The Frank Marshall Davis Network in Hawaii
AIM Column | By Andrew Walden | July 29, 2008
Was Frank a “trusted counselor or guide” to Obama? And what “vision” did Davis give to the young Obama?
In a July 14 news release the “Honolulu Community Media Council” (HCMC) denounces Accuracy In Media and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review for “shoddy journalism and smear tactics.” HCMC, headed by Chris Conybeare of the University of Hawaii, “finds” that “there is no substance to the claim” that “Frank Marshall Davis was a lifelong Communist and a mentor to (presidential candidate Barack) Obama.”
Conybeare may be hoping that nobody else knowing the post-WW II history of Hawaii is willing to talk. Davis, it turns out, was just one member of a network whose works continue to exert influence to this day.
Connecting the Dots
A faculty member of the UH-West Oahu Center for Labor Education and Research (CLEAR), Conybeare is producer of a many-part PBS series on the history of labor organizing in Hawaii, focusing on the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU). His series, titled “Rice and Roses” tells the story of how the ILWU organized Hawaii’s dock workers and then its sugar and pineapple plantation workers. Conybeare’s “Biography Hawaii” videos include the story of ILWU Hawaii President, Jack Hall and the life of Koji Ariyoshi, founder and editor of the ILWU-funded Honolulu Record.
“Biography Hawaii: Koji Ariyoshi” is part of Conybeare’s “Rice and Roses” PBS series. According to Conybeare’s video, before hiring Frank Marshall Davis, Koji Ariyoshi joined the WW2-era Military Intelligence Service/OSS—predecessor to the CIA—and used his language skills to land himself a position as U.S. military liaison to Communist forces in China—working personally with Mao Zedong.
The Record employed the services of Frank Marshall Davis almost immediately upon his arrival in Hawaii. ILWU Chief Jack Hall and Honolulu Record editor Ariyoshi were among the Honolulu Seven defendants identified as key leaders of the Communist Party in Hawaii and convicted in 1953 of “conspiring to teach and advocate the overthrow of the government by force and violence.” Their convictions were reversed January 20, 1958 after the Supreme Court re-interpreted the Smith Act.
The Record had been founded just after the first prosecution of Communists began. From its first issue it had dedicated massive amounts of space to defending fired Communist schoolteachers John and Aiko Reinecke who would later become two of the Honolulu Seven. Shortly after the Honolulu Seven convictions were reversed, the paper folded. Ariyoshi then opened a flower shop and became known as “the Red florist.” But a decade later he was back in action leading the 1970 establishment of the Ethnic Studies Department at UH Manoa (slogan: Our History Our Way).
Ariyoshi’s story told in Conybeare’s video traces the unbroken ideological chain from China, to the ILWU, and to the University of Hawaii Ethnic Studies Department. In 1976, as Ariyoshi lay dying of cancer, the Democratic-controlled Hawaii State Legislature passed a resolution in his honor.
Another Mentor
The Honolulu Advertiser, reviewing Conybeare’s Ariyoshi video, describes Ariyoshi as “Mentor to a generation of Hawaii activists.” Apparently that generation is now rising to his defense. But the truth is hard to hide. Ariyoshi’s political memoirs feature a front-page photo of him with Mao Zedong in Yenan, China during WW II. Already interested in Communist ideas at the University of Hawaii, he won a scholarship to the University of Georgia in the 1930s. In Georgia, Ariyoshi lived with the leftist parents of Communist sympathizer and Tobacco Road novelist, Erskine Caldwell.
Hawaii’s first Democratic Governor Jack Burns, explained in 1975: “Every guy in the ILWU was at one time or another a member of the Communist Party of America. This is where they got their organizational information and how to organize, and how to bring groups together and how to create cells and how to make movements that are undetected by the bosses and everything else. …I know what they were about. I said this is the only way they are going to organize.”
Burns is likely referring only to union officials rather than the entirety of the rank and file. Burns offered to testify at the Honolulu Seven trial as a character witness on behalf of Jack Hall and Koji Ariyoshi, but Hall declined in order to protect Burns from exposure.
Senator Dan Inouye (D-HI) lost his right arm in WW II combat in Italy. In the 1954 electoral campaign he responded to Republican charges that the Democrats were influenced by communists with the famous quote now known by every Hawaii school kid: “I gave this arm to fight Fascists. If my country wants the other one to fight Communists, it can have it.”
But in his biography, Inouye is a little more circumspect: “No one with any sense of political reality denied that there were probably some Communists in the ILWU. ...There were those who felt that the Democrats’ Party, by logical extension, was also controlled by Communists.”
One-Party State
Communists controlled the ILWU, the ILWU controlled the Hawaii Democratic Party, and in 1954, union-based election campaigns launched the Hawaii Democrats into control of the legislature. Burns’ union-based 1962 capture of the governor’s office created a one-party state unbroken for four decades until the election of Republican Governor Linda Lingle in 2002. During those decades in some sessions sat as few as one Republican legislator.
The story of Frank Marshall Davis, Obama’s Marxist mentor, is completely intertwined with the story of the Hawaii Democrats rise to power.
Conybeare is joined in denials by UH Professor of Interdisciplinary studies Dr. Kathryn Waddell Takara. In the Star Bulletin of June 29, 2008 she gives a non-denial denial: “Frank Davis loved democracy. But he was a fierce critic of racism and injustice, and in those years, anyone who was that controversial got labeled a communist.”
But in the work she is so “angry” to see cited, Dr. Kathryn Waddell Takara writes (parenthesis added):
“Davis’s initial contacts with Hawaiiall had extremely strong ILWU ties. (Communist party member) Paul Robeson’s own Hawaiiacquaintances, which he passed on to Davis, insured that ‘when I came over, one of the first things that I got involved with―well, I met all the ILWU brass, (Communist Party executive committee member) Jack Hall and all of them, and I went―they had both of us over to various functions for them―Harriet Bouslog (Communist Party executive committee member) was also a good friend.’”
These contacts were arranged by leading Communist Party members on the mainland. But in her writings Takara identifies none of them as such:
“Davis himself recalls that even before he left for Hawaii, (Communist Party member Paul) Robeson and (Communist Party member Harry) Bridges who was head of the ILWU and the CIO in the Pacific Region, suggested that I should get in touch with the Honolulu Record and see if I could do something for them.”
Takara’s implied claim that Davis was just tagged Red because he was “a critic of racism” might lead Senator Inouye to ask: Has she lost any sense of political reality?
CPUSA-Free History
But Inouye would be wrong. Takara and Conybeare are defending a carefully crafted CPUSA-free version of history promoted by the “generation of Hawaii activists” for whom Koji Ariyoshi served as “mentor.” Conybeare is Ariyoshi’s video-biographer, while Takara created the first Black Studies courses within Ariyoshi’s UH Department of Ethnic Studies.
In addition to telling the story of Frank Marshall Davis, Takara has time to write “freedom poems” such as “Mumia Abu Jamal: Knight for Justice,” honoring the ultra-leftist cause célèbre convicted of killing a Philadelphia police officer over a traffic ticket. Another Takara poem is titled simply, “Angela Davis,” honoring the former Communist Party vice presidential candidate acquitted as an accessory to the 1970 murder of California judge Harold Haley. Writes Takara:
I heard Angela was coming
to Honolulu
a real event
like Miles & his red trumpet
Sweet Honey in the Rock
Perhaps Takara would like the world to not mention Angela Davis’s Communist Party membership as well?
There is much more to the story of Koji Ariyoshi. Japanese living in Hawaii were not uniformly sent to internment camps as was the case on the mainland. But Ariyoshi was in San Francisco working with the ILWU when Pearl Harbor was attacked. He was sent to Manzanar Internment Camp in the Mojave Desert. There he worked with fellow Communist Karl Yoneda to implement the CPUSA line in support of the war effort.
According to the National Parks Service Historic Resource Study on Manzanar:
One of the most prominent evacuees at Manzanar to join the Military Intelligence Service was Karl G. Yoneda. A Kibei born in Southern California, Yoneda went to Japan with his family at the age of 11. Attracted by books as a young man, he developed an interest in Marxism and left home at the age of 16, bound for China in search of a Russian writer whose works he admired. In order to avoid being drafted into the Japanese army, he returned to the United States and quickly became involved in the labor movement in California. He joined the Communist Party, and spent the 1930s as the editor of the Communist newspaper Rodo Shimbun (Japanese Worker) and as an organizer of Japanese labor in California and Alaska. He married fellow Communist and labor activist Elaine Black, a Caucasian, in 1933—a union that would last for more than 55 years.
With the coming of World War II, Yoneda, along with all members of Japanese ancestry, was expelled from the Communist Party. Yoneda volunteered to evacuate to Manzanar, and was among the large contingent of evacuees that left Los Angeles by train on March 23…Yoneda emerged as one of the leaders of the evacuee faction at the camp that advocated cooperation with WCCA and WRA administrators.
In fact, however, they were not expelled. They were technically dropped from membership, as were the party members who went into the Army. They continued to carry out the CPUSA line as explained in the Historic Resource Study:
On April 4, (1942) less than two weeks after arriving at Manzanar as a volunteer, Yoneda was called to the camp administration office to be questioned by two sergeants from U.S. Army Intelligence concerning his thoughts about the center and the number of Communists residing there. Yoneda reportedly told them that Japanese-American Communist Party members and supporters were participating actively in the war against the Axis Powers and were willing to enlist if the Army would take them. In the meantime, they would take the message of democracy to the evacuees to help build a livable place and would attempt to aid the war effort in every way possible. He told them the majority of the evacuees were loyal to America, but he refused to provide names of Communists in the camp. Despite his “patriotic” statements, the FBI assigned an evacuee informer, identified as “B,” to monitor and report on Yoneda’s activities at Manzanar.
Yoneda emerged as one of the leaders of the evacuee faction at Manzanar that advocated working with WCCA and WRA administrators. On July 20, he attended the meeting in Togo Tanaka’s quarters during which the Manzanar Citizens Federation was established to press for improved living conditions in the center and help promote the war effort. The organizing group included Koji Ariyoshi…
Shortly after Yoneda, Ariyoshi and others left for military service, pro-Japan internees rioted in an attempt to retaliate against the families of those who cooperated. This resulted in the rioters being transferred to Tule Lake and left the Communists in a Manzanar camp politically designed for receptivity to their line of supporting the war effort. Ironically, this put the pro-Soviet Communists in alliance with those in the camp who were genuinely patriotic Americans of Japanese ancestry, created much of the strange and contradictory nature of Hawaii’s Revolution of 1954, and centralized the role of Japanese Americans in it. The Historic Resource Study continues:
…After graduating from the MIS Language School, Yoneda served in the China-Burma-India Office of the War Information Psychological Warfare Team. He was first stationed in Ledo, India, where he wrote propaganda leaflets, prepared radio broadcasts, and interrogated Japanese prisoners of war. During the next two years, he conducted broadcasts to enemy lines in Myitkyina, Burma, before being sent to Kunming, China, where he prepared propaganda leaflets for air-drops to enemy troops until V-J Day. [103]
Koji Ariyoshi, an associate of Yoneda who was selected for the Military Intelligence Service from Manzanar, would later gain some notoriety. After training at the MIS Language School, he was also assigned to intelligence work in the China-Burma-India Office of the War Information Psychological Warfare Team. A native of Hawaii, Ariyoshi returned to Honolulu after the war and established the Honolulu Record, a progressive newspaper that he edited from 1948-58. Having become an admirer of Mao Zedong and the Chinese Communists while stationed in Yenan, China, during the war, Ariyoshi promoted U.S-China relationships during the Cold War era. In 1951-52 he and six others were arrested and convicted for “conspiring to teach and advocate the overthrow of the government by force and violence,” but his conviction was overturned in 1958. [104]
Where the Manzanar study leaves off, Herbert Romerstein picks up. Romerstein served as an investigator for the House Committee on Un-American Activities, Minority Chief Investigator for the House Committee on Internal Security, Professional Staff Member for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and Head of the Office to Counter Soviet Disinformation for the U.S. Information Agency until he retired from the U.S. government after 25 years of service.
When the Soviet Archives and the Communist International archives were temporarily thrown open after the collapse of the USSR, Romerstein went to Moscow to read and copy formerly secret documents about the Communist Party, USA. At a May 22, 2008 news conference sponsored by America’s Survival, Inc., Romerstein explained the connection between Koji Ariyoshi and Soviet Intelligence:
…one of Ariyoshi’s close friends was John Stewart Service, one of the penetrations of the State Department, and the man who stole vast amounts of classified material from the State Department and gave them to a communist magazine called Amerasia. Amerasia had two Soviet Intelligence Agents working on its staff and so they, of course, had access to the material that Service provided.
…there’s a book about Koji Ariyoshi that was written after his death and it’s in honor of him and the introduction is written by John Stewart Service, who says that when Nixon went to China, Service felt that it was time for him to go back and he did. But on his way he stopped in Hawaii to meet his friend, Aryioshi, and urge him to visit China, which he did….
The book was published in a very small edition in San Francisco as a paperback, but it was then published in Communist China as a hardback book in English with all of the material about Koji Ariyoshi and what he had done and his work in the OSS and, of course, the introduction by John Stewart Service….”
Media Manipulation
The Honolulu Community Media Council news release is not Conybeare’s only brush with organizations attempting to tell the media what may or may not be “fact.” Conybeare is Secretary-General of the World Association of Press Councils (WAPC). In 2000 the Australian Press Council resigned from WAPC stating that many of the 20 remaining member organizations “are councils which are in whole or part dependent on government support or patronage, and some have a direct or indirect role in the control of the press.”
In the U.S., Media Councils exist only in Honolulu, Seattle, and a few other places. According to the HCMC website, the editor of the Honolulu Advertiser resigned from the HCMC in the late 1980s when HCMC shifted towards attempting to critique and shape media coverage instead of just being an advocate for press freedom.
In 1999, American Society of Newspaper Editors President Edward Seaton called on WAPC to scrap plans for a so-called “International Code of Ethics for Journalists.” Seaton said: “We have profound reservations about any kind of an agreement at the international level. Not only would it be used against our press in our courts, it could become mandatory under international law. It would be an open invitation to authorities in other countries to inhibit our press.”
Conybeare is also a board member of the Hawaii Peoples Fund which doles out grants to dozens of left-wing activist groups statewide that HPF says are considered, “too small, too new, or too controversial by traditional funding agencies.” Before Conybeare joined its board, the Hawaii Peoples Fund helped fund travel and honoraria for a speech at UH by University of Colorado Professor Ward Churchill.
Churchill was invited to speak at UH by numerous professors from the UH Ethnic Studies Department after revelation of his remarks infamously comparing the people killed in the World Trade Center on 9-11 to “little Eichmanns.” Speaking at UH, Churchill was greeted as a hero by a standing-room-only crowd. A few months later, academic freedom advocate David Horowitz was only able to speak over interruptions from hostile leftists at UH with the presence of a half-dozen campus security personnel.
Davis as Mentor
What about Frank Marshall Davis’s role as a mentor to the young Obama? This is one of the assertions that Conybeare’s media council disputes.
Merriam-Webster defines “mentor” as “a trusted counselor or guide.” Was Frank a “trusted counselor or guide” to Obama? And what “vision” did Davis give to the young Obama?
Consider these examples from Obama’s 1995 book, Dreams from My Father:
- Obama’s grandmother (Toot) and Gramps have an argument over whether Gramps should give Toot a ride to work after she had been threatened at a bus stop by a black panhandler. Obama looks to Frank to sort it out in his mind. (p. 89-91)
- When Toot is having difficulty convincing the drug-abusing young Obama to apply for college, it is again Frank who is able to convince Obama that college is necessary. (p. 96-98)
- Frank delivers to the young Obama the one key lesson which radicals have sought to inculcate in the mind of every black person whether under slavery, segregation or civil rights: “…you may be a well-trained, well-paid nigger, but you’re a nigger just the same.” (p. 97)
In his short column about Dr. Kathryn Waddell Takara’s “anger” at the “bloggers…twisting her research,” Star Bulletin columnist John Heckathorn lets slip: “In the ’70s, a by-then-elderly Davis was a friend of Barack Obama’s grandfather and would proffer advice to a young Barry, as he was called then.” Ooops.
Are “critics of racism” being unfairly tagged Red, as Takara says?
In reality, Reds often unfairly tagged other “critics of racism” who did not toe the Communist line. The examples start with Davis himself.
In the Honolulu Record of August 11, 1949, Davis denounces black leaders who criticized Communist Party member Paul Robeson for saying, “American Negroes would never go to war against Russia.” Said Davis, “They were like faithful dogs, trying to curry favor with their masters.”
In his memoir, Livin’ the Blues, Davis writes that when author Richard Wright in 1944 left the Communist Party, “his resultant series of articles in widely read publications was an act of treason in the fight for our rights and aided only the racists who were constantly seeking any means to destroy cooperation between Reds and blacks.” (p. 243)
There are other “critics of racism” who got a taste of the Communists’ tactics―from Davis. A 1949 letter sent to NAACP acting National Secretary Roy Wilkins by a Honolulu attorney and NAACP leader named Edward Berman:
“I was at one of the election meetings at which one Frank Marshall Davis, formerly of Chicago (and formerly editor of the Chicago Communist paper, the Star) suddenly appeared on the scene to propagandize the membership about our ‘racial problems’ in Hawaii. He had jut sneaked in here on a boat, and presto, was an ‘expert’ on racial problems in Hawaii. Comrade Davis was supported by others who had recently ‘sneaked’ into the organization with the avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line….
…Already, scores of Negro members were frightened away from these meetings because of the influx of this element. Only by a reorganization with a policy that will check this infiltration, can we hope to get former members back into a local NAACP branch. We are going to have to have that authority over here―otherwise you’ll have a branch exclusively composed of yelping Stalinists and their dupes―characters who are more concerned about the speedy assassination of Tito (who had just broken with the USSR) than they are about the advancement of the colored people of these United States.”
Shortly after receiving this letter, the NAACP revoked its Honolulu Chapter’s charter in order to reorganize and prevent a Communist takeover of the organization.
NAACP leader Roy Wilkins had another view of “cooperation.” Writing to CPUSA member William Patterson on November 23, 1949, he explains:
“We remember the Scottsboro case and our experience there with the (Communist front) International Labor Defense, one of the predecessors of the Civil Rights Congress. We remember that the present Civil Rights Congress is composed of the remnants of the ILD and other groups. We remember that in the Scottsboro case, the NAACP was subjected to the most unprincipled vilification. We remember the campaign of slander in the Daily Worker. We remember the leaflets and the speakers and the whole unspeakable machinery that was turned loose upon all those who did not embrace the ‘unity’ policy as announced by the communists.
“We want none of that unity today.
“We of the NAACP remember that during the war when Negro Americans were fighting for jobs on the home front and fighting for decent treatment in the armed services we could get no help from the organizations on the extreme Left. They abandoned the fight for Negro rights on the grounds that such a campaign would ‘interfere with the war effort.’ As soon as Russia was attacked by Germany they dropped the Negro question and concentrated all effort in support of the war in order to help the Soviet Union. During the war years the disciples of the extreme left sounded very much like the worst of the Negro-hating Southerners.”
Wilkins’ final sentence should be considered when reading Frank Marshall Davis’s words to the young Obama: “…you may be a well-trained, well-paid nigger, but you’re a nigger just the same.” Then as now, Communists see African-Americans as merely a tool with which to acquire power and are quite willing to send highly self-destructive messages in pursuit of that power.
Note: Frank Marshall Davis’s early columns in the Honolulu Record can be read HERE.
Andrew Walden is Editor of the Hawaii Free Press in Hilo, Hawaii.
106 Comments | Post a Comment
This article is a Crown Jewel of Excellence, as opined by my Hawaiian relatives dating back some 159+ years. Not all citizens/residents of Hawaii are as easily deluded as might be hinted by defensive pundits, to put the matter in decent terms.
Thank you for this well documented article, The Frank Marshall Davis Network in Hawaii…the history of any candidate for POTUS must be open to discovery. We have a lot to learn in a short time about this candidate, keep up the good work.
Poor old Mark Davis. If your trying to convince people that your father stopped being a commie, it’s not working. You only have to look at his poems to see this. The quible about being a mentor is laughable. The man sounds to me like he was a father figure. The reason to hate white people or a right to hate white people. I see no difference in teaching a kid either way. What exactly was he trying to accomplish? Your fast becoming a joke.
Truly a fantastic well-reserched and well-written work. Thank you!
More red-baiting, far-right blather from yet another wingnut. Andrew Walden is the same guy who spread the rumors that Obama is a radical Muslim. The Hawaii “Free” Press indeed!
So which is it, Walden? Is Obama a far-left commie who wants a socialist state or a Taliban-loving Muslim who wants to convert us to Sharia law and put all our women in burkas?
Obama may win or lose the election (me, I’m still undecided), but the outcome won’t be influenced by this non-story of possible Communist influences in his life when he was a child in Hawaii.
Even if this story finds its way into the MSM, one thing Obama has been exceptionally adept at is getting the smears out into the open and refuting them. Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
this just shows that the democratic party has been taken over by the commies and should be considered traitors.we have four members of the supreme court who can not read the constitution correctly one is an aclu commie.obama is a racist a commie and an anti-american just like his friends and mentor frank davis.he may be a media star have the easily duped collage crowd on his side but he will never be president.
KECO WROTE: “The reason to hate white people or a right to hate white people. I see no difference in teaching a kid either way.”
I’m sorry, Keko, that you see no difference between a reason and a right. Do you believe that John Wilkes Booth had a right to shoot Abraham Lincoln?
Holy crap, are you really accusing someone of being a member of the Red Menace still?! Raise your hand if you were alive when Dragnet was popular… You need some new maps, Reagan’s powerful alzheimer’s broke up those pinko commie bastards a while ago. Stick to the muslim attacks, at least they actually have some power to go with their anti-americanism.
I’m sure you’ll all betray him when he becomes president. Maybe you’ll get your wish and those who betray the president can get locked up.
Juris Doctor, unless you believe everything you read in the WaPo, you might actually want to read Walden’s reply:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/free_speech_the_obama_campaign.html
Here is what I think is Walden’s best line:
Immediately after the lines Mosk quotes from my 2007 article, I describe a young Obama as: “The picture of the perfect secularist….” That blows the “Obama is a Muslim” smear meme. No problem, Mosk just leaves it out.
I wonder where Obama learned his secularism….
Oh the irony! The purveyors of disinformation howling in protest when their words are taken out of context to promote someone else’s agenda. The proverbial pot calling the kettle black. Which is worse, quoting out of context or fabricating “quotes” out of thin air? (“lifelong Communist,” “socialist realist,” “Communist mentor,” to name a few.)
Read Walden’s Jan. 2007 article and try to deny that he was advancing an “‘Obama as Muslim’ smear meme.” In fact, one could easily interpret Walden’s description of Obama as “the picture of the perfect secularist” to mean that Obama is deceptively projecting himself as a secularist when Walden wants us to see the “truth” that Obama is a thoroughly indoctrinated Muslim.
The article begins with this sentence:
“Barack Hussein Obama is the closest Democrats can come to electing a foreign Muslim President of the United States without actually violating the constitutional requirement that American Presidents be native born.”
Then a few paragraphs later, there’s this:
“Some observers will be stopped cold by Obama’s name which evokes thoughts of both Saddam Hussein and Osama bin-Laden.”
Walden can come back a year later in the American Thinker and spin his words to mean something other than what he originally wrote. But anyone with the reading comprehension skills of a sixth grader knows exactly what he was doing the first time around. In fact, he was advancing a “Kitchen Sink Smear Meme.” Muslim, secularist, Catholic, leftist, corrupt wheeler-dealer—take your pick.
Don’t take my word for it. Read it for yourself.
http://www.michnews.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/351/15480
The WaPo said it was a smear to write: “raised in Muslim lands and educated in Muslim schools”.
But this is accurate and supported by Obama’s own words.
Obama has supported the case for his own candidacy by referring to the time he spent in Indonesia. So which is it? A smear? Or a reason to vote for Obama?
Neither of these statements is inaccurate. To write them is to smear?
“Barack Hussein Obama is the closest Democrats can come to electing a foreign Muslim President of the United States without actually violating the constitutional requirement that American Presidents be native born.”
“Some observers will be stopped cold by Obama’s name which evokes thoughts of both Saddam Hussein and Osama bin-Laden.”
Most don’t admit it, but many of the far left believe that America needs to ask forgiveness from Muslims and electing somebody named Hussein Obama after 9-11, Afghanistan, and Iraq is just the way to do it.
Is that what you believe JD?
You may smear someone’s reputation by telling half-truths and stacking the evidence in a disinformation campaign.
This statement is inaccurate: “Barack Hussein Obama is the closest Democrats can come to electing a foreign Muslim President of the United States without actually violating the constitutional requirement that American Presidents be native born.”
It is possible, though highly unlikely, that a practicing Muslim may be elected, even one with as much time overseas as Barack Obama. Such a President would therefore be closer than Barack Obama to “electing a foreign Muslim President of the United States.”
Not necessarily. it could be read as an experssion of an opinion based on a perception of political reality.
Meanwhile…why are you wasting time trolling around the comments section of websites when you could be out giving TV and radio interviews about your father and his story.
There is not ever going to be another chance like this one to get out and tell his story.
Mr. X asked: “Why are you wasting time trolling around the comments section of websites when you could be out giving TV and radio interviews about your father and his story.”
Response: Because I do not want to promote the disinformation campaign. I want to refute it. You should extract weeds at their roots, rather than fling their seeds around your garden.
If and when mainstream media come to me, I will be more prepared each day.
One thing I learned as co-captain of my college debate team: when your opponent’s argument is weak, he is likely to resort to logical fallacies such as strawmen, red herrings, and ad hominem attacks in refuting yours.
Mr. X says, “The WaPo said it was a smear to write: ‘raised in Muslim lands and educated in Muslim schools.’”
The WaPo said no such thing. The WaPo did not use the word “smear” at all in referencing Andrew Walden’s 2007 article. In a four-page story, the WaPo reporter devotes exactly two sentences to Walden’s article, citing it as one possible source for the widely circulated email which sought to exaggerate Obama’s ties to Islam. While there is a kernel of truth in the statement that Obama was “raised in Muslim lands and educated in Muslim schools,” without further clarification, the statement is a gross distortion of the facts, to wit, Obama spent 4 years as a child (aged 6-10) living in Indonesia, during which time he attended a Muslim school for two years and then a Catholic school for the remaining two. If Walden or Kincaid wishes to promote “accuracy,” why not simply tell the whole truth? If you wish to influence those people whose prejudices would not allow them to vote for a man with a Kenyan father and an Indonesian step-father, both of whom were non-practicing Muslims, then by all means, go ahead and play on that bigotry, but do so honestly by providing all the facts, not just a smidgen of “truthiness.”
Mr. X’s suggestion that I am somehow associated with a far-left element who believes that the United States owes all of Islam an apology is not even remotely supported by anything I have posted here on this or any other AIM thread. Another weak argument backed up by fallacy.
J.D.,
You will likely find that fallacies and non sequiturs are the coin of the realm in the blogosphere. Stacking and fabricating evidence are specialties. Disinformation is their weapon of choice.
With AIM, it’s often like an Easter egg hunt. Flagrant misrepresentation abounds. When a researcher like Herb Romerstein uncovers decades-old Congressional documents, like the testimony of Edward Berman regarding the Honolulu NAACP incident, AIM’s misrepresentation may go unchallenged until someone actually READS the old document. Then it’s like shooting fish in a barrel.
Does deliberate misrepresentation in the blogosphere constitute slander or libel?
It ain’t just the blogosphere, Mark. Bullshit exists everywhere.
BTW, it’s intriguing that your former profession seems to be in line with some of the others mentioned above. To wit:
“…After graduating from the MIS Language School, Yoneda served in the China-Burma-India Office of the War Information Psychological Warfare Team….”
“...Koji Ariyoshi, an associate of Yoneda who was selected for the Military Intelligence Service from Manzanar, would later gain some notoriety. After training at the MIS Language School, he was also assigned to intelligence work in the China-Burma-India Office of the War Information Psychological Warfare Team….”
Might you be another Communist plant in military intelligence, now assigned to cover your father’s, your fellow travelers’ and your own tracks?
Interesting theory, John, except for the fact that 99% of what I have posted consists of exposing AIM’s flagrant misrepresentation, such as Kincaid stating that my father told Obama blacks have a RIGHT to hate whites, when the book clearly states that he said blacks have a REASON to hate whites. If Kincaid actually practiced Accuracy In Media, I would have virtually nothing to say.
You can’t “cover tracks” by exposing misrepresentation, can you? Truth will out.
BTW: Since we are getting personal, what sort of security clearances have YOU held?
K- “Thanks for the authoritative article, Cliff! I found the information on Japanese-American CPUSA involvement in the 1940’s to be very interesting.”
and later…
“I do not want to promote the disinformation campaign.”
Since this article is “authoritative”, should we expect that you do not consider it part of “the disinformation campaign?”
Should we expect to see this “authoritative” article posted by you at mybarackobama.com as part of your efforts to combat “disinformation”?
TIDWELL joins the fray…intersesting in what it does say and what it does not say (***emphasis added***)
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/Kaleokualoha
Edgar Tidwell Confirms Kaleokualoha Identity
By Kaleokualoha - Jul 29th, 2008 at 4:56 pm EDT
I am John Edgar Tidwell, University of Kansas ((JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)), and editor of the oft-mentioned books by Frank Marshall Davis. Although prior commitments prevent me from actively participating in this debate, I would like to take this opportunity to confirm the identity of Mark Kaleokualoha Davis, who posts comments as “Kaleokualoha,” and who has a blog at [1]. He is indeed the son of Frank Marshall Davis.
I can also verify that Kaleokualoha’s Alan Maki post [2] contains an accurate copy, through Jul 12th 2008 at 11:13 pm EDT, of the COMMENTS section from Alan Maki’s blog at [3]. Alan Maki subsequently deleted critical comments, falsely claiming they were “part of a racist, anti-Semitic hate campaign,” when in fact they were only critical of Maki’s actions. A comparison of both blogs will verify that Kaleokualoha’s comments were NOT part of a racist, anti-Semitic hate campaign.
***Although my research indicates that Davis joined the CPUSA as a “closet member” during Word War II, there is no evidence that he was a Stalinist, or even a Party member before WWII.***
Further, to those attempting to make the specious stand for the concrete, there is no evidence that he instructed Barack Obama in communist ideology. Frank Marshall Davis did NOT believe in overthrowing the USA. He was committed to what the nation professed to be. For him, communism was primarily an intellectual vehicle to achieve a political end-a possible tool for gaining the constitutional freedoms of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for ALL Americans.
References:
1. http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/Kaleokualoha
2. http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/Kaleokualoha/gGxk2C
3. http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/alanmaki/gG5GqK/commentary#comments
(See Frank Marshall Davis “Rice & Roses” PBS program at
http://www.hawaii.edu/uhwo/clear/HonoluluRecord1/Frankvideo.html)
Mr. X asked “Since this article is “authoritative”, should we expect that you do not consider it part of “the disinformation campaign?”
Response: No. All disinformation campaigns contain elements of truth.
Mr. X asked: “Should we expect to see this “authoritative” article posted by you at mybarackobama.com as part of your efforts to combat “disinformation”?
No. It does not combat disinformation regarding my father, which is the focus of my blog.
Thanks for asking! If you care to refute any of the “Specific Misrepresentation” identified in my blog, please post appropriate comments to my blog. It may contain some mistakes, and I need to tighten it up. Thanks again!
My God Mr. Kincaid, what a fantastic article!!!
The disinformation campaign thrown at you pales in comparison.
All the hysterical “red-baiting” accusations, “red menace” diatribes and semantics word games are nothing but revisionist desperation.
“...You can’t “cover tracks” by exposing misrepresentation, can you?...”
You can cover tracks by re-directing the issue as you have frequently done on these pages. Disinformation specialization indeed.
John wrote: “You can cover tracks by re-directing the issue as you have frequently done on these pages.”
My only issue is the truth of specific allegations regarding my father. In this vein, I encourage rigorous scrutiny of EVERY purported “track” regarding my father. AIM’s casual regard for the truth belies its name, and may explain the low regard with which it is held by journalists of integrity.
For example: AIM’s misrepresentation that Roy Wilkins criticized my father, when in fact that criticism came from a rookie Honolulu NAACP member. Not only was the source of the criticism misrepresented, but also the content was misrepresented. Is this significant misrepresentation or not? Was it innocent or deliberate misrepresentation? Such misrepresentation by an undergraduate could be grounds for rejection. For a professor it’s much worse!
How would rigorous scrutiny “re-direct” the issue or “cover” the tracks? I believe it only redirects the issue when the issue consists of big lies built on small lies. Pull out the small lies, and the illusion falls apart. Rigorous scrutiny UNcovers the tracks of liars!
Once again, I challenge you to refute the “specific misrepresentation” identified on my blog. If you already have your mind made up, and don’t want to be bothered with inconvenient truths, I fully understand. D.A. Mike Nifong didn’t want to be bothered with inconvenient truths when railroading the Duke Lacrosse team either. Luckily, team members had the resources necessary to uncover their persecutor’s lies. Luckily, Frank Marshall Davis has a loving family and friends able to to uncover HIS persecutor’s lies.
It may be marvelous sport for some of you to tell lies about a dead poet. Do you also pull wings off flies?
The mainstream media has now picked up the story of Frank Marshall Davis (see http://www.daylife.com/article/08mCh0Gbzi6o0). With your help, I have been able to shine the light of truth on the falsehoods upon which the disinformation campaign was built, and I have done mainstream reporters’ homework in exposing the specific misrepresentation. Thanks!
Truth will out!
BTW: Have either of you bothered to ask Bill Steigerwald for the source of his claim that my father was a “lifelong member of the Communist Party USA”? Did he pull it out of - uh - thin air? Was it speculation masquerading as fact?
Since Kincaid’s claim that he was a “Stalinist” rests upon my father purportedly “staying” with the Party after the Stalin-Hitler Pact, it SHOULD be important to verify that he was actually a member at that point, right? Or is that detail too insignificant? Do you consider it to be “re-directing the issue”?
And while you are at it, perhaps one of you could ask Alan Maki why he deliberately misrepresented my comments on his blog. That is, of course, unless you still have reservations about my identity and the authenticity of the deleted comments on my blog’s Alan Maki post(http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/Kaleokualoha/gGxk2C).
You may also consider it insignificant that Cliff Kincaid is once again misrepresenting my father’s comment to Obama about a “reason to hate.” Kincaid is once again misrepresenting him as saying “right to hate.” Perhaps you, too, find the difference between a “reason” and a “right” be be insignificant, until you consider that John Wilkes Booth had a reason to shoot Abraham Lincoln, but definitely had no such right.
I only ask these things because I believe you may still be fair and honorable men. Otherwise, I apologize for wasting your time.
“Honorable”? I think not. But these people are reaping their own reward.
As it happens, The DHS set up a blue-ribbon panel of the worlds leading social scientists whose mission was to determine the motivating factors for a terrorist mindset. DHS quickly zeroed in on right-wing conservatives as the group to watch. This likely means that the counter-terrorism unit is now “keeping a list”, just like the communist “blacklist”, only this one lists the ranting and raving of the far-right itself. Only this time around it is based on good science and legitimately hateful, hate-filled people whose ability to rationalize has been seriously compromised.
‘Political Conservatism As Motivated Social Cognition’ integrates conservatism with “theories of personality eg. authoritarianism, dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity with a high need for closure, excessive preoccupation with terror management, and ideological rationalization for social dominance and system justification.
A meta-analysis (88 samples, 12 countries, 22,818 cases) confirms that several psychological
variables predict political conservatism: death anxiety (weighted mean; dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity; closed to new experiences; uncertainty intolerance; needs for order, structure, and closure; integrative simplicity; excessive fears of threat and loss; and lowered self-esteem.”
“The core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification of inequality and is motivated by needs that vary situationally and dispositionally to manage feelings of uncertainty and threat.”
http://www.wam.umd.edu/~hannahk/conservatism.html
“Honorable”? I think not. But these people are reaping their own reward.
As it happens, The DHS set up a blue-ribbon panel of the worlds leading social scientists whose mission was to determine the motivating factors for a terrorist mindset. DHS quickly zeroed in on right-wing conservatives as the group to watch. This likely means that the counter-terrorism unit is now “keeping a list”, just like the communist “blacklist”, only this one lists the ranting and raving of the far-right itself. Only this time around it is based on good science and legitimately hateful, hate-filled people whose ability to rationalize has been seriously compromised.
‘Political Conservatism As Motivated Social Cognition’ integrates conservatism with “theories of personality eg. authoritarianism, dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity with a high need for closure, excessive preoccupation with terror management, and ideological rationalization for social dominance and system justification.
A meta-analysis (88 samples, 12 countries, 22,818 cases) confirms that several psychological
variables predict political conservatism: death anxiety (weighted mean; dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity; closed to new experiences; uncertainty intolerance; needs for order, structure, and closure; integrative simplicity; excessive fears of threat and loss; and lowered self-esteem.”
“The core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification of inequality and is motivated by needs that vary situationally and dispositionally to manage feelings of uncertainty and threat.”
Frank Marshall Davis was a Communist member of a Stalinist organization who had a huge influence on Obama during his formative intellectual years.
This is really all about semantics.
The clinical analysis proclaiming that Conservatism is a disease is amusing. Terrorists can be rightwing or leftwing or anarchist or nihilist.
Whatever political wing such terrorists belong to, they are emotionally disturbed people.
Mark if you want a real disinformation campaign, there you go.
Freedom Now,
After all the semantic gymnastics above and, now, the conservative bashing to somehow justify the tortured reasoning above, I believe you’ve accurately captured the essence of what commenters were really talking about and deeply concerned about here—the radical influences upon Obama. Thanks.
For most in the public domain, Dr. Corsi’s well-researched book about Obama and those radical influences in his life, inclusive of Mr. Frank Marshall, will have pretty much authoritatively settled the matter once and for all. Having carefully followed this lengthy and sometimes painfully erudite discussion, it has for me.
I, for one, am moving on to other issues.
Interesting discussion though. Congrats to AIM for enabling such a thorough and enlightening discussion.Most of the commenters deserve kudos as well.
Instead of focusing your energy in Hawaii, you should dig deeper in Chicago, the home of the Communists.
You can easily find links with Obama and the Communists.
BTW, haven’t you still found Obama’s thesis in Columbia on nuclear disarmament? Which side is he on? US or Russia? Ha! Ha! Ha!
Read ‘em and weep.
And “Dr. Corsi”? Well researched? These statements alone show the ability of conservatives to filter out any cognitively dissonant facts and replace them with opinions and untruths that are more consistent with what they already believe to be the truth. The result is a “bubble-world” of fantastic claims they have stitched together to form their own reality.
wam.umd.edu/~hannahk/conservatism
(third time posted. Let’s see if this makes it through the “Accuracy” filters
Since AIM wont allow any links to the study cited, you’re all going to have to “google” “Political Conservatism As Motivated Social Cognition”. From that page, go up one level and you’ll be on the U of Maryland website created by a member of various panels of the National Academy of Science devoted to the social/psychological aspects of terrorism. “As of January 10, 2004 I have been appointed as a co-director of a Center of Excellence for Research on the Behavioral and Social Aspects of Terrorism and Counterterrorism, established at the University of Maryland, College Park.”
And be sure to sign your names, y’hear!
For Gary Williams: I believe the AIM website has a “spam” filter that discourages multiple links regardless of content or identity of poster. You will also probably find an anti-academic bias among AIM supporters.
Freedom Now:
“This is really all about semantics”? Really?
- Being an actual member of the CPUSA in the 1930’s is “all about semantics”? Do you truly believe that?
- The difference between a “reason” and a “right” is “all about semantics”? Do you truly believe that?
- False quotations are “all about semantics”? Do you truly believe that?
- Calling deleted comments “racist” is “all about semantics”? Do you truly believe that?
Is the truth “all about semantics”?
Whenever “semantic distortion” is used to deliberately misrepresent the truth, it is called a “lie.” Whenever a series of parallel “semantic distortions” are used to deliberately misrepresent the truth with a predetermined objective, it is called a disinformation campaign. It is deception.
While deception may have legitimate uses in international conflict and law enforcement, there is little justification for disinformation in political debate. It is a question of integrity. Honorable men and women do not condone deliberate misrepresentation, even in the service of their political goals. Just as people of integrity were ashamed by the Bush administration’s deliberate misrepresentation regarding the Iraqi threat, so too should people of integrity be ashamed by AIM’s deliberate misrepresentation regarding the Davis-Obama relationship.
To trivialize AIM’s lies as being “all about semantics” is unworthy of you. If empirical evidence is incriminating, then there is no need for deliberate misrepresentation. There is no need to lie.
Getting caught in not only one lie, but in a series of parallel lies with similar effect, reduces the value of not only the subject “evidence,” but also reduces the value of an entire case AND the reputation of those making the case. Lying suggests a witch hunt rather than a dispassionate quest for the truth. To rightly condemn Communist disinformation campaigns, and then to wrongly employ your own disinformation campaigns, is the epitome of hypocrisy.
(IMHO)
AP Joins the fray:
Without a father, Obama turned to black journalist for advice on living in a multiracial world
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-obama-mentor,0,18938.story
I guess that AP article puts an end to your attempts to deny that Davis was a mentor to Obama eh, Mark?
Which kind of discredits your efforts to parlay various SMALL discrepancies (right vs reason, etc) into a generalized discreditation. But then if you just keep going on and on, some people might be stupid enough to fall for it…but not many.
And in Hawaii, EVERYBODY knows that Ah Quon McElrath is a Commie from the ILWU in the 1950s.
(See her quoted in the AP article)
“‘You could get a lot of strength from a person like Frank who had suffered all the discrimination ... that a black man goes through in America,’ said Ah Quon McElrath, a friend of Davis’ who lives in Honolulu.”
I don’t know how they could keep a stright face telling these lies. You are making a fool out of yourself.
Honolulu Joe wrote:
“I guess that AP article puts an end to your attempts to deny that Davis was a mentor to Obama eh, Mark?
Which kind of discredits your efforts to parlay various SMALL discrepancies (right vs reason, etc) into a generalized discreditation. But then if you just keep going on and on, some people might be stupid enough to fall for it…but not many. “
RESPONSE: Not at all. Reasonable people can disagree whether their relationship may be accurately described as mentoring. Reasonable people cannot agree, however, that Kincaid tells the truth when he makes false quotations.
These are not “small discrepancies.” I believe these are the cornerstones of their disinformation campaign, just as Curveball’s mobile WMD lab claim was the cornerstone of the Iraqi threat claim. Their entire effort is dedicated to exaggerating my father’s radical influence on Obama. Their strongest claim regarding his radical nature is that “his values, passed on to Obama, were those of a communist agent who pledged allegiance to Stalin.” They falsely claim that he was a “Stalinist” because he “stayed” with the Party after the Pact. Their strongest evidence of his purported radical influence on Obama was the false quotation where “right to hate” was substituted for “reason to hate.”
This is the essence of a disinformation campaign. One lie is built upon another lie, just like the Iraqi WMD disinformation. Curveball’s “small” lie, and other “small” lies, were exaggerated into the basis for a multi-billion dollar operation.
If you sincerely believe these are “small discrepancies,” then what would YOU say is the strongest evidence they have presented for his radical nature? It should, of course, be stronger than claiming that “his values, passed on to Obama, were those of a communist agent who pledged allegiance to Stalin.”
What would YOU say is the strongest evidence presented for his radical influence on Obama? It should, of course, be stronger than claiming he said blacks have a right to hate whites. Accurate quotes, please.
Honolulu Joe:
There is no doubt that my father is the “Frank” from Obama’s book. The point of contention is his influence over Obama, which they exaggerate through deliberate misrepresentation (i.e., lies). I have identified false claims regarding this relationship (from my blog):
Kincaid claims Horne “noted” that Davis “became the young man’s mentor” and influenced Obama’s “career moves.” FACT: Horne actually said that Davis gave Obama career advice, rather than influencing his career moves, and did NOT state that Davis became Obama’s “mentor.” That is a false claim!
AIM email claims that Obama called Davis his mentor in “Dreams From My Father.” That is another false claim! Obama did NOT call Davis his mentor.
Kincaid claims “Dreams From My Father” confirms that a mysterious “Frank” was a mentor, and that he was a significant influence over Obama. That is another false claim! FACT: “Dreams from My Father” does NOT confirm that Frank was his mentor, or that he was a significant influence. It states that Davis gave Obama advice. To confirm that he was a “significant influence,” as least two conditions must be met:
1. Proof that Obama FOLLOWED Davis’s advice, while avoiding the “post hoc” fallacy.
2. Proof that following it was significant.
Sorry for getting technical on you, Honolulu Joe, but the truth IS technical. To misrepresent speculation as fact is not the truth. To misrepresent sources is not the truth. Only the truth is the truth!
Mr. X:
At last count, that AP story was published on 86 different newspaper websites. The mainstream media has awoken.
Mark, the more you talk about Maki when talking about Kincaid - the more you become just another spreader of disinformation.
To clump them together is just so disingenuous that you are endangering your credibility.
Maki loves your father and condemns rightwingers that are ‘defaming his memory’ (paraphrased, but I can find the quote if need be). Maki might have treated you unfairly, but Kincaid never did. Frankly I am tired of your lumping the two together.
I’m starting to agree with Jim and find this subject beat to a pulp.
Well, now that the MSM is starting to address (if apologetically) this communist influence issue, can we now start looking into the Baathist/Nadhmi Auchi connection to Obama through Tony Rezco?!
Nazi, Baathist, Communist—all the social authoritarian “flavors” are represented in the influencers of Obama.
Freedom Now wrote: “Mark, the more you talk about Maki when talking about Kincaid - the more you become just another spreader of disinformation.”
Response: What disinformation am I spreading? That they cooperated in setting my father up for Kincaid’s attack as “deadly confirmation”? Maki treated both my father and me unfairly. Until Maki explains his actions, he is “fair game.” Kincaid actually prolonged the issue with his “Red Faces” column. Although my last few posts in this thread have not mentioned Maki, others now seem to find the situation rather interesting. Another website has now picked up this story: http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/blog/index.blog?entry_id=1831518.
Freedom Now wrote: “Maki might have treated you unfairly, but Kincaid never did.”
Response: Kincaid and Steigerwald are treating my family unfairly through misrepresentation (e.g. “His values, passed on to Obama, were those of a communist agent who pledged allegiance to Stalin,” and “lifelong member of the Communist Party USA.”) Even the worst criminals deserve to be attacked only for their actual offenses, not imaginary ones.
Their misrepresentation is irrefutable and unjustified. The pattern strongly suggests it was deliberate. Since it forms the cornerstone of their attacks upon my father’s character, do you sincerely believe it was innocent?
I am only defending my family honor. People of integrity probably have this in common with even hardened criminals. Would YOU do any less?
BTW: I received a heartwarming apology from a poster on another website who had been rebroadcasting AIM attacks against my father. He wrote :
“I owe you an apology. I regret the fire in my words. My flames were intended for Obama and FMD was an easy vehicle with which to scorch Mr. Obama. Now that I have a grasp of FMD’s motivation I realize I jumped to a conclusion and was insensitive.”
Now THIS, Sir, is truly an honorable man! HE, sir, has the integrity to apologize. HE, sir, is a gentleman!
Freedom Now wrote: “Mark, the more you talk about Maki when talking about Kincaid - the more you become just another spreader of disinformation.”
Response: What disinformation am I spreading? That they cooperated in setting my father up for Kincaid’s attack as “deadly confirmation”? Maki treated both my father and me unfairly. Until Maki explains his actions, he is “fair game.” Kincaid actually prolonged the issue with his “Red Faces” column. Although my last few posts in this thread have not mentioned Maki, others also seem to find the situation rather interesting. Another website has now picked up this story. See conwebwatch.tripod.com/blog/index.blog?entry_id=1831518.
Freedom Now wrote: “Maki might have treated you unfairly, but Kincaid never did.”
Response: Kincaid and Steigerwald are treating my family unfairly through misrepresentation (e.g. “His values, passed on to Obama, were those of a communist agent who pledged allegiance to Stalin,” and “lifelong member of the Communist Party USA.”) Even the worst criminals deserve to be attacked only for their actual offenses, not imaginary ones.
Their misrepresentation is irrefutable and unjustified. The pattern strongly suggests it was deliberate. Since it forms the cornerstone of their attacks upon my father’s character, do you sincerely believe it was innocent?
I am only defending my family honor. People of integrity probably have this in common with even hardened criminals. Would YOU do any less?
BTW: I received a heartwarming apology from a poster on another website who had been rebroadcasting AIM attacks against my father. He wrote :
“I owe you an apology. I regret the fire in my words. My flames were intended for Obama and FMD was an easy vehicle with which to scorch Mr. Obama. Now that I have a grasp of FMD’s motivation I realize I jumped to a conclusion and was insensitive.”
Now THIS, Sir, is truly an honorable man! HE, sir, has the integrity to apologize. HE, sir, is a gentleman!
“... Now that I have a grasp of FMD’s motivation I realize I jumped to a conclusion and was insensitive.””
Does anyone have a grasp of FMD’s motivation? That seems to be the whole bone of contention here.
I believe that I do, even as Davis’s “alleged son.” Edgar Tidwell, may have put it best, though, when he wrote:
“Frank Marshall Davis did NOT believe in overthrowing the USA. He was committed to what the nation professed to be. For him, communism was primarily an intellectual vehicle to achieve a political end-a possible tool for gaining the constitutional freedoms of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for ALL Americans.”
This “tool” seems to have provided the only available institutional support during the period, according to “The New Red Negro.” According to the same source, “the CPUSA itself, despite the claims of both the party leadership and its most ardent detractors, contained various, often conflicting tendencies.” Evidently, membership does NOT equate to Stalinism!!
Thanks for asking.
Mark,
You are attempting to smear the reputation of a man who painstakingly made hours and hours of research on this issue and you cannot dispute the vast array of facts compiled by him.
Instead you attack the application of words like “mentor” and “lifelong”, etc… This is semantic wordplay. Your strategy is to nitpick irrelevant points to smear the whole truth.
Then you hypocritically link Kincaid to a Communist, who Kincaid used only as a source because Maki is the one of the most readily accessible people on the entire Internet - publishing his cell number, email address and home address. Kincaid has relied on many sources that are pro-Davis, some are Communist and proud of Davis’ radicalism and some are apologists like you.
You are now more than just Frank Marshall Davis’ son, you are an activist. The shield of invincibility that being his son gives you is hollow. Every public figure is open to scrutiny and every public figure has or had some sort of a family.
Activists come to Kincaid’s site to smear him. Take “The Big Apple” for instance, who claims that Kincaid is “under investigation for knowingly reporting false information about the Global Poverty Act”…
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-communist-mentor/
Frank Marshall Davis was a Communist and was an influence on Obama. Kincaid’s work does not just rely on ‘a fraction of truth’ that you deride as all ‘great lies’ (paraphrased) are based on. No, he has presented mountains of evidence and the substance of his conclusions is correct.
Between you and Kincaid, you are the one doing the smearing. Go ahead list more of you semantic word games.
Since a number of questions may be falling through the cracks, I will start numbering them.
Freedom Now wrote:
“You are attempting to smear the reputation of a man who painstakingly made hours and hours of research on this issue and you cannot dispute the vast array of facts compiled by him.”
I have no interest in disputing the vast array of facts compiled by him. I am only interested in disputing his misrepresentation concerning my family. Let’s stick to the points of contention. Once again, I challenge you to refute the specific misrepresentation I have identified.
A1: Do you seriously think that someone objecting to his father being misrepresented as a “lifelong member of the Communist Party USA,” would be “nitpicking”?
Misrepresentation like this is the cornerstone of his argument against my father, just as “Curveball’s” misrepresentation was the cornerstone of the Bush administration’s misrepresentation concerning the Iraqi threat. Big lies are built on small lies.
Freedom Now wrote: “Instead you attack the application of words like “mentor” and “lifelong”, etc… This is semantic wordplay. Your strategy is to nitpick irrelevant points to smear the whole truth.”
A2: What “whole truth” have I smeared?
A3: Where did I ““smear” it (post # and wording, please)
Freedom Now wrote: “Then you hypocritically link Kincaid to a Communist, who Kincaid used only as a source because Maki is the one of the most readily accessible people on the entire Internet - publishing his cell number, email address and home address. Kincaid has relied on many sources that are pro-Davis, some are Communist and proud of Davis’ radicalism and some are apologists like you.”
Wrong! Kincaid linked himself to Maki when he held a conversation with him. He did not merely “use him as a source.” He used him to attack my father.
A4: How is linking Kincaid to a source “hypocritical”?
Freedom Now wrote: “You are now more than just Frank Marshall Davis’ son, you are an activist. The shield of invincibility that being his son gives you is hollow. Every public figure is open to scrutiny and every public figure has or had some sort of a family.”
There is no “shield of invincibility.” That’s why I challenge you for the umpteenth time to refute the specific misrepresentation that I have identified. Almost every public figure has a family that will defend him against deliberate misrepresentation. You have YET to answer whether the specific misrepresentation I have identified is innocent or deliberate! This suggests that you know, but are unwilling to publically admit, that it is deliberate.
A5: Is the “specific misrepresentation” I have identified innocent or deliberate?
Freedom Now wrote: “Frank Marshall Davis was a Communist and was an influence on Obama. Kincaid’s work does not just rely on ‘a fraction of truth’ that you deride as all ‘great lies’ (paraphrased) are based on. No, he has presented mountains of evidence and the substance of his conclusions is correct.”
RESPONSE: While I may agree that my father was a Communist and was an influence on Obama, the “substance of his conclusions” went much further than that. If that had been it, we would not be having this debate. I believe that the “substance of his conclusions” is that “His values, passed on to Obama, were those of a communist agent who pledged allegiance to Stalin.”
A6: Do you agree or disagree that “His values, passed on to Obama, were those of a communist agent who pledged allegiance to Stalin,” is the substance of his conclusions?
A7: If you disagree, then what one AIM statement encapsulates the “substance of his conclusions” regarding Frank Marshall Davis?
If you agree, then please consider that these are the critical elements underlying his conclusion:
AIM has presented no evidence to back up the claim that he was a “lifelong member of the communist party.” Do you consider this to be insignificant?
AIM has presented no evidence that he “stayed with the Party” after the Hitler-Stalin Pact. Do you consider this to be insignificant?
AIM has presented no evidence that he was a communist agent. Do you consider this to be insignificant?
AIM has presented no evidence that he pledged allegiance to Stalin. Do you consider this to be insignificant?
AIM has presented no evidence that he passed on communist values to Obama. Do you consider this to be insignificant?
A8: If you contend that “His values, passed on to Obama, were those of a communist agent who pledged allegiance to Stalin” is the substance of his conclusions, then how can the underlying elements be insignificant?
Please extend the courtesy of answering my questions. Thanks!
First off, the misrepresentations (smears) are yours not Kincaid’s so there is nothing for me to ‘admit’. Your semantic word games with the word ‘mentor’ etc… are misrepresentations of the truthfulness of Kincaid’s writing. Frank was influential on Obama.
Mentor (from dictionary.com):
1. a wise and trusted counselor or teacher.
2. an influential senior sponsor or supporter.
3. to act as a mentor.
4. to act as a mentor to.
Frank fits all of these conditions for Obama. A mentor is not a position that you fill out an application and are awarded the title. This is bullshit petty word games.
Judging by your writing I believe you when you say that you, “have no interest in disputing the vast array of facts compiled by him (Kincaid)”, because you cant.
In addition to semantics, you rely on emotional blackmail that it is your family honor that is at stake. It is your father’s reputation, not yours.
If your family’s reputation is really at stake, then are you and your family Communists?
Every family has a dark past and every family has good. You cannot save your family by smearing a man who has done no wrong to you. Writing about history should not be subject to revision in order to appease family honor. You have a right to say what you want, but you have yet to do more than play word games and make silly accusations.
Including associating the campaigns of an anti-Communist who dislikes Frank and a Communist who loves Frank as a part of a coordinated campaign, simply because Kincaid interviewed Maki. A man that is open to communication from anyone of any viewpoint, including those he despises. Therefore, I do not believe in your honesty and you are no better than Maki. While he may be wrong in his belief that you are not Frank’s son, you should know better than making such a juvenile accusation… while he simply has mistaken convictions.
Your father was a member of a Stalinist Communist organization and he had a huge influence on Obama during his formative years. This organization took money from Moscow (Stalin) and harbored several espionage networks against the U.S. government.
This is the crux of what Kincaid is saying and it is damn true. No amount of twisting and turning can change that.
…Name one lifelong member of the Communist Party. Just one and I will concede that point.
…Frank signed the League of Writers letter before the U.S. entered WWII.
…Since you push me to be blunt, I have no choice but to make plain a serious problem with Frank’s ideology. Lets talk about the values that Frank passed on to Obama… Stalinist race baiting…
While the march to Civil Rights was just ending a 60 year long flatline and the country was in urgent need of civil rights activism, Frank was more than just a civil rights activist… he was a race baiter.
We previously discussed the episode in which he headed up a group of Stalinists and crashed a NAACP meeting. Well Kincaid really highlighted that episode in this post:
…A 1949 letter sent to NAACP acting National Secretary Roy Wilkins by a Honolulu attorney and NAACP leader named Edward Berman:
“I was at one of the election meetings at which one Frank Marshall Davis, formerly of Chicago (and formerly editor of the Chicago Communist paper, the Star) suddenly appeared on the scene to propagandize the membership about our ‘racial problems’ in Hawaii. He had just sneaked in here on a boat, and presto, was an ‘expert’ on racial problems in Hawaii. Comrade Davis was supported by others who had recently ‘sneaked’ into the organization with the avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line….
…Already, scores of Negro members were frightened away from these meetings because of the influx of this element. Only by a reorganization with a policy that will check this infiltration, can we hope to get former members back into a local NAACP branch. We are going to have to have that authority over here―otherwise you’ll have a branch exclusively composed of yelping Stalinists and their dupes―characters who are more concerned about the speedy assassination of Tito (who had just broken with the USSR) than they are about the advancement of the colored people of these United States.”
Shortly after receiving this letter, the NAACP revoked its Honolulu Chapter’s charter in order to reorganize and prevent a Communist takeover of the organization.
Berman also wrote;
“They create a mythical racial problem here. They agitate with the same fervor that the Communist press does on the mainland. The result is discord and distrust, not unity.
We have no Harlems, little or big, in Hawaii. We have no Chinese quarter, or Japanese quarter, or Hawaiian quarter. I am Caucasian. A Hawaiian lives to my right; a Japanese family across the street from me and a Chinese family to my left. We are staunch friends.
There is no segregation here.”
Frank confirmed this when he wrote;
“I was somebody who came from the same general environment and over-all background. At first it was shocking to hear Caucasians tell me what ‘we’ must do when, on the Mainland, they would likely say ‘you people’. Many whites of considerable residence here are as bitter about racism as any of us and are glad to live in a place where overt prejudice is not customary. I have known haoles to go back home for a long visit but return ahead of schedule because they couldn’t stand the attitudes of their old friends.”
So sometime in the early 80s when affirmative action and the school bus integration program had made substantial gains in civil rights - Frank still told Obama not to, “start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that ####”. Or as Kincaid quoted some other advice to Obama from Frank, “you may be a well-trained, well-paid nigger, but you’re a nigger just the same”.
Just like Reverend Wright, Frank relied on race baiting to justify his political agenda long after it became obsolete race baiting.
I have one question for you Mark…
DID FRANK MARSHALL DAVIS EVER DENY THAT HE WAS A COMMUNIST?
Freedom Now,
(Although I am directly answering your questions, you do not seem to be directly answering mine. As I explained before, I will now be numbering my questions for which I expect a direct response. I encourage you to do the same. Please key your responses to the numbered questions. Thanks!)
1. CLAIMS OF MENTORSHIP: As I previously posted, reasonable people can disagree about whether or not a specific relationship constitutes mentorship. That is a matter of opinion, so I agree that we should not engage in the “bullshit petty word games” regarding the accuracy of the term. My argument is with the FALSE EVIDENCE regarding the USE of this term in this context. He claims false sources, which is common in the disinformation process.
To obscure the origin of information is to “sanitize” the information. You may “sanitize” information both in the intelligence production process (to protect sources and methods), and also in the disinformation process to hide the source of your lies. In this context, “mentor” was a creation of the right-wing blogosphere, but was SANITIZED by falsely attributing it to other sources. Instead of telling the truth by admitting that THEY originated the description, they FALSELY claimed:
- Horne as the source (Horne purportedly noted that Davis “became the young man’s mentor,” when Horne did no such thing)
- Obama as the source (AIM email claimed that Obama called Davis his mentor, when Obama did no such thing)
- Kincaid claims “Dreams From My Father confirms that a mysterious “Frank” was a mentor, and that he was a significant influence over Obama. FACT: “Dreams from My Father” does NOT confirm that Frank was his mentor, or that he was a significant influence. It states that Davis gave Obama advice. To confirm that he was a “significant influence,” as least two conditions must be met: (a) Proof that Obama followed Davis’s advice while avoiding the “post hoc” fallacy. (b) Proof that following it was significant.
Question #C1: Do you feel that claiming false sources is “insignificant”? It affects the credibility of claimed information.
2. FAMILY HONOR: You wrote “In addition to semantics, you rely on emotional blackmail that it is your family honor that is at stake. It is your father’s reputation, not yours. If your family’s reputation is really at stake, then are you and your family Communists?”
Response: A family is defamed by false accusations against any family member. The most egregious false accusations in this case are not that he was a communist, but that he was a “lifelong member of the Communist Party USA,” and that ““His values, passed on to Obama, were those of a communist agent who pledged allegiance to Stalin.”
Question #C2: Do you feel that a family is defamed by false accusations against any family member?
3. ALAN MAKI: You wrote “Including associating the campaigns of an anti-Communist who dislikes Frank and a Communist who loves Frank as a part of a coordinated campaign, simply because Kincaid interviewed Maki.”
Response: Sorry if I failed to make myself clear. The basis of my conclusion is NOT “simply because Kincaid interviewed Maki.” Kincaid interviews a lot of people, such as Dr. Kathryn Takara, who may not know Kincaid’s true agenda. In the case of Alan Maki, however, there IS evidence of collusion. The most significant items are:
a. Maki’s use of the blogosphere-originated term “mentor” indicates Maki knew of Kincaid’s campaign against my father.
b. Maki willingly gave Kincaid information ABOUT my father knowing in advance that Kincaid would use the information AGAINST my father. This makes Maki an “accessory before the fact” in defaming my father’s reputation.
Question #C3: Do you believe that Alan Maki knew Kincaid’s agenda before the interviews?
4. “HUGE INFLUENCE”: You wrote “Your father was a member of a Stalinist Communist organization and he had a huge influence on Obama during his formative years.”
Response: There is NO evidence that my father was a “huge influence” on Obama. “Dreams From My Father” says that Davis gave Obama advice. It does not support your speculation, masquerading as fact, that he was a “huge influence.” This is the essence of AIM’s disinformation campaign: to create the ILLUSION, contrary to the book, that he was a “huge influence.” Wishing doesn’t make it so. To confirm that he was a “huge influence,” as least two conditions must be met: (a) Proof that Obama followed Davis’s advice while avoiding the “post hoc” fallacy. (b) Proof that following it was “huge.”
Question #C4: What empirical evidence (not conjecture, speculation, or misrepresentatio) do you have that he was a “huge influence” on Obama?
5. “LIFELONG MEMBER”: You wrote: “Name one lifelong member of the Communist Party. Just one and I will concede that point.”
Response: I do not know of any. That’s what makes their claim that my father was a “lifelong member of the Communist Party USA” so absurd! Bill Steigerwald is still stonewalling regarding the reason he made that claim. I’m not sure what you mean by conceding “that point,” because perhaps we at last AGREE on something: that it is a deliberate misrepresentation.
I presume this is your answer to “A1: Do you seriously think that someone objecting to his father being misrepresented as a “lifelong member of the Communist Party USA,” would be “nitpicking”?” But you STILL did not answer whether objecting would be “nitpicking” or not. So I shall repeat, hoping that you will directly answer whether it would be nitpicking or not:
Question A1: Do you seriously think that someone objecting to his father being misrepresented as a “lifelong member of the Communist Party USA,” would be “nitpicking”?
6. “CRASHING THE NAACP MEETING”: You wrote “We previously discussed the episode in which he headed up a group of Stalinists and crashed a NAACP meeting. Well Kincaid really highlighted that episode in this post”
Response: As posted in the “AP Lies” thread:
Speaking of lies: Kincaid wrote “And AP doesn’t note the evidence that Davis and his comrades tried to take over the NAACP in order to transform its Honolulu branch into a front for the Stalinist line.” For those of you who actually READ the Romerstein report at the America’s Survival website, and actually intend to CONSIDER the evidence:
B1: What “evidence” should AP have noted in this regard? PLEASE be specific.
B2: Does it actually say that “Davis and his comrades tried to take over the NAACP” for any reason at all? (No)
B3: Does it even say that “Davis and his comrades tried to take over the Honolulu branch of the NAACP” for any reason at all? (No)
B4: Does it say that that Davis tried to transform the “Honolulu Branch into a front for the Stalinist line”? (No)
(I understand that some of you may have the attitude “Evidence, schmevidence! We don’t need no stinkin’ evidence!” For those with this attitude, once again I apologize for wasting your time . . . )
[END QUOTE]“Kincaid really highlighted that post” with deliberate misrepresentation. According to Romerstein’s report, the TRUTH is that Berman wrote a letter to Wilkins, which stated:
- Berman was at an election meeting at which Davis “suddenly appeared on the scene to propagandize the membership about our “racial problems” in Hawaii.
- Davis 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.
Question #C5: Do you agree that Berman ONLY accused Davis of propagandizing the membership about “racial problems.” (If not, then what other accusations against Davis did BERMAN make?)
Question #C6: Do you agree that Berman stated that “Davis 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. (If not, please explain)
Question #C7: Do you agree that Berman did NOT accuse Davis of :
- sneaking into meetings,
- trying to take over meetings
- Trying to take over the NAACP
- Trying to take over the Honolulu branch of the NAACP
- Trying to transform its Honolulu Branch into a front for the Stalinist line
(These variations of Berman’s testimony came from various AIM columns. They are unsubstantiated misrepresentations of Berman’s testimony. They are speculation masquerading as fact. If you believe that BERMAN made any of these accusations against Davis, please quote them.)
Once again, we have speculation and deliberate misrepresentation masquerading as fact. Kincaid has transformed BERMAN’S accusations against supporters into HIS OWN accusations against Davis. Compare and contrast it with Kincaid’s latest version that “Davis and his comrades tried to take over the NAACP in order to transform its Honolulu branch into a front for the Stalinist line.”
7. REVOCATION OF HONOLULU NAACP CHARTER: You also wrote: “Shortly after receiving this letter, the NAACP revoked its Honolulu Chapter’s charter in order to reorganize and prevent a Communist takeover of the organization.”Response: This seems to be more misrepresentation masquerading as fact.
Question #C8: What evidence do you have to support your claim that they revoked their “charter in order to reorganize and prevent a Communist takeover of the organization”?
FACTS (As posted on the AP Lies thread):
The board on November 14, 1949 voted to revoke the charter of the Honolulu branch for the following reasons:
“The officers of the Honolulu branch have, by their failure, refusal or neglect to complete the holding of the election of officers as required by the constitution and bylaws for branches and as ordered by the national office, been guilty of conduct inimical to the best interest of the NAACP.
The difference in the problems of racial discrimination in the continental United States and their solution as contrasted with the problems of the Territory makes difficult the applicability of techniques and methods used by branches and the national office to effect the policy of the association in the Territory.
[END QUOTE]Sorry to burst another bubble, Freedom Now, but the record clearly shows that they revoked the Honolulu charter because the Honolulu officers refused to hold elections, not to prevent a “Communist takeover.” The Honolulu officers refused because they were afraid of a takeover, as evidenced by Berman’s letter TO Roy Wilkins. That reason was NOT good enough, according to the NAACP. The action of the OFFICERS made them “guilty of conduct inimical to the best interest of the NAACP.”
But I have to hand it to you, Freedom Now. The NAACP wanted the Honolulu Branch to “complete the holding of the election of officers as required by the constitution and bylaws for branches and as ordered by the national office” DESPITE the “communist takeover” threat. You very smoothly twisted the story into the national office revoking the charter BECAUSE of the “communist takeover” threat. You should write for Accuracy In Media!
8. STATEMENT TO OBAMA: You wrote “So sometime in the early 80s when affirmative action and the school bus integration program had made substantial gains in civil rights . . .”
Response: I believe Obama last saw him in the 1970’s. The actual date of that conversation is unknown.
9. COMMUNIST? You wrote “DID FRANK MARSHALL DAVIS EVER DENY THAT HE WAS A COMMUNIST?”
Response: I don’t know. I cannot find any.NOTE: For your edification, I will list issues that are NOT points of contention in my debate. Continuing to raise them will therefore constitute red herrings intended to divert the debate from my actual points of contention:
a. Joining the Party during WWII (versus false claims of earlier membership)
b. Actual mentorship relationship (versus false attribution to sources outside blogosphere)As explained at the beginning, I am directly answering your questions although you do not seem to be directly answering mine. I will now be numbering my questions for which I expect a direct response. I encourage you to do the same. Please key your responses to the numbered questions. Thanks!
Here’s some shoddy journalism:
‘‘The story of Frank Marshall Davis, Obama’s Marxist mentor, is completely intertwined with the story of the Hawaii Democrats rise to power.’‘
I see no substantiation to support the claim that Davis was Obama’s ‘‘Marxist mentor.’‘
- joe
Joe:
In order to sell the illusion that Davis had a huge influence on Obama, AIM falsely attributes this term to other sources such as a CPUSA figure and Obama himself. It’s a common disinformation technique. They misrepresent Davis’s advice as Davis’s huge influence, without proving a causal relationship.
Speculation and misrepresentation masquerade as fact in the realm of AIM. For a prime example, see the “Revocation of Honolulu NAACP Charter” in my previous comment.
Truman Fan says “I see no substantiation to support the claim that Davis was Obama’s ‘’Marxist mentor.’’ “
Maybe he is blind. So from the article I provide the evidence of mentorship whic someone could read to Truman fan v e r y s l o w l y. (As for the evidence of Marxism, that is what the rest of the article is comprised of.)
Davis as Mentor
What about Frank Marshall Davis’s role as a mentor to the young Obama? This is one of the assertions that Conybeare’s media council disputes.
Merriam-Webster defines “mentor” as “a trusted counselor or guide.” Was Frank a “trusted counselor or guide” to Obama? And what “vision” did Davis give to the young Obama?
Consider these examples from Obama’s 1995 book, Dreams from My Father:
Obama’s grandmother (Toot) and Gramps have an argument over whether Gramps should give Toot a ride to work after she had been threatened at a bus stop by a black panhandler. Obama looks to Frank to sort it out in his mind. (p. 89-91)
When Toot is having difficulty convincing the drug-abusing young Obama to apply for college, it is again Frank who is able to convince Obama that college is necessary. (p. 96-98)
Frank delivers to the young Obama the one key lesson which radicals have sought to inculcate in the mind of every black person whether under slavery, segregation or civil rights: “…you may be a well-trained, well-paid nigger, but you’re a nigger just the same.” (p. 97)
In his short column about Dr. Kathryn Waddell Takara’s “anger” at the “bloggers…twisting her research,” Star Bulletin columnist John Heckathorn lets slip: “In the ’70s, a by-then-elderly Davis was a friend of Barack Obama’s grandfather and would proffer advice to a young Barry, as he was called then.” Ooops.
...and if that’s not enough, the entire AP article is based on the premise that Davis is a mentor to Obama (but just a ‘leftist’)....
You guys think you are stiflng this? HA! The GOP is just waiting til after the Dem Conv to let it all loose.
Mark:
You lost all credibility with me when you cited Niihau as an example of segregation in Hawaii. You think there is anybody out here who buys that as an example of SEGREGATION???
Honolulu Joe:
I’m not asking anyone to “buy” anything. Just the facts, ma’am:
From dictionary.com: Segregation: The policy or practice of separating people of different races, classes, or ethnic groups, as in schools, housing, and public or commercial facilities, especially as a form of discrimination.
From Wikipedia (Niihau): The island has approximately 160 permanent inhabitants,[25] nearly all of whom are Native Hawaiians who live in the island’s main settlement of Puuwai.
If they are separated by race, it is segregation. Any questions?
More for Honolulu Joe from the USG:
“Access to Ni‘ihau is limited to the approximately 250 native-speaking Hawaiian-ancestry residents who work on the privately owned ranch. Because of this limited access, Ni‘ihau is also sometimes known as the Forbidden Island”
How long “you been Hawaii”? What “school you went”?
Freedom Now,
In reference to the REVOCATION OF HONOLULU NAACP CHARTER issue (#7, post 49, above), I wrote “But I have to hand it to you, Freedom Now. The NAACP wanted the Honolulu Branch to “complete the holding of the election of officers as required by the constitution and bylaws for branches and as ordered by the national office” DESPITE the “communist takeover” threat. You very smoothly twisted the story into the national office revoking the charter BECAUSE of the “communist takeover” threat. You should write for Accuracy In Media!”
Upon further consideration, I realize this was one of the finest 180-degree “old-switcheroo” con jobs I’ve seen in a while, perhaps second only to Paul Kengor’s 180-degree switcheroo in his 17 June AIM column “Return of the Dupes and the Anti-Anti-Communists”:
“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”
FACTS: The letter was written TO Roy Wilkins, not BY Roy Wilkins. Romerstein does NOT quote Roy Wilkins, as falsely claimed by Kengor! Wilkins had a reputation of denouncing communists within the civil rights movement. Falsely attributing these remarks to Wilkins greatly enhanced their credibility. This was a MASTERFUL 180-degree switcheroo! Or was it an innocent mistake?
Question #D1: Was this significant misrepresentation?
Question #D2: Was this DELIBERATE misrepresentation?
Mark,
Perhaps you can offer multiple-choice answers in your test. I know that you do not accept essays, but maybe you can give me extra credit.
This is getting to the point of harassment. In my last comment I did not make any demands from you except to answer one question. You will not dictate the terms of this conversation and your endless demands are unfair burdens of my time. It is clear that you are trying to take control over this conversation and spam the thread with your rambling accusations that are just semantic word games.
There is a reason why you cannot find one lifelong Communist Party member… because using the criteria in which you apply to Kincaid it is almost impossible to have a lifelong membership. The term ‘lifelong’ is almost never used literally. I consider myself a lifelong atheist, but I might of believed in God when I was very young. Even if I did I would still use the term lifelong to describe my belief. I consider people like Stalin, Mao and Lenin to be lifelong Communists. Yet they technically weren’t ‘lifelong’ Communists since they couldn’t join or support the party as newborns and in most cases didn’t become Communist until they were adults… but they were unrepentant Communists until their deaths. The term is rarely used literally.
You admit that you cannot recall one instance in which Frank denied being a Communist.
THE TRUTH IS THAT FRANK SURREPTITIOUSLY HID HIS MEMBERSHIP.
As far as I am aware he never recanted or apologized for his membership for the rest of his life. This leaves us with an unrepentant Communist who resorted to race baiting to try to stay relevant.
I’m sure that there are plenty of things to defend Frank about, but you’re barking up the wrong tree.
(P.S. I wasn’t aware of the exact date so I looked it up. Obama graduated Punahou School in 1979.)
Actually I stand corrected (well, I’m really sitting down, but that’s OK)... I did pose more than one question in my last comment.
Perhaps I should have numbered and cataloged each question. I could also ask the same question over in slightly different wording like you did, so I could make the list longer.
Mark, you are to be commended for bringing your case here to the AIM courthouse where you face hostile witnesses and a jury so biased that they are unable to comprehend the cold clear evidence before them. You must have some idea how Atticus Finch felt.
While you may lose here at the trial level, you can take comfort in knowing that you have won in the appellate court, that is, the much wider court of public opinion who will read the recent Associated Press story. There is no doubt in my mind that your dogged determination in bringing to light the many misrepresentations in AIM’s red-baiting campaign against Frank Marshall Davis and Barack Obama was the catalyst which sparked the AP’s interest in this story in the first place.
You’ve won the war, Mark. Take some well-deserved
rest and recreation.
-JD
Thanks for the kind words, JD. I guess this particular debate with Freedom Now may have run its course. But I suspect I will need to respond to other challenges in my continuing battle for truth, justice, and REAL Accuracy In Media as it pertains to my father.
Come, Tonto, our work here is done . . .
I suppose that like-minded individuals need a pep talk every once in a while. We all have an urgent desire to belong, even if some publicly deny it.
Mark, you are a very intelligent and polite person, but I have yet to see any substance in your arguments. You are free to pursue your smear campaign against Kincaid.
Such freedom is what makes our country great and it is something that we all can agree on.
Your attempt to get the last word in by throwing up a statement we all can agree on yet lacks any relevance to the debate at hand….is duly noted.
Soemone still has evidence Davis was a commie. What evidence remains that he was a huge influence on Obama?
Gary says, “Your attempt to get the last word in by throwing up a statement we all can agree on yet lacks any relevance to the debate at hand….is duly noted.”
OK Gary, note whatever you want, but since Mark threw in the towel on this thread… why shouldnt I end with something we can both agree on? My intent was to get Mark to comment favorably to that comment and to agree to disagree. He believes that Kincaid is running a smear campaign and I believe that Mark is running a smear campaign. Clearly there is no common ground there, but we do have some beliefs that we share.
Kanaka says, “Soemone still has evidence Davis was a commie. What evidence remains that he was a huge influence on Obama?”
Since your writing is a bit unclear I will do my best to reply to what I believe that you are trying to say.
Even Mark agrees that Frank Marshall Davis was a Communist and Obama mentioned Frank’s advice as noteworthy enough to mention it more than once in his memoir. If that advice wasnt important to him, why would he write about it several times 25 years later?
Obama wrote about many people in his book. That doesn’t mean they were huge influences. I can write about a strange neighbor. That doesn’t mean she is a huge influence, right?
And what quotes from 25 years ago do you remember from this neighbor?
You can publish them in your memoir.
Kanaka:
The AP article on Davis shows what influence he had on Obama (while ingnoring Davis CPUSA membership), if that’s not good enough, maybe you should read the article we are talking about:
Davis as Mentor
What about Frank Marshall Davis’s role as a mentor to the young Obama? This is one of the assertions that Conybeare’s media council disputes.
Merriam-Webster defines “mentor” as “a trusted counselor or guide.” Was Frank a “trusted counselor or guide” to Obama? And what “vision” did Davis give to the young Obama?
Consider these examples from Obama’s 1995 book, Dreams from My Father:
Obama’s grandmother (Toot) and Gramps have an argument over whether Gramps should give Toot a ride to work after she had been threatened at a bus stop by a black panhandler. Obama looks to Frank to sort it out in his mind. (p. 89-91)
When Toot is having difficulty convincing the drug-abusing young Obama to apply for college, it is again Frank who is able to convince Obama that college is necessary. (p. 96-98)
Frank delivers to the young Obama the one key lesson which radicals have sought to inculcate in the mind of every black person whether under slavery, segregation or civil rights: “…you may be a well-trained, well-paid nigger, but you’re a nigger just the same.” (p. 97)
In his short column about Dr. Kathryn Waddell Takara’s “anger” at the “bloggers…twisting her research,” Star Bulletin columnist John Heckathorn lets slip: “In the ’70s, a by-then-elderly Davis was a friend of Barack Obama’s grandfather and would proffer advice to a young Barry, as he was called then.” Ooops.
That only shows Davis gave advice. Influence is when you act on advice. Huge influence is making major decisions based on advice.
Popolo, did you read Joe’s comment?
“When Toot is having difficulty convincing the drug-abusing young Obama to apply for college, it is again Frank who is able to convince Obama that college is necessary. (p. 96-98)”
Does this mean that without Frank’s advice he would not have attended college? That would be a huge influence, but a number of people probably advised Obama to go to college.
Popolo:
If you read “Dreams” is seems that Frank convinced Obama to attend college when his grandmother had failed in her attempts to convince. That sounds like a good evidence for “mentor” to me.
Good point. Is there any other evidence of actual influence?
Are you planning to set up another semantics argument over the word “huge”?
Just any other evidence of actual influence, but “huge” would be nice.
Well a non-relative having more influence than someone’s grandmother is pretty damn huge.
If Frank didnt influence Obama to go to college it would have changed quite a lot in Obama’s life and we probably wouldnt be having this conversation at this time.
Once again the premise is still valid:
Frank Marshall Davis was a Communist member of a Stalinist organization, who had a huge influence on Obama during a very critical time in his intellectual development.
I do not know of any more, but you don’t have any credible argument contradicting the huge influence that Frank was able to wield when Obama’s grandmother was unable to convince her grandson to go to college.
Nor can you disprove the premise, can you?…
Frank Marshall Davis was a Communist member of a Stalinist organization, who had a huge influence on Obama during a very critical time in his intellectual development.
How many times was Frank’s advice and guidance cited in Obama’s memoir and how many times was your strange neighbor mentioned?
“Claims of “decisive influence”, ‘mentor” and “father figure” are not supported by any facts or in Obama’s memoir.”
- Wikipedia
Obama said Davis advised him to go to college, not convinced him to go to college.
Wikipedia? Thats authoritative!!!
And hot damn, it sure looks like Obama took Frank’s advice.
You guys are only semantics, word-playing smear merchants.
Once again…
Frank Marshall Davis was a Communist member of a Stalinist organization, who had a huge influence on Obama during a very critical time in his intellectual development.
Wikipedia is close to Britannica in accuracy. AIM is the laughingstock of the research community.
Are you kidding? No way… you have to be out of your mind or just ignorant.
Anyone can data enter in Wikipedia. The quote that you referred to was an original piece of research with no reference data, which actually violates Wikipedia content criteria.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About#Editing_Wikipedia_pages
See the following:
1. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not summarizes what Wikipedia is, and what it is not.
2. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Wikipedia’s core approach, neutral unbiased article writing.
3. Wikipedia:No original research what is, and is not, valid information.
4. Wikipedia:Verifiability what counts as a verifiable source and how a source can be verified.
5. Wikipedia:Citing sources should be cited, and the manner of doing so.
6. Wikipedia:Manual of Style articles should follow this style guide
Despite these guidelines there are still tons of violations throughout the collaborative encyclopedia due to original research, Point-of-view (POV) edits, lack of verifiability/citing sources, etc…
You should note that even Creationalists, anti-abortion activists, and anti-Semites twist the truth in its pages. These violations are not made only by left-wingers.
“Huge influence” claim is faulty reasoning that suffers from “post hoc” fallacy:
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for “after this, therefore because (on account) of this”, is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) which states, “Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one.” It is often shortened to simply post hoc and is also sometimes referred to as false cause, coincidental correlation or correlation not causation. It is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc, in which the chronological ordering of a correlation is insignificant.
Post hoc is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence appears to be integral to causality. The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection. Most familiarly, many superstitious beliefs and magical thinking arise from this fallacy.
Pattern
The form of the post hoc fallacy can be expressed as follows:
A occurred, then B occurred.
Therefore, A caused B.
When B is undesirable, this pattern is often extended in reverse: Avoiding A will prevent B.
Examples
From Attacking Faulty Reasoning by T. Edward Damer, Third Edition p. 131:
“ I can’t help but think that you are the cause of this problem; we never had any problem with the furnace until you moved into the apartment.” The manager of the apartment house, on no stated grounds other than the temporal priority of the new tenant’s occupancy, has assumed that the tenant’s presence has some causal relationship to the furnace’s becoming faulty. ”
From With Good Reason by S. Morris Engel, Fifth Edition p. 165:
“ More and more young people are attending high schools and colleges today than ever before. Yet there is more juvenile delinquency and more alienation among the young. This makes it clear that these young people are being corrupted by their education.
Without proof of causation, conclusion is worthless speculation. Sorry.
Just cutting and pasting, huh? It’s interesting that you just brushed past the fact that the Wikipedia entry that you first quoted did not cite any sources and was original research. This time at least your Wikipedia quote cites a source. I just hope that you don’t fool yourself anymore with the mistaken belief that, “Wikipedia is close to Britannica in accuracy”. Such a conclusion shows a severe lack of critical thinking.
Anyway you said, “Without proof of causation, conclusion is worthless speculation.”
My conclusions are based on Obama’s own writing. That’s proof of causation. He clearly respected and valued Frank’s advice. There is ample evidence of this.
Although he clearly respected and valued Frank’s advice, Obama did not say that Davis’s advice caused him to go to college. That is post hoc speculation, not proof. At Punahou he probably got advice from a hundred different people to attend college.
I cant agree or disagree without reading the entire quote in context.
wikipedia is very useful and generally quite accurate. When in doubt about some article or assertion in an article, I will check the “Talk” page (the Discussion tab at the top of the article) and look for controversies.
There was an interesting article (although slightly biased by the fact the author had “issues” with his own wikipedia page) about wikipedians meeting in “meatspace” in Alexandria Egypt recently:
http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB121815517776622597.html
I am 65 and grew up on maui in a plantation (camp 1) camp before the malahinis came.My grandfather hapai ko and my uncles were union organizers. They were communists until the Korean War and the loss of a cousin touched them directly. Get serious and quit this shibai argument.
John,
I never said that Wikipedia isnt useful, but it is not a valid source to cite as a reference. Anyone can edit Wikipedia and it impossible to police all the POV violations and lack of legitimate sourcing.
Much of its information could be accurate, but often it is difficult to sort out disinformation. With “2.5 million articles in English” it is daunting task to fight vandals. So even a small percentage of that content encompasses a great deal of information that could be inaccurate.
The article you linked describes some of those problems.
seems to me thatwe meet all kinds of people who many give us advice and good advise but we do not necessarily follow in their foot steps.
In my 20’s I knew communist, we have a party in Italy. They certainly do no act like the russian or overtrow the democracy, or change anything.
Americans open your mind, socialist country function and better sometime, ideology is not always translated in actions.
As far as Obama I do not see any influence from this Frank, the guy was old.
He probably acted as an old uncle would.
You want to make a bid deal out of this because you hate the guy, then tell the truth or shut up.
Thankfully… Communism in the West has been weak in the face of a prosperous civilization. But that hasnt stopped them from stealing the atom bomb technology or infiltrating our intelligence agencies and causing serious damage like the Cambridge spy ring did. Additionally; Communists and Communist sympathizers are very active in the “antiwar” movement and have a huge influence thanks to groups that organize protests like A.N.S.W.E.R./Workers World Party, CodePINK, Not in Our Name/ World Can’t Wait/Revolutionary Communist Party, etc…
I support the right of Americans who advocate Communism to promote their views, but I also reserve the right to freely criticize them.
In practice Communism has not proved to be a form of Socialism worthy of any considerable value.
Just like National Socialism is not a form of Socialism worthy of any considerable value.
Democratic Socialism is worthy of consideration, but the Communist Party USA was not of this persuasion. On the contrary, the party that Frank Marshall Davis belonged to was under the direct influence of Josef Stalin and was deeply involved in espionage activity against our country, as it took money from Moscow. The party was involved in activities like pro-Moscow propaganda, setting up spy networks and stealing military secrets.
Open your mind to reality. I can see why you dont find Communism threatening when you tell those that you disagree with to shut up. It reveals that you just might be comfortable with tactics that rely on silencing the opposition.
Has anyone noticed that this article was reissued on September 1 with comments that appear and disappear?
They are not accepting comments for their latest report (“Who Vetted Obama?”) either. What’s up?
Lies are like vampires, eager to suck the blood of rational discourse, transforming honorable men into predatory creatures of the night. Truth is their anathema, for it destroys lies as surely as sunshine destroys their mythical brethren. Such is the fate of Accuracy In Media’s disinformation campaign against the Frank Marshall Davis-Barack Obama relationship.
Designed to discredit the Democratic nominee through McCarthyite fabrication of “communist influence,” AIM’s arsenal of lies are continually shattered by the truth. Extensive proof of AIM’s specific misrepresentation is documented at my blog. I have continuously challenged AIM to refute my proof, in numerous posts to various AIM threads dealing with this topic, to no avail. AIM supporters dismiss the misrepresentation as “insignificant,” when it actually constitutes the bulk of AIM’s case against my father.
For example, AIM republished the “Frank Marshall Davis Network” column on 1 September (after initially posting it here on July 29. AIM still repeats the lie that the NAACP revoked its Honolulu Chapter’s charter in order to reorganize and PREVENT a Communist “takeover” of the organization, when the referenced Congressional testimony clearly states that the charter was revoked because the Honolulu Chapter refused to hold elections DESPITE the threat of a communist takeover. The NAACP faulted the Honolulu board, including Edward Berman, for failing to held mandated elections.
Further, AIM misrepresents the Congressional testimony of Edward Berman by falsely accusing my father of (a) sneaking into a NAACP meeting to convert it into a “front for the Stalinist line” (“Obama’s Red Mentor Praised Red Army”); (b) trying to take over multiple meetings of the Honolulu NAACP (“Obama Plays Reagan In Berlin, Al-Jazeera Journalist Funds Campaign”); (c) trying to take over not the Honolulu Branch, but the NAACP itself (“AP Lies About Obama’s Red Mentor”); and (d) being directly criticized by the NAACP’s Roy Wilkins (“Return of the Dupes and the Anti-Anti-Communists”). In the eyes of AIM apologists these lies may be “insignificant,” but they are VERY significant when levied against my father!
In apparent frustration, AIM has now closed comments to new posts on their website. While racist comments on threads such as AIM’s “Obama’s Communist Mentor” are posted, exposure of AIM’s journalistic fraud in new threads has been met by eliminating all comments. AIM can’t stand the heat, so they have apparently decided to get out of the kitchen of public debate. This can only backfire, because many AIM posters are people of integrity who have been misguided by AIM’s deliberate misrepresentation. When criticism is met by shooting messengers rather than rebutting messages, people of integrity recognize that moral authority is lost.
My father was virtually lynched almost a century ago. Sorry, Cliff Kincaid, but I cannot allow history to repeat itself!
For those who doubt that the Honolulu NAACP charter was revoked for failure to HOLD elections, here is the letter to the Honolulu NAACP, according to Congressional testimony:
Mr. Berman read the response of the NAACP to the Honolulu Branch: The board on November 14, 1949 voted to revoke the charter of the Honolulu branch for the following reasons:
“The officers of the Honolulu branch have, by their failure, refusal or neglect to complete the holding of the election of officers as required by the constitution and bylaws for branches and as ordered by the national office, been guilty of conduct inimical to the best interest of the NAACP.
The difference in the problems of racial discrimination in the continental United States and their solution as contrasted with the problems of the Territory makes difficult the applicability of techniques and methods used by branches and the national office to effect the policy of the association in the Territory.
It is obvious that AIM misrepresented the reasoning for revoking the Honolulu NAACP charter. It is only one lie among many.
So the NAACP actually revoked the charter due to official conduct “inimical to the best interest of the NAACP,” not to “prevent a Communist takeover of the organization.” Why does AIM lie like that?
Hypocrisy alert!
Has anyone noticed that AIM’s recent column (“Bush Gave State Secrets to Obama”) contains this paragraph:
“Because of his 30-year association with people who hate the United States, including communist Frank Marshall Davis., anti-American preacher Jeremiah Wright, and communist terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, it is highly doubtful that Obama could get a security clearance in the U.S. government he wants to lead.”
Kincaid probably made up his story about Davis hating America before he knew that VP nominee Palin joined the Alaska Independence Party, whose founder directly expressed hate for the United States. According to cbsnew.com:
“For all the talk about Barack and Michelle Obama’s patriotism, John McCain’s running mate was a member of a political party that liked the idea of seceding from the United States altogether. It’s the kind of idea that would have been more common in the 1850s.
Advocating secession is, practically by definition, un-American. How does the right go after Obama’s patriotism while supporting a ticket with a candidate who joined a secessionist party?
We are, after all, talking about a party founded by a man who said, “I’m an Alaskan, not an American. I’ve got no use for America or her damned institutions.” The same man, AIP founder Joe Vogler, also said, “[T]he fires of Hell are glaciers compared to my hate for the American government.”
Kincaid condemns teenage Obama for unwittingly associating with secret communist Davis, whom he accuses (without evidence) of hating the United States. Palin joined a blatantly anti-American party whose leader explicitly hated the United States.
Let’s see how AIM tries to spin THIS one!
Correction: The MSM has retracted the report that Palin joined the AIP. She has been a registered Republican since 1982. Her husband was an AIP member until 2002. Unlike Cliff Kincaid, I am willing to ADMIT factual errors, even though I made them in good faith. It would be nice if AIM had the integrity to retract factual errors. Here is my revised comment:
Who Vetted Palin? Sexual misconduct should be irrelevant, but her association with the Alaska Independence Party (AIP) should be of greater concern than Obama’s teenage association with a secret communist. A recent Accuracy In Media (AIM) column (“Bush Gave State Secrets to Obama”) contains this paragraph:
“Because of his 30-year association with people who hate the United States, including communist Frank Marshall Davis., anti-American preacher Jeremiah Wright, and communist terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, it is highly doubtful that Obama could get a security clearance in the U.S. government he wants to lead.”
Kincaid probably made up his story about Davis hating America before he knew that VP nominee Palin’s husband was a member until 1992 of the AIP, whose founder directly expressed hate for the United States: “I’m an Alaskan, not an American. I’ve got no use for America or her damned institutions.” The same man, AIP founder Joe Vogler, also said, “[T]he fires of Hell are glaciers compared to my hate for the American government.” THIS is concrete evidence of hate for the United States, in contrast to AIM’s specious conjecture regarding Frank Marshall Davis.
Kincaid condemns teenage Obama for associating with secret communist Davis, whom he accuses (without evidence) of hating the United States. Palin’s husband joined a blatantly anti-American party whose leader explicitly hated the United States. Palin’s “link” to an anti-American organization is MUCH stronger than Obama’s. Let’s see how AIM tries to spin THIS one!
Mark,
You are an absolute lunatic. I thought you were rational at first, but you obviously have way too much time on your hands.
Keep attacking Palin… the polls will just keep pushing McCain higher and higher.
Actually it’s a lunatic who is more likely to make ad hominem attacks rather than discussing the issues on their merit. Due to their cognitive impairment, they cannot rationally debate the issues themselves. In frustration, they attempt to shoot the messenger.
An inconvenient truth: I did not attack the character of Palin or her husband, unlike Kincaid, who attacked both the character of Obama and my father, and unlike you, who also attacked my character. I merely stated her husband’s membership in an anti-American party. If citing an irrefutable fact, without judging their character, constitutes an “attack” in AIM-speak, then so be it.
Is this statement true or false: “Palin’s husband joined a blatantly anti-American party whose leader explicitly hated the United States.” The American Heritage dictionary defines “Anti-American” as “Opposed or hostile to the government, official policies, or people of the United States.” Joe Vogler was opposed to the government of the United States. Therefore, by definition, he was anti-American. The logic is irrefutable.
We are, after all, talking about a party founded by a man who said, “I’m an Alaskan, not an American. I’ve got no use for America or her damned institutions.” The same man, AIP founder Joe Vogler, also said, “[T]he fires of Hell are glaciers compared to my hate for the American government.”
If true, this information alone should be sufficient for an objective person to determine Vogler’s AIP is “opposed or hostile to the GOVERNMENT of the United States.” If so, then Vogler’s AIP meets the definition of “anti-American.” The logic is bulletproof. This argument can only be refuted by invalidating the quote or invalidating the definition. (Unless you are cognitively impaired, that is, by a lexicon that you believe supersedes standard English.)
Uh-oh! I think the faithful are showing their paranoia. Where on God’s green Earth did Mark attack Palin?
Wow! Right-wingers react violently to even posting an irrefutable link (Todd Palin) between candidate Palin and an anti-American organization (the AIP), whose founder “hated” the American government. Can you imagine a right-winger’s apoplexy if:
- A series of posts also suggested the candidate may have “anti-American” attitudes BECAUSE of the link?
- A series of posts then victimized the link by exaggerating the link’s “anti-American” attitudes through deliberate misrepresentation?
- In addition, the right-winger was RELATED to the victimized link?
The reaction would not be pretty!
Ho hum… such bogus crap can only be believed by small minded people.
How many terrorists, Communists, slumlords and “God Damn Amerikkka” preachers did the Palins hang with?
The more that Palin is attacked the more support she gets from undecided voters, especially those with sympathy for Hillary Clinton.
Every accusation that you have made against anyone (except for one), you are twice as guilty of.
Well, at least you are not nasty…
July 29 at 10:51 pm | #1 | Link
Thanks for the authoritative article, Cliff! I found the information on Japanese-American CPUSA involvement in the 1940’s to be very interesting.
Reasonable men may differ as to whether the Davis-Obama relationship comprised mentorship. You, however, falsely attributed “mentor” to Gerald Horne in your “Obama’s Communist Mentor” column. Further, an AIM staffer falsely attributed it to Obama himself in “Dreams From My Father.” Although it may or may not be an accurate description of their relationship, AIM’s false attribution misrepresent’s its origin. False attribution is a cornerstone of disinformation campaigns. If you had presented it as your assessment, rather than someone else’s, it would not have created this issue. People expect accuracy in AIM reports.
My objection to the Steigerwald interview, cited by the Honolulu Community Media Council, is primarily based on two unsubstantiated claims:
1. Steigerwald’s unfounded statement that my father was a “lifelong member of the Communist Party USA.”
2. Your unfounded statement that my father was 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’.” You compounded the accusation further by claiming “His values, passed on to Obama, were those of a communist agent who pledged allegiance to Stalin.”
I believe that James Edgar Tidwell, whom you may consider an authority on my father, refutes your statement (http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/Kaleokualoha/gGx9n3):