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 (
), 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 fr
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):