NAACP, Berman’s objectivity, motivation and credibility are questionable.
We DO know, however, from information posted by Kincaid’s own researcher Herbert Romerstein, that Berman’s letter is dated September 26, 1949. On November 14, 1949 the NAACP voted to revoke the charter of the Honolulu Branch for “conduct inimical to the best interest of the NAACP.”
We also know that Kincaid’s colleague, Paul Kengor, took this Honolulu NAACP issue into even deeper depths of “misrepresentation.” Paul Kengor’s column, “Return of the Dupes and the Anti-Anti-Communists,” was posted on the Cliff Kincaid’s Accuracy In Media website on June 17, 2008 (see http://www.aim.org/guest-column/return-of-the-dupes-and-the-anti-anti-communists/). Based on Romerstein’s report, Kengor states in his column:
Finally, if that doesn’t concern liberals, they should understand how communists, including Frank Marshall Davis, used the civil-rights movement, and again and again exploited and undermined the NAACP. Romerstein lays this out at length in his report. He quotes Roy Wilkins of the NAACP, who rightly noted of Davis and his comrades: “they would now destroy the local branch of the NAACP.” They would do so after having destroyed another good civil-rights organization. “Comrade Davis,” wrote Wilkins, “was supported by others who recently ‘sneaked’ into the organization with the avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line.” Wilkins knew well that this was a standard “tactic” by the communists; it was known by everyone involved in the NAACP at the time. Wilkins, like many civil-rights leaders of his time, refused to be duped by Davis and his comrades.
[END QUOTE]Unfortunately, the Romerstein report at America’s Survival (page 17) directly contradicts Kengor’s column. Romerstein does NOT quote Roy Wilkins
of the NAACP regarding Davis. Instead, Romerstein quotes a letter written TO Roy Wilkins by rookie Honolulu NAACP board member Edward Berman.Falsely attributing these remarks to Wilkins greatly enhanced their credibility, because Wilkins had a reputation of denouncing communists within the civil rights movement. I can find no evidence in Romerstein’s report that Wilkins had ANY opinion of Davis.
Another innocent mistake, or deliberate misrepresentation?
Mark, you may want to take your defense of Frank to wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Marshall_Davis
“...Sometime during the period 1943-1945, Davis joined the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA), although he never publicly admitted his party membership. Davis published pieces in CPUSA-supported publications....”
“...A 1951 report of the Commission of Subversive Activities to the legislature of the Territory of Hawaii identified Davis as a CPUSA member....”
There is credible evidence that he joined the CPUSA during WWII, as reflected in the Wikipedia article. The issue is his membership during the 1930’s, as I commented in #2.
Yeah right, Kincaid. Professor Kengor so thoroughly “examined” your work that he got it completely wrong. He claims that Roy Wilkins of the NAACP denounced Davis as a communist when Wilkins did no such thing as is clearly evidenced in YOUR report. Davis was denounced by Edward Berman in a letter to Roy Wilkins. The motives of Berman, a white man with a short tenure on the board of the Hawaii chapter of the NAACP who denied there was any discrimination in Hawaii, are questionable at best.
If you don’t like Obama, don’t vote for him, but your red-baiting campaign is more than pathetic. Your attempt to systematically destroy the reputation of a long-since deceased poet, journalist, and civil rights activist with half-truths, innuendo and downright falsehoods should be thoroughly condemned by all fair-minded, thinking Americans.
Your repeated calls to the MSM to put this non-story on the front page and/or the 6 o’clock news is not happening, is it? And not because of any media bias--but because real journalists (and their editors) understand the consequences of defamation, with or without malice.
Sheik B. Hussein Obama (oops… excuse my insensitivity… Barry O’Bama) is indeed a Marxist. If you completely eliminate his associations, you still have his record that shows him to be the most leftist in the US Senate. Incredibly enough he is left of such well-known Socialists as Comrades Jean Francois Kerry, Clinton, and Senator Jack Daniels,
D-Chappaquiddick. This is not guilt by associations but guilt by personal record.
You know, there are plenty of people who might say that the real similarity of Obama in Berlin was to JFK in Berlin!
And, there are plenty of people who might also say that Reagan wasn’t a real “communist fighter”, rather, it was JFK - - who is the only President to actually draw down on the Russkies and make them back off - - during the Cuban Missile crisis!
And, of course, the real agent whose personal efforts to develop the spirit of freedom among the people which ultimately beat down USSR-based communism in Europe was - - Pope John Paul II.
While Reagan had a public persona which was certainly more charismatic than, say, George W. Bush’s, Richard Nixon’s, or Gerald Ford’s - - he’s the dim bulb on the charisma string when compared to JFK and, now, to Obama. And he certainly didn’t command the attention of the world’s people as did JP II.
In fact, judging by the enmity and protests Reagan was typically met with in Europe - - it’s fairly revisionist to say he had a significantly positive affect over there. Truthfully, sentiment in Europe among many was that he was a non-thinking cowboy (remind you of anybody?)just itching to begin lobbing hydrogen bombs around. In fact, he probably scared more of the “good guys” than he did the “bad guys”!
If Obama can generate the kind of positive adulation in Europe that Pope John Paul did - - it’s nothing but GOOD for America!
Ooh! Nice job, Juris Doctor! I especially like the part about “real journalists (and their editors) understand the consequences of defamation, with or without malice,” coming from an attorney.
Considering the extent of his misrepresentation already documented at http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/Kaleokualoha/gGxdvX, some contingency-fee litigators may consider this an easy case. I have already done much of their homework. Malice is self-evident, especially when Kincaid reverted to the discredited “right to hate” story.
Cliff you are certainly hitting some nerves - 6 comments so far - and 5 of them from Obama (whoops - one from TK, 1 from Juris Doctor and three - thats 3 - from Mark). I have learned one thing in politics and that is when there is certainly some truth to something the liberals go way overboard telling us it isn’t the truth. And you have to hand it to them, they are certainly “organized” in their denial of the truth. And thinking Americans KNOW when they are getting lied to - the liberals-communists - start shouting law-suits.
Me thinks Cliff that they wish to shout you down, say whatever they need to say, threaten whatever to silence you and discredit you before this gets traction. THIS tells me there is TRUTH here.
I’ll bet their camp wishes that the election were being held right now rather than way far off in November. Even the most easily led of Americans will be clearly able to see the Obama flaws by then. The media that see him as a rock star have their work cut out for them, as do his spokesmen like Mark, TK and Juris Doctor, if they are to keep those they think are easily led and stupid (which they see the American voter as), from seeing the truth between now and November.
Keep pointing out the TRUTH Cliff, after all since the media have no control over themselves any longer (and perhaps should be being paid as campaign spokesmen for Obama), it is left to those that are here to keep the media honest, such as Accuracy in Media, to say what they refuse to say.
Hey, Obama spokespeople, I do not relish having your job! You have to keep the wool over the American peoples eyes for about 3 and 1/2 months yet - and that is one tall order. I know you think that the voters are just a bunch of rubes who just climbed down off the tater truck, and certainly a goodly portion are that after years of indoctrination in your gulags - the public education system - but sadly for you, more than half, a good amount over half are smarter than you think (actually you know that and that is what you fear right now).
In the shorter election seasons of the past, you only had to keep the people snowed for a short period of time before they had to make their election booth decisions. That is why snake oil salesmen like Al Gore and John Kerry were able to do so well in November. Now with an even MORE flawed candidate for the communists (whoops socialists, whoops liberals, whoops Democrats), you have to keep us ignorant even longer. Imagine if Mr Global Warming, and that cad Kerry had to snow the people for a few months more before the vote - they would have been toast.
The despicable liar, and traitor, you have saddled your party with this time, even with all the media that should be paid by his campaign to speak for him, just is not going to be able to keep the lid on the mess that he is. Why you already have major rebellions within your own party - the Clinton supporters would rather vote for McCain than Obama.
I have wondered how McCain could win without the Conservatives of his party - and he has not put even one olive branch out to us - just continued to stick is thumb in our eyes. But with the rebellion within your ranks, and the many independents that are closer in thinking to him than the communist Obama - McCain could actually win this WITHOUT one Conservative vote from the real base of the Republican Party. Imagine if he puts just a couple olive branches out there in the next few months and maybe names a VP we can stomach, and your flawed terrorist supporter candidate WILL be toast.
Wouldn’t have your jobs Mark, TK and Juris Doctor for all the bucks in the world. I would suggest you start your next campaign right now - in this case the third time will not be the charm! You had the windbag horse Gore (now there is a lot of Global warming coming out of that yap), you had the man that almost single-handedly run up the white flag of surrender with his lies in Vietnam, and now you have the man who only the media and the terrorists REALLY love. Maybe the fourth time?????
Jack,
Of course there’s “some truth” to this column. Disinformation is often wrapped in truth. That’s the nature of the beast. Do you, however, believe that AIM is telling the truth in the specific points of contention I raised:
- Davis said “right to hate” white people?
- Davis was a CPUSA member in the 1930’s?
- Roy Wilkins’ criticism of Davis?
Your direct answer would be appreciated.
Thanks!
Mark
1) Davis said “right to hate” - while I have no information to address this either way, it is a central tenet in the philosophies of those that Obama believes in, evidence Wright, and also in the likes of Jesse, Louis, and Sharpton, etal. In addition, I have been a reader of Cliff for a long time, if he made a mistake in evidence he presented, he would be the first person, I believe, to correct it when presented with the evidence to make the corrections - therefore, I would expect a correction will be along shortly or he has already determined he had it right.
2) Davis a CPUSA member in 30’s - for the sake of the argument, what does it matter whether he joined in the 30’s or in 1940 or 41 or 2 etc. The jist here is that a man Obama looked to as a mentor was a communist and he still surrounds himself with people that are communists, whether in paper carrying members or in philosophy?
3) Roy Wilkins criticized Davis - once again, if now that Cliff has been shown the “error” of his ways, if he is wrong, he “will” correct it, as that is the mettle of the man, and if he does not then he stands by the statement he says is fact.
I have read far to many things by Cliff, and in areas that I do personally know the facts, and I have yet to catch him in errors, and if he does make the error, he is only human, he will correct.
Concluding, though, I see the first as true, the second, we are in a debate over the actual year rather than the contention which to me is pointless, and the third, I frankly will look to Cliff. He will correct if wrong now that you have pointed it out - until then I have no reason to disbelieve him due to his track record with me.
Jack
Great! Now we are having a civil discussion!.
1. Here is the direct quote from “Dreams From My Father”:
Frank: “What I’m trying to tell you is, your grandma’ right to be scared. She’s at least as right as Stanley is. She understands that black people have a reason to hate. That’s just how it is. For your sake, I wish it were otherwise. But it’s not . So you might as well get used to it.”
[END QUOTE]Here are Kincaid’s words from his interview with Bill Steigerwald (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/mostread/s_571431.html):
“But that’s not how Obama handled it. Instead he talks about “Frank” as someone who gave him serious advice, including not to believe in the American way of life and that black people had a right to hate white people.”
He corrected his misrepresentation in http://www.aim.org/aim-column/media-excuse-obamas-false-advertising:
In fact, his white grandfather helped raise Obama by selecting Frank Marshall Davis, a black communist writer and poet, as a father-figure and role model while he was growing up in Hawaii. His values, passed on to Obama, were those of a communist agent who pledged allegiance to Stalin. Among other things, as Obama himself admits in his book, “Frank” told him that blacks had a reason to hate whites and that he should not believe that [expletive deleted] about the American way of life. Davis was an influence over Obama during the years 1975-1979. His “poetry” is viciously anti-American and pro-Soviet. And yet Obama listened to it growing up.
[END QUOTE]As you can clearly see, Kincaid CORRECTLY cited Davis’s statement in the “Media Excuse Obama’s False Advertising” column, but subsequently misrepresented Davis’s statement in this column when he posted “right to hate.”
YOU WROTE: “I have been a reader of Cliff for a long time, if he made a mistake in evidence he presented, he would be the first person, I believe, to correct it when presented with the evidence to make the corrections - therefore, I would expect a correction will be along shortly or he has already determined he had it right.
RESPONSE: Kincaid has used both versions, but only “reason to hate” is correct. Let’s see how he corrects this.
2. YOU WROTE: Davis a CPUSA member in 30’s - for the sake of the argument, what does it matter whether he joined in the 30’s or in 1940 or 41 or 2 etc.
RESPONSE: It matters because Kincaid builds his “Stalinist” claim on Davis “staying with the Party” after the Hitler-Stalin pact of 1939 (see Steigerwald interview). If he was not a member of the Party at that time, then Kincaid’s “staying with the party” premise for Davis being a “Stalinist” is invalid. The interview also made the unprecedented claim that Davis was a “lifelong member of the Communist Party USA.” Kincaid claims that HE never made that statement. Numerous requests to Bill Steigerwald for his source have been stonewalled. As “a reader of Cliff for a long time,” I invite YOU to ask Bill Steigerwald for the source of his claim ( ). You will probably find that it was fabricated.
YOU WROTE: “a man Obama looked to as a mentor was a communist.”
RESPONSE: There is NO evidence that Obama looked to Davis as a “mentor.” His book does not say that. Kincaid claims that Gerald Horne “noted” that Davis “became the young man’s mentor” (http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-communist-mentor). That is a complete fabrication (see Kincaid’s source material at http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/5047/1/32/).
3. YOU WROTE: “Roy Wilkins criticized Davis - once again, if now that Cliff has been shown the “error” of his ways, if he is wrong, he “will” correct it, as
that is the mettle of the man, and if he does not then he stands by the statement he says is fact. I have read far to many things by Cliff, and in areas that I do personally know the facts, and I have yet to catch him in errors, and if he does make the error, he is only human, he will correct.”RESPONSE: Kincaid correctly attributed the NAACP criticism to Berman. It is Kincaid’s colleague, Paul Kengor, who falsely attributed the remarks to Wilkins in an AIM column (http://www.aim.org/guest-column/return-of-the-dupes-and-the-anti-anti-communists/). As the editor of AIM, however, Kincaid is responsible for the veracity of his reports.
These are only a few of the misrepresentations that exaggerate Davis’s radical background, and Davis’s influence over Obama. If they were innocent mistakes, then some should diminish rather than exaggerate these points. I invite you to review my outline of this disinformation at http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/Kaleokualoha/gGxdvX.
Thanks!
Jack,
Great! Now we are having a civil discussion!.
1. Here is the direct quote from “Dreams From My Father”:
Frank: “What I’m trying to tell you is, your grandma’ right to be scared. She’s at least as right as Stanley is. She understands that black people have a reason to hate. That’s just how it is. For your sake, I wish it were otherwise. But it’s not . So you might as well get used to it.”
[END QUOTE]Here are Kincaid’s words from his interview with Bill Steigerwald (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/mostread/s_571431.html):
“But that’s not how Obama handled it. Instead he talks about “Frank” as someone who gave him serious advice, including not to believe in the
American way of life and that black people had a right to hate white people.”He corrected his misrepresentation in “Media Excuse Obama’s False Advertising”:
In fact, his white grandfather helped raise Obama by selecting Frank Marshall Davis, a black communist writer and poet, as a father-figure and role model while he was growing up in Hawaii. His values, passed on to Obama, were those of a communist agent who pledged allegiance to Stalin. Among other things, as Obama himself admits in his book, “Frank” told him that blacks had a reason to hate whites and that he should not believe that [expletive deleted] about the American way of life. Davis was an influence over Obama during the years 1975-1979. His “poetry” is viciously anti-American and pro-Soviet. And yet Obama listened to it growing up.
[END QUOTE]In comment #14 to that column, I congratulated Kincaid for correcting his misrepresentation. Unfortunately, he subsequently misrepresented Davis’s statement in this Berlin column when he AGAIN posted “right to hate.”
YOU WROTE: “I have been a reader of Cliff for a long time, if he made a mistake in evidence he presented, he would be the first person, I believe, to correct it when presented with the evidence to make the corrections - therefore, I would expect a correction will be along shortly or he has already determined he had it right.
RESPONSE: Kincaid has used both versions, but only “reason to hate” is correct. Let’s see how he corrects this.
2. YOU WROTE: Davis a CPUSA member in 30’s - for the sake of the argument, what does it matter whether he joined in the 30’s or in 1940 or 41 or 2 etc.
RESPONSE: It matters because Kincaid builds his “Stalinist” claim on Davis “staying with the Party” after the Hitler-Stalin pact of 1939 (see Steigerwald interview). If he was not a member of the Party at that time, then Kincaid’s “staying with the party” premise for Davis being a “Stalinist” is invalid. The interview also made the unprecedented claim that Davis was a “lifelong member of the Communist Party USA.” Kincaid claims that HE never made that statement. Numerous requests to Bill Steigerwald for his source have been stonewalled. As “a reader of Cliff for a long time,” I invite YOU to ask Bill Steigerwald for the source of his claim (). You will probably find that it was fabricated.
YOU WROTE: “a man Obama looked to as a mentor was a communist.”
RESPONSE: There is NO evidence that Obama looked to Davis as a “mentor.” His book does not say that. In “Obama’s Communist Mentor, Kincaid claims that Gerald Horne “noted” that Davis “became the young man’s mentor.” That is a complete fabrication (see Kincaid’s source material at the political affairs.net website).
3. YOU WROTE: “Roy Wilkins criticized Davis - once again, if now that Cliff has been shown the “error” of his ways, if he is wrong, he “will” correct it, as that is the mettle of the man, and if he does not then he stands by the statement he says is fact. I have read far to many things by Cliff, and in areas that I do personally know the facts, and I have yet to catch him in errors, and if he does make the error, he is only human, he will correct.”
RESPONSE: Kincaid correctly attributed the NAACP criticism to Berman. It is Kincaid’s colleague, Paul Kengor, who falsely attributed the remarks to Wilkins in AIM column “Return of the Dupes and the Anti-Anti-Communists. As the editor of AIM, however, Kincaid is responsible for the veracity of his reports.
These are only a few exampes of the extensive misrepresentation that exaggerates Davis’s radical background and influence over Obama. If they were innocent mistakes, then the laws of probability dictate that some should diminish rather than exaggerate these points. I invite you to review my outline of this disinformation at http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/Kaleokualoha/gGxdvX.
Thanks!
Mark, you’re really getting tedious. As I pointed out in an earlier thread, you’re trying really really hard to make fine distinctions about your perceptions of your absent father. Maybe you should take that to a shrink.
This is about Obama and the collectivist influences in his life, not your father who most likely was both (collectivist and influencer).
Obama tries to wrap himself in all sorts of greatness of the past, as he has no true character of his own. He envisions himself as JFK although no-one could imagine his bitter half as Jackie O.
He infatuates JFK’s daughter and brother and has Carolyn do his VP search for him. He invokes Reagan, although the true impact of Reagan’s Berlin speech was not realized or appreciated until a couple of years later (it pissed the Germans and Europeans off at the time).
Obama is a fraud, pure and simple. He’s a great actor and should find his true calling in Hollywood with all the other empty souls who portray what scriptwriters tell them to perfection, as they have no thoughts of their own to conflict.
I’m sorry, John. I thought we are concerned with ACCURACY in media.
Mark,
You’re an academic, aren’t you? They argue for hours on end and nitpick over minor details or even what they consider major details, but the end result to me is always: What’s the Point?
Cliff is saying that Obama’s background, his educational upbringing, his belief systems are steeped in communism, severe socialism at best. He points out influences upon Obama to make his point. It seems you want to argue against this?
I suppose I should just be to the point - I am a Conservative, perhaps even too conservative for the Republican Party. Cliff does not have to convince me that Obama is far far to the left - I already came to that conclusion very early in the primary system. I know that if Obama and his ilk get power we will lose fastly even more liberties than we are now. Under W we have lost liberties, under Clinton we lost even more, but with W we have only lost a few more - it is not excelerated as it will be again under Obama. And even faster if he gets strong power in the Congress.
I know what they want - they want the day to come when they so have us by the cajones that Americans must raise their hands and ask permission to go potty. Socialists/Communists like Obama want ABSOLUTE control and they act as if they own us - that all liberties are taken by the state. They have no allegiance whatsoever to the Constitution, which they swore to uphold and protect, yet they betray in everything that they do.
I come from five generations of Democrats - was a Democrat and proudly in my younger years. Those of the Democrat Party that I swore by in my youth would be rolling over in their graves at what the party has become - I especially think of Henry Jackson when I say that. Not only would the philosopher-founder Jefferson be against the Democrat Party of today, but General Jackson, the first “Democrat” Party President would have long ago gone to war and used the power of the nation to overthrow those that control the party of today. As much as Wilson liked to control things he would denounce Democrats, and certainly those great American Democrats Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman would have no use for Democrats ala Gore, Edwards, Kerry, the Clintons - and they would see Obama as even further to the left. if that is even possible any longer.
But don’t feel bad Mark, because I also see McCain and Guiliani and their ilk as on that road also and they are trying to take the Republican Party in that leftist direction - even W and his father have betrayed the treasured core beliefs of what a Republican is supposed to stand for. They seem to be taking on today’s Democrats core beliefs that the more and more intolerant and in your face government they can create the better.
So, Mark, my real interest in Cliff’s article is that Conservative’s and Republicans are finally REALLY getting it and see the hand writing on the wall for the future - we are just about kaput as a Constitutional Republic and with Obama and his American traitors at the helm that will fastly become reality. He does not have to sell the sold on his arguments, I am just happy he is becoming more and more sold and can now sell others on the coming national catastrophe.
Mark, I do not wish to argue the finer points as you academically disect Cliff’s article - I learned a long time ago as I worked on first my BA’s, and then my MA, that the argument never ends. I also learned sadly that when you actually get the better of the argument and are on the road to victory, those that stand behind the beliefs of people like Obama, have absolute power in our colleges and universities now, and they will absolutely ruin your academic future and destroy each and every one of your dreams, so THEY can win. That is how this Phi Beta Kappa with a dream to teach and with the plan to obtain a Ph.D. could not even get a job as an instructor in a community college today. I am a gifted historian and love to share my knowledge of history - but my study of history has been outlawed by the Obama-type ites to be replaced with feel good PC history that is at best LIES.
So no, Mark, I will pass on the academic argument you wish to wage - Frankly, It just ain’t worth the hassle - you wish to destroy America with Obama and you think you are making things better, and I see the total destruction that is coming unless we stop it and fast - so we are not only not on the same page but we are in totally different books.
Jack
Jack,
Thanks for your reply. I am not an academic. I am a retired Air Force Intelligence Officer with specific training in Deception Analysis. My interest in this issue is more personal than political. I am fighting disinformation against Frank Marshall Davis because he is my father.
Regards,
- Mark
Mark, after I composed and submitted my post, I then read the two posts of Mr Galt, and learned there was something personal here - they had not yet been posted when I commenced my reply. I do not know all the particulars of the past regarding your father, though I will say this - if you believe that what is being said about your father is unfactual and incorrect - go for it, stand up for what you believe is right. I also believe this - Cliff Kincaid, is a fair man, and if you put your argument in an easy to digest format and place it in front of him, I believe he does stand for - Accuracy in Media - and he will give it a fair read and then take the time to verify and make it right IF that is called for.
Good luck, Mark---------Jack
Mark,
Since you are so interested in “accuracy”, when will we see you going after your father’s biographer Tidwell who says your father joined the Communist Party “sometime during the war?”
MrX: Since there is credible evidence that he joined the party sometime during WWII, that is not a major point of contention. I am in constant contact with Mr. Tidwell. My problem is with Kincaid’s claim that he was a Stalinist because he STAYED with the Party after 1939. This is deliberate misrepresentation that exaggerates Davis’s radical background.
Jack: Thanks for the kind words. I have asked Kincaid for evidence ever since “Obama’s Communist Mentor.” On May 20, as post #35, I asked: “Where does the record show that Obama “developed a close relationship, almost like a son, with Davis”?
Since then I have asked him to support numerous misrepresentations, to no avail. I have been stonewalled, both by Kincaid and by his associate, Bill Steigerwald, who printed that Davis was a “lifelong member of the Communist Party USA” in a Kincaid interview last month (see post #2, above)
If you or any other fair and honorable readers believe these gentlemen are also fair and honorable men, please ask Bill Steigerwald ( ) to support HIS claim, and ask Kincaid to support the specific misrepresentations I identified in my blog (see #14, above). I have been unable to get any response from either of them.
Thanks again!
- Mark
As I have followed Mr. Kincaid’s crusade against the long-since-deceased Frank Marshall Davis, my primary objection has always been that the lies and innuendo are hurtful to the many people still alive today who knew and loved him. His children, grandchildren, friends and colleagues are by turns saddened and outraged by the systematic campaign to destroy the reputation of a man who worked hard both to raise a family and to bring about social justice for minorities in an era long before the civil rights movement.
I never knew Mr. Davis and am not related to him in any way, but like him, I hate injustice (sad to say, as a former prosecutor, I’ve seen my share of it).
Jack, you seem like a good man. I hope you will take Mark up on his suggestion in urging Mr. Kincaid to correct his blatant (and what can now only be seen by any thinking person as deliberate) misrepresentations.
For the record, I am not an Obama supporter. I do question his judgment regarding some of his past associations (e.g, Rev. Wright and Tony Rezko). Those associations have been covered
(and rightly so) by the main stream media. However, his acquaintance with Frank Marshall Davis during his adolescence in Hawaii has no bearing on his fitness for political office and the smears by Kincaid and his surrogates against a dead poet and journalist for the sole purpose of defeating a presidential candidate are beneath contempt.
Mark, all the best to you and thank you for your military service to our country. You are to be commended for defending your family’s honor and your father’s memory.
I watched this pathetic, self serving speech.
Not one media outlet except Rush and Hannity even mentioned that there was a free concert before Obama got there. That’s how he got a big crowd in Ptld., OR earlier this year and no one mentioned that either.
To Jack Hansen:
I am a committed Independent (who would have preferred Clinton or Biden or Huckabee or Paul to Obama or McCain)- - and if there is a point of view or perspective I detest - - it is the totally ideological! And, if there is a political condition I detest - - it is total partisanship! And if there is a personal characteristic I detest, it is total extremisn!
All of these detestable conditions frequently appear on this website in the alleged defense of “accuracy” (or, shall we say, ideological conservatism?).
A perfect example of what this kind of ideological, partisan, extremist bullshit leads to occurred in a church in Tennessee this past weekend - - where a rockheaded, extreme rightist, wingnut killed two and seriously wounded seven - - in the course of his personal, anti-liberal ‘crusade’.
He claims to have done what he did because the particular church and its parishioners were “too liberal”!
The “spread of naked and extreme ideology” should be a co-conspirator in this dude’s murder trial! (Note that our problems in the mideast are mostly due to extremist, rightwing Muslims!)
Mao Tse Tung was an extremist radical leftist - - Adolf Hitler was an extremist reactionary rightist - - and any idiot should be able to see and udnerstand the real world results of political extremism and the ‘defense’ of ideology run amok!
It’s not about “us vs.them”, Jack! From the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress until now - - American politics has been about NOTHING except ever-increasing and debilitating partisanship - - and “swiftboating” of one kind or another - - carried on by the extremists who currently control both major political parties!
On the other hand, I believe intellectually honest people, probably the majority of voting Americans, would readily agree that successful politics is really all about “compromise” - - and finding a course of governance that a definitive majority of Americans can and will support.
To John Galt:
Your words - - “… is a fraud, pure and simple. He’s a great actor and should find his true calling in Hollywood with all the other empty souls who portray what scriptwriters tell them to perfection, as they have no thoughts of their own to conflict.” - - could just as well be a partisan’s personal description of George W. Bush (and the Bush critic could make a very GOOD case for his opinion, too!).
All the criticisms that partisan Republicans are leveling against Obama regarding his inexperience, his lack of a record, his perceived ‘extremism’, or his being nothing but a puppet of various ‘scriptwriters’ - - could ALL be applied to George W. Bush when he was following his ‘scripts’ as the presumptive Republican nominee during the summer of 2000. And, such Bush criticisms would be pretty true, too!
(And, of course, Mr. Bush’s “Mission Acomplished” acting (and constuming) would have made any scriptwriter and director (and wardrobe assistant) producing any old-style, B-grade American war movie proud.)
Mini-minded partisan processing (don’t they call it “propaganda”?) has been so “boilerplated” that almost anything one side says about the other can be returned in kind with very little editing!
Mr. Galt, you may ‘believe’ or ‘think’ that Obama is not qualified to be president - - whereas, on the other hand, there are probably several dozen million of us who, now, after nearly eight years of observing him actually on the job, ‘know’ (for certain!) that George W. Bush was not qualified to be president! (In fact, Mr. Bush’s “pre-gubernatorial” resume is actually pretty pathetic as presidential resumes go!)
Ideological partisanship begets nothing but more intensified ideological partisanship. Personally dememaning the other guy’s candidate will only get your candidate demeaned to an even greater degree. A never-ending circle jerk!
“...On the other hand, I believe intellectually honest people, probably the majority of voting Americans, would readily agree that successful politics is really all about “compromise” - - and finding a course of governance that a definitive majority of Americans can and will support.”
Compromise is not the same as collaboration. Compromise is what each side is demanding of the other, and why there is so much resistance from both sides.
TK, I’m not a partisan Republican or Democrat. I think both parties are full of frauds, panderers and just plain extortionists.
I’m not thrilled with McQueeg, but I’m certainly aghast at the prospect of Obama.
BTW, turning my rant about Obama into a rant about Bush shows you aren’t much better than any of the partisans you complain about. Your rant is in fact even more partisan and pathetic since Bush is not running again and never will.
“...A perfect example of what this kind of ideological, partisan, extremist bullshit leads to occurred in a church in Tennessee this past weekend - -...”
Pretty far stretch there, TK. Nuts are nuts, politically-motivated or otherwise. Pretty hard to paint this nut as politically-motivated.
BTW, your “facts” are wrong about this case… check the news sites first next time.
Wow, wow, wow! I had decided to just sit the rest of this out - because while I have believed that Cliff Kincaid is a fair man, I do not have any special power over him to compel him to do what is right - and since I do not know the particulars regarding Mark’s father - except what has been stated here and in Cliff’s article - and who to believe or not - I figured if Cliff is the man I have believed he is that he would make it right. And obviously I can not argue the points in either direction when I only know bits and pieces.
But then I get into my mail today, and here the rants of TK - and by the way TK, I don’t partake of church all that often so when you go berserk you won’t get me there.
My first thought is TK needs to look into a mirror - as the ideological extremist will be looking right at him. I have stated I am a Conservative - but there was nothing in that to say I was an extremist - and standing for what was good and normal in America until 30 some years ago does not make ME an extremist - perhaps one might argue I am not easily happy with change is apt here - but that I am a radical extremist is not this man. Those that CHANGED America from what it was in its heyday - when Americans REALLY had it made and created the mess we live in today - now those people could be called extremists.
TK you argue Obama vs W - I see them as the same except that W is only slightly down the path of sickness that is the disease destroying America, and Obama is so far down the path I expect instant death to the American Dream shortly after he gains power. And McCain? McCain is just slightly to thr right of Obama.
Yes, I have argued about the evil that is Obama and I truly belive that - but you have heard no argument from me in support of McCain or W. I do agree wholeheartedly with John Galt as I am also not a partisan Republican or Democrat. And I agree that the parties are full of frauds, panderers and just plain extortionists - though I might add the word criminals - as these despicable Americans should have never been allowed the power to govern - as they daily break the oaths they took to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
As I see it what burns liberals and ideologs like TK is that they lost power in 1994 in the Congress. They called the shots almost forever since the 50’s and the nation was moving fastly to the left and liberalism - and the problems we have today because of their fast track ideolism. Then the Republicans gained power in 1994 and slowed the process for awhile, but even they soon got corrupted and were running almost in lock step with the liberals - it is why we threw the bastards out in 06. That McCain is to represent the Republican Party in the coming election tells me the Republicans have STILL not learned that freedom loving Americans DO NOT want liberal lite, we want the nation to return to the values and ideals that made us great.
Obviously the Democrats were peeved because as soon as they got power again in 06, they put the far extremists Pelosi and Reed in leadership, and now run Obama - hell even the extremist Clintons were not extreme enough for the out of control liberals - liberals are hell bent on destroying everything good about America and taking every single liberty Americans have away from them, and while the powers that be of the Republicans are doing the same - it is at least a slower pace than liberalism.
TK - you talk of partisanship - look in the mirror you arrogant man - YOU and your ilk are the extremists - the ideologs - you are the people that refuse to hear of any other way but YOUR way - you shout down your opponents - you yell for tolerance yet you are the most intolerant people America has ever produced - you rant about what you detest - but then if you listened to yourself you would realize then that you should detest yourselves.
Because I am for keeping what America had that made us great - and why fix something that did not need fixing - does not make me the extremist like the liberal-hater in the church - though I expect that as time goes on this will get worse and worse - as it IS liberals treatment of their opponents that breeds this hate. It is liberals that destroyed my academic career - because of their intolerance - unless I got more radical and liberal and PC as them, they made me pay for it.
So ideologs - Mr TK, Americans have been fighting you for better than 30 years and we may have slowed you a bit for 10 years and peeved your asses but the liberal criminals that are Pelosi and Reed and Obama will more than destroy everything we slowed down for those years.
And Yes, IT IS about “us vs them” TK. There can not be compromise there - I will never be bipartisan with people that would have me in chains - people that would take more and more of my liberties - people that will not be happy until Americans must raise their hands and ask permission to go potty. And it is the Obama’s and their criminal ilk that would force us there. I am under no illusions TK, this next election will decide the fate of the American Republic - we will still lose with McCain, but it WILL be over with Obama - and that means civil war - and us Constitutionalists having to fight those that have destroyed Constitutional government.
I have already taken two bullets fighting for America, I have a bad ticker and am not old but fast approaching it - I DO NOT relish Civil War - but I see that as the only alternative once chaos breaks out completely because of the actions of Pelosi, Obama, Reed and company. And America is already fast approaching chaos already. Nothing works anymore - the covernment si corrupt and getting corrupter (if that is possible), the courts help those that wish us harm, they reward the predator and punish the victim. Any values Americans had have been indoctrinated out of us through a thoroughly corrupt education system that is for everything which is bad for America. And the change people - want to excelerate that?
I am a poor man, your way, you liberals have taken all my dreams, all my money which I already had very little of, and even hope now seems to be even a dream. Bottom line TK, when you tell me I have to ask your permission to go potty - better duck. That is what your extremism is creating - it is what the extremism of liberalism is creating - it is creating Americans who live in fear - fear of those with power - fear of the government that you love so much controlling everything - fear that they will have to sleep under a bridge because you championed every special interest group regardless of their perversion while at the same time punishing those that just wanted to live their lives out in the America they grew up in - the America they loved - the America they were comfortable in - but you changed - and made it so they were the ones that you were bias against. They didn’t start out hating you, but YOU hated them, and because they did not agree with you, YOU punished them - you liberals did that.
Be careful what you sow - as their are consequences for your actions - your liberalism is making a lot of people a lot afraid - and when you paint them in a corner and give them no alternatives but chains to your power - they are apt to do just about anything.
It is what the gas prices are ALL about - but the liberals - the Pelosis and Reeds and Obamas and even the liberals of the Republicans, like the McCains etc, are too obtuse to see it. People it much of this country are just barely making it - you liberals run up our gas prices through your extreme environmentalism - and it has broken alot of peoples budgets - not just for gas but for everything else that has also gone up because of the gas. You stopped the oil companies in this country - you stopped the refineries - and did it BEFORE we were converted to alternatives - as you wanted to “force” your way. Well you got your way - and now you must pay the consequences - a whole lot of Americans are a whole lot afraid and they are broke and these gas price run ups is collapsing the economy - people are scared.
You want extremism? The liberals of Obamas ilk better hope they are able to continue to con Americans like the snake oil salesmen that they are - because if between now and November, the majority of Americans finally realize that it has always been the liberals, always been the Democrats that created the gas price run ups and the resultant disaster we face - Obama will be lucky if he only loses by a complete landslide - he better hope he doesn’t get run out of town on a rail or worse. Now that would be some “change” wouldn’t it TK?
To Mr. Hansen:
I’m sorry for the personal problems you infer, but, with all due respect, I doubt that they can be objectively and completely chalked up to the “liberal” political preferences of others (???)
In fact, one of the things that angers me the most is the pejorative use of the terms “liberal” and “conservative” when, in fact, there is nothing inherent in either term to automatically make it a pejorative. And, of course, pejorative “labeling” is one of the basic ingredients of garden variety propaganda.
My own political position is (1.) I am a committed Independent who is angry at both major political parties for allowing themselves to be taken over by an extremist minority within and for then failing to be reponsive to their broader and less extreme, more middle-of-the-road constituents; and, 2.) I am a committed ANTI-EXTREMIST. Period. And, again, with all due respect, you make it clear yourself that you are an “extremist” in your stated hatred of all “liberals”. (???)
For me, though, you actually state some positions I agree with (and, keep in mind, I believe I am probably older than you and that my own time-horizon might, therefore, be broader.
I agree - “standing for what was good in America until some 30 years ago”. Note, however, that in the last 40 years, there have been only two (out of 7) Democratic (or “liberal”, in your terms) Presidents who were in power only 12 of those 40 years. In the last 30 years, there’s been a Democratic (or “liberal") President for only 10. I do agree that America’s decline, if you will, definitely began with Reagan and has continued through Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II (who I believe has passed Coolidge and Hoover and challenged Harding as the worst President of all time).
I agree - that we have most certainly changed for the worse from “when Americans REALLY had it made”. And, again, I say, chalk it up to Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush - - and - - for the last dozen-plus years - - to gridlocking, extreme partisanship with governance favoring ONLY the special interests of each respective party.
I agree - Obama vs. W., MAY end up as “the same” - - but MY distinction is I know very little about Obama - - yet, I certainly know, after nearly eight years of observation and experience, what a totally inept and destructive loser W. and his administration have PROVEN to be - - so - - I’ll take the Devil I don’t know instead of the Devil I know all too well.
I agree - “I am also not a partisan Republican or Democrat. And I agree that the parties are full of frauds, panderers, and just plain extortionists”. A BIG ditto for me!
I partially agree - “what burns liberals ... is that they lost power in 1994 in Congress.” BUT - - the burn is really not the losing - - but rather - - how the winners behaved! Following the Republican takeover of Congress (which the Democrats had controlled for the previous 40 years - - including many of those years, Mr. Hansen, which you stated were so good) - - the system really began to go to hell. Thinking back to 1994-1999 - - were there EVER any more arrogant and spiteful, so-called “conservative” Republicans than exemplified by, for example, Newt Gingrich, Bob Barr (both seem to have “mellowed” a little since then), or Radiohead Rush Limbaugh? In 1998, I believe Barr’s picture appeared next to the Merriam-Webster definition of “arrogant”. The conservatives in the Republican Party became the world’s lousiest “winners” and did NOTHING for six years except to pump-up ideological partisanship using Clinton and his wife as the fuel. In fact, this began the extremist partisanship that exemplifies ALL that I hate about politics today!
I agree - that it MAY be “us vs. them” - - but NOT “liberals” vs. “conservatives” or Democrats vs. Republicans - - but, rather, the 40% to 50% of us who are MODERATE, middle-of-the-road, working-class citizens - - against the 20% to 25% in each party who are abject extremist partisans and who have stultified the political process in this country and catered only to their own supportive special interests.
I agree - “Nothing works anymore - the government is corrupt and getting corrupter ... “ - - AND - - the corruptive influence is, first, ‘Big Business’ and, second, immutable partisanship for the sake of political nest-feathering. Republicans have become “Republicans, Inc.”; Democrats have become “Democrats, Inc.” and government has become “Government, Inc.” - - and everything is about generating the money to further the interests of those who control each party and to elect those who will run Government, Inc.
I agree - “thoroughly corrupt education system”. Not much more to say - except - the ACLU and your personal bugaboo - “liberals” - have had a lot to do with the destruction of a once-proud system!
I agree to a point - “championed every special interest group” - - not just Democrats, nor “liberals”, but ALL politicians and BOTH parties have promoted their own special interests, e.g., Republicans have favored big business and Wall Street and the de-regulation thereof - - and Democrats have favored every oddball and misfit minority they can find and describe.
It takes two to tango, Jack, and the divisiveness and decline you have inferred has been the handiwork of the extremist minorities that have grabbed control in both parties in recent years.
For me, I am a “Traditionalist” in the Bill O’Reilly sense as he describes it in his book, “Culture Warrior” - - and, as they say, I’m a fiscal conservative with a traditionalist social conscience (although my social conscience DOES NOT extend to anywhere near “the San Francisco model").
I believe in states rights. I believe in a fairly strict interpretation of the Constitution. I believe in fair trade - not free trade. I favor workers’ unions and a living minimum wage. I don’t mind paying taxes - - provided the monies are used effectively and appropriately.
I was against the possible invasion of Iraq since the Gulf War. I am probably closest to being an old-fashioned “conservative Democrat” (absent the segregation issue) and I keep an eye on today’s “Blue Dog Democrats”, two of whom are from my state. I’m for more gun control, building prison camps like they have in Arizona, and re-establishing “in loco parentis” in the schools.
I believe Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II have saddled this country with an unimaginable and unmanageable national debt - - and, today, it’s more than a dozen times the amount it was when Carter left office - - and will go up $2-$3 trillion more just because of the longterm costs of the Iraq adventure.
I abhor spending $400,000,000 a day in Iraq - - and the sooner we’re out of there and the sooner we stop the financial bleeding, the better.
“Political correctness” and finding an excuse for every oddball, misfit, and dimwit are my pet peeves. I think the Republican radioheads do nothing but promote divisiveness and breed hatred - - and far too many simple minds out there are very badly influenced and pushed to even greater extremes. And, far too many “committed” Republicans and Democrats are nothing but nickel-and-dime propagandists.
The most difficult thing to find in America today is - - the truth!
The second most difficult thing to find is - - positive and effective collaboration between and among the adherents of each major political party.
In this election, I believe McCain/McBush will win - - not because he’ll necessarily be a good President - - but because, at least in my part of the country, there still seem to be plenty of Independents, Democans, and Republicrats who simply will not vote for a black guy - - nor would they have voted for a white woman, for that matter!
They say that people living in a so-called “Democracy” get the government they deserve.
I don’t see a great likelihood that this mess we’re in will be resolved via the existing resources or the usual suspects who are already on the scene. I think illegal immigration is a much more serious problem than even Lou Dobbs believes - and the population explosion and cultural changes it will bring will be destructive. I belive the most serious domestic problem is going to be the gulf between the haves and the have nots. And, continued unregulated free trade is, I believe, capable of completely destroying the heretofore high standard of American living and our once enviable quality of life.
I believe the current policies of both major political parties are inimical to the continuation of the America that I once knew.
TK
I am surprised by your last post. Frankly, if what you say is true, we are closer in agreement on more than we have differences - yes, there are differences, a couple we are probably too far apart, but after reading I stand corrected on some things I have said.
I do have to say this though, I have few differences with social or economic conservatives; and in fact I really don’t have a lot of problems with religious conservatives - though I am not really close to that camp. And I even know some liberals I can stomach - but yes, I DO lay at the feet of those of the liberal philosophy the great majority of America’s ills in the present. Mind you, the “liberal” Republicans - what I call the old country club Republicans that kiss the altar of business also deserve their share of the credit. I agree, that the parties and those that make the decisions and the leadership are a bunch of worthless hacks.
I guess what I am saying is those that fall to the Conservative side of the political scale “are” the Traditionalists or what is left of them and no I do not include the nuts to the far far right. Yes, I see there are traditionalists in the Independents - but any that would pick a Democrat since JFK - since we have to pick sadly from two - many times the lessor of two evils - do have some liberal mixed in, and perhaps too much as every Democrat since JFK has NOT had the best interests of the nation in their heart.
You are right, it is really 40 years rather than 30 years, though I think under Reagan we did at least slow the decline (GRANTED, I see the kiss up to business in there at the time), but I talk of the nation’s declining culture.
I will admit I did have some hopes at the first with W, but by the time he was up for re-election I had long saw that he was just another Country Club republican like his dad.
Anyway, noting a few differences we have, some minor and some not so minor, I am probably a lot more like you than even we both may think, as I too am a Traditionalist. But there is little in any liberal that I can say is good - many may have good motives but have a stupid head - and whether they have good motives or not - the decline in America is largely and mainly at their feet - with yes, the greed of business that has put to many of us in the poor house and adds to the decline. Perhaps we ought to make up and find out more about our similarities?
Jack
To Jack Hansen:
You know, the terms “liberal” and “conservative” have lost all their meaning in all the partisanship ranting and raving that goes on. And neither term properly delineates a “Republican” or a “Democrat” - - terms which also have a far different meaning today than they had during most of my life. (As President, George W. Bush is certainly no “conservative”; and Bill Clinton certainly was no “liberal”.)
Today - - John Kennedy (a conservative Democrat in his day)could be construed as a fairly conservative Republican; Nelson Rockefeller (a liberal Republican in his day), a fairly conservative Democrat. I could vote for either if they were running today! Both were “Traditionalists”.
Let me also say that I HATE name-calling labels - - and the two worst at the moment are “liberal” and conservative”. They’re used mostly as pejoratives - - and both have become meaningless. In fact, Democratic presidents Truman, Kennedy and Johnson were probably more “conservative” than The Texas Ranger and El Dicque. They were certainly more “Traditionalist”.
Anyway, I don’t think that the decline in this country is so much “political” as it is a social and cultural decline - - with politics mostly in a “following” mode. Unfortunately, neither party has had the balls to actually “lead” in this regard - - neither wants to clean up the airwaves and other media; neither wants to crack down on criminals; neither wants to restore discipline and order to the public schools; neither wants to enforce the laws as regards illegal immigration and border security; neither will take a stand against “Sanctuary Cities” and dishing out extra punishment to illegals who are also felonious criminals; neither will support fair trade as opposed to free trade; neither will support legislation to re-regulate those businesses (once strictly regulated) who have now proven themselves to be problematical, e.g., investment banks, financial services, Big Oil, Big Pharma, Wall Street, etc. And, there are many more important issues on which neither party offers leadership or proposed solutions.
Hell! Neither has the balls to even support returning to the nationwide 55 MPH speed limit - - which saved lives and millions-upon-millions of barrels of oil back in the ‘70s. To me, both parties have become handmaidens to the gutless and blowhard bunch of wussie extremists who currently control them! Each party is about as different from each other today as is the American League from the National League.
In any event - - I don’t think “liberal” or “Democrat” is the source of those changes you deplore. I think the culprit (and the enemy of “Traditionalism") is “Liberalization” - - a social and cultural phenomenon that is not based in politics, but, rather, a phenomenon that politics reflects.
All my life, I’ve lived and worked in predomonantly Republican precincts - - in some cases, with a plurality of 3-1 over Democrats - - yet - - in terms of liberalization of social mores and cultural traditions - - the Boomer Yuppie Republicans jumped on the “liberalization” bandwagon with the same speed as Democrats!
Back in ‘68, I began a few years of teaching and administration at a large private school, in hte Northeast, somewhat expensive in its day, strictly-run, academically-demanding and located in what was considered a very traditionalist, conservative, and pretty Republican area.
Lots of kids had parents who were doctors, attorneys, business owners, upper managers, or other professional sorts. Most of this group were Republicans. There were also a few (comparatively) kids who were the kids of factory workers, mailmen, police and firemen, construction workers, and similar. Most of this group were Democrats.
Remembering that this was the heart of the “Era of Protest” and the beginning of the “Liberalization” of EVERYTHING - - - take note that, say, in regards to student problems involving grade or disciplinary matters - - the most impossible parents to deal with - - the most argumentative - - the most unsupportive of the school and its policies - - the ones who insisted their kid didn’t do drugs - - the ones who made threats of all kinds, legal and otherwise - - the ones who INSISTED their kid’s grade be raised, or the kid not be suspended or reported to the police, or that “the system” had it in for their kids - - were the Republican parents.
Anti-authoritarianism, liberalization, demands for special treatment, and failure to support the “traditional” methods (including uniforms) - - came first, most strongly, and most often from Republican parents. The Democratic parents? Most often, in the same situations, their reaction was “Fine! Whatever you think is appropriate or is best! And, rest assured there’ll be continuing punishemnt at home, too! Thank you bringing the matter to my attention!”
That’s the truth! As a Dean of Students - - BACK THEN - - I just KNEW that the minority (in numbers) Democratic parents, most of the time, would support the school administration, its teachers, its traditions, its procedures, its rules - - and ME in whatever course of action I felt I had to follow. The Democrats were the “Traditionalists” - - the Republicans always insisted on “Liberalization” and/or special treatment! Even in PTA meetings! The Dems were always willing to stick to the rules - - while allowing the school to serve “in loco parentis”!
So - - I most certainly agree that the worst problem in this country over the last 30-40 years is DEFINITELY “Liberalization” - - but that problem is a social and cultural phenomenon that is certainly not synonymous with “Democratic” or “liberal”. And, as time has passed, in my opinion, social and cultural “Liberalization”, in most of its forms, has been uniformly promoted and spread by Baby Boomer generation, college-educated, Yuppie-types, whether Republic, Democratic, or Independent!
Personally, the Democrats of my day were pretty conservative, pretty traditionalist, usually ethnic, pretty religious, suported authority - - and were horrified by the Hippies, Yippies, Flower Power Children, Free Lovers, Acid Heads, SDS and Black Power types. The “No Rules”, “Im OK, You’re OK”, “Non-Judgemental”, “Relativists”, and “Secularists” are first and foremost - - BABY BOOMERS - - before they’re liberals or Democrats!
I agree that they very meaning of the word “traditionalist” conveys the element of “conservative” - - but it’s really more about lifestyle and personal philosophy than it is about politics. It’s more about preserving the best of the socio-cultural past than it is about politics, political philosophies, or political parties. And, there certainly used to be a LOT of conservative Democrats - - almost ALL of today’s Red Republican southern states used to be Blue (conservative) Democratic states.
It may be that, like the southerners, a lot of socio-cultural traditionalists have become conservative Republicans - - but that’s probably because everyone hopes to find a port in a storm - - and, today, there are no longer a lot of conservative Democrats out there! (There are about 50 in the U.S. House.)
George W. Bush is the antithesis of the traditionalist. He’s a scion, rich guy’s son, n’er-do-well Republican whose youth and lifestyle are anything but “traditional” (or, conservative, for that matter!) The guy existed all along the way via “special treatment”.
I can’t however, go along with your comment that ALL liberals “have a stupid head”. Albert Einstein was most certainly a “liberal”!
I can’t go along with your statement that no Democrat has “had the best interests of the nation in their heart” - - because that’s just a propagandistic glittering generality - - and patently false.
Both parties, to finance their bullshit, cater to Big Business and Big Donors - - and both tailor their agendas to reflect the preferences of big donors and important supporters. And, both parties cater to their mouthpieces: GOPS to the talking radioheads and organizations like this one - - and the Dems to their TV and print media partners and the moveon.org and dailykos.com types.
It’s useless for sincerely committed people to be arguing and defending one party or the other at this stage of the game. Neither party is reponsive to or is serving the interests of average Americans - - and, I believe, the GOPs subservience to Big Business and Wall Street will destroy the economy and, therefore, the country - - much more readily that will the Dems “San Francisco Values”.
And - - I do believe the decline in traditionally-organized religion in this country is most certainly a factor in the liberalization I’ve mentioned, as is the dumbing down of the media, entertainment, and old-fashioned family values. (And, NOTHING contains as much sewerage as does the Internet!)
We need to get back to “America First”!
TK
Reagan was an actor an little else. His Admin sold America out to the Trotsky Communists of AIPAC and set the stage for the PNAC takeover by the G(rand) W(anker) Bush Admin. Doesn’t really matter, The Maoists of China are taking over so many places in the World ya better learn Mandarian.
July 25 at 2:22 am | #1 | Link
Kincaid wrote: “Davis was an apologist for that tyranny. He read his “poems” to a teenage Obama and advised him that black people had a right to hate white people, which certainly helps explain why he would eventually end up in Wright’s church.”
Are we back to that lie, Cliff? After telling that story for a while, you finally changed it to “Among other things, as Obama himself admits in his book, “Frank” told him that blacks had a reason to hate whites” in your July 1 column http://www.aim.org/aim-column/media-excuse-obamas-false-advertising/.
FACT: Obama’s book says that Davis told him that black people have a REASON to hate white people, which is entirely different. (Japan had a REASON to bomb Pearl Harbor, not a right. Al Qaeda had a REASON for 9/11, not a right. Bank robbers have a REASON to rob banks, not a right. There is a world of difference between a reason and a right.)
Deliberate misrepresentation doesn’t help your credibility, especially after you corrected your story.