Frankly Speaking…

In early 2008, after I had started looking into Obama’s background, I remember thinking, “Wow, as soon as the general public hears about this, it’s going to be curtains for this guy. There is no way! He’s unelectable!”

A case in point:  February of 2008,  Cliff Kincaid wrote a stunning piece for Accuracy in Media, Obama’s Communist Mentor.

Who was Frank? Obama only says that he had “some modest notoriety once,” was “a contemporary of Richard Wright and Langston Hughes during his years in Chicago…” but was now “pushing eighty.” He writes about “Frank and his old Black Power dashiki self” giving him advice before he left for Occidental College in 1979 at the age of 18.

(For information on Obama’s Marxist activities at Occidental College, see this 6 part interview with former classmate [and former Marxist] Dr. John Drew, conducted on the B-Cast. Obama was already a committed Marxist by the time he started college, according to Drew.)

This “Frank” is none other than Frank Marshall Davis, the black communist writer now considered by some to be in the same category of prominence as Maya Angelou and Alice Walker. In the summer/fall 2003 issue of African American Review, James A. Miller of George Washington University reviews a book by John Edgar Tidwell, a professor at the University of Kansas, about Davis’s career, and notes, “In Davis’s case, his political commitments led him to join the American Communist Party during the middle of World War II-even though he never publicly admitted his Party membership.”

That was the first time most of us in the conservative media had heard of him, although he had been on Trevor Loudon’s radar screen since March 2007, when he wrote   Obama’s Marxist Mentor. Some of us thought that it was a significant story that would have legs. Unfortunately many bloggers shied away from it because they didn’t want to be seen as “red-baiters”. The MSM had no interest in it, whatsoever. Including  Drudge:

Drudge Plays Role of Censor

While Obama’s far-left support seems to be worthy of news and comment, Matt Drudge of Drudge Report fame has just rejected two paid ads submitted by my group America’s Survival, Inc. about the influence that CPUSA member Davis exerted over a young Obama. The ads featured a photo of Davis and a communist hammer and sickle. They asked, “Who is this man?,” and urged viewers to click to “Meet the mysterious Red Mentor” so they could be directed to two reports on the subject. The ads were “too controversial,” Drudge’s representative told me.

A few lonely voices in the blogosphere pounded the story, though. I mentioned him here, included Davis in my Reds Who Support Obama post, and again Another Commie For Obamie.

At this point, some shill, who claimed to be Mark Davis,  the son of Frank Marshall Davis (on his OFA page), started commenting on my posts under the pseudonym, “Kaleokualoha”.

Kaleokualoha Says:

Every person of integrity will probably agree the slander and libel are wrong, especially when the target is a dead poet who cannot defend himself. Yet this is exactly what is happening. By defaming the character of my father, Frank Marshall Davis, and exaggerating his radical influence on Barack Obama in “Obama’s Communist Mentor” and other AIM reports, bloggers seek to portray Barack Obama as unworthy of becoming President of the United States. While there are legitimate concerns regarding every candidate, their disinformation regarding my father is especially heinous.

They vilify a dead poet who loved the United States, and who was more likely to teach random acts of kindness than disloyalty to young Barack Obama. They deliberately misrepresent the values Obama may have internalized through this relationship, in a transparent attempt to smear Obama’s character. Like weeds in a garden of truth, such disinformation must be removed at their roots. Unfortunately, their Internet brigade is very efficient at spreading this disinformation. Fortunately, their credibility can be destroyed in the eyes of people of integrity, through irrefutable proof of their deliberate misrepresentation.

Some of their most egregious misrepresentations are claims that Davis was a “lifelong member of the Communist Party USA,” and that he was a “Stalinist” because he “stayed with the Communist Party even after the Hitler-Stalin pact” of 1939, and that “his values, passed on to Obama, were those of a communist agent who pledged allegiance to Stalin.” These unprecedented claims were made AFTER the release of “Obama’s Communist Mentor,” suggesting they were either fabricated or discovered since February 2008. They should be challenged at their source: Cliff Kincaid (editor of Accuracy In Media in his “Media Excuse Obama’s False Advertising” column) and Bill Steigerwald, associate editor of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, in a 7 June 2008 interview (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/mostread/s_571431.html)

That’s only about half of one comment. He wrote several long-winded, obfuscating comments on different posts. Here’s part of another one from, AP Whitewashes the Frank Marshall Davis Story:

In June 2008, however, Kincaid starts the “Stalinist” falsehood (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_571431.html). This is where Kincaid explains that he calls Davis a “Stalinist” because “he stayed with the CPUSA after the Hitler-Stalin pact” (1939). This contradicts Kincaid’s February 2008 column, which states Davis did not even JOIN the CPUSA until later. Obviously Davis could not have “stayed with” the CPUSA before he even joined the CPUSA. Obviously, Kincaid’s stated reason is invalid. Obviously, something else changed between February and June 2008, when Kincaid suddenly starts calling Davis a “Stalinist.” Davis suddenly became a “Stalinist” because Cliff Kincaid said so??

I doubt you will find any references to Davis being a “Stalinist” before Kincaid’s new label. Did the FBI or Congressional investigators consider him a “Stalinist”? I don’t think so!

The reason I bring this up is because I just finished reading yet another article in NRO, entitled, “Obama’s Communist Mentor by Paul Kenger, a researcher who, since the early 1990s, has “been absorbed with archives from the Soviet and Communist world — I’ve looked at every kind of declassified holding.”

In recent years, I’ve concentrated on an extraordinary cache of material from the Comintern Archives on Communist Party USA (CPUSA). This material is utterly damning to the American Left, especially in its vindication of the worst fears and warnings of anti-Communists. Not surprisingly, our illustrious “scholars” in the academy are studiously ignoring it.

Kenger has just written a 600 page book, called Dupes, which prominently features Frank Marshall Davis:

After an almost four-year-long sojourn in which I tried to ascertain whether Davis was a progressive duped by Communists, or, conversely, a Communist who duped progressives, I determined the latter. No doubt, this conclusion — which means the leader of the free world was strongly influenced by a Marxist — will bring the unholy wrath of liberals. Yet, they should brace themselves for another kind of anger. Once they read what Davis did and wrote, they might redirect their rage. In truth, Davis’s targets were mainly Democrats, and especially a Democratic icon, Harry Truman. What Davis said about Truman was unbelievably outrageous. Worse, he said it because it was the Moscow line.

***

With the help of two super-impressive researchers, including one living in Hawaii, I procured Davis’s weekly “Frank-ly Speaking” columns for the Record. These writings flawlessly parroted official Soviet propaganda and portrayed the likes of Harry Truman, George Marshall, and other courageous Democrats as colonialist-imperialist-fascist-racist monsters. Davis even denounced the Marshall Plan. As any student of this era knows, only the Soviet Union, via the public voices of Stalin and Molotov, took this absurd position.

In column after column, Davis claimed Truman craved not only a “third world war,” but to “rule Russia.” Davis said that Truman’s “fascism, American style” was motivated by an anti-Communism that was fueled by veiled racism. Davis repeatedly asserted that the Soviet Union not only desired peace — as Stalin seized Eastern Europe, while also killing tens of millions of his own people — but had abolished poverty, unemployment, and even racism.

Such examples from Davis are so voluminous that they constitute the longest chapter in my 600-plus-page book. Summarizing them here is impossible. But here are three telling examples.

The disgusting Stalinist propaganda Davis was spouting in these articles were written in 1950.

As someone who has long studied this period, I recognized Davis’s writing immediately as the crass propaganda pushed by Communists around the world at that time. Congress thought the same thing. Within only months of the appearance of these columns in the Honolulu Record, Davis’s name was appearing in investigations of the Communist movement. Eventually, in December 1956, he was called to testify before the U.S. Senate, where he pleaded the Fifth Amendment. In a Senate report in 1957 titled “Scope of Soviet Activity in the United States,” Davis was plainly listed as “an identified member of the Communist Party.”

***

The real smoking gun, however, is Davis’s declassified 600-page FBI file, which was recently released through a freedom-of-information request by a fellow researcher. A cursory glance at these pages — which include accounts by informants and eyewitnesses — quickly reveals that Davis was a Communist. As evidence for readers, we have isolated and published about a dozen pages from the file in the appendix of my book, including one that lists Davis’s actual Communist-party number: 47544.

That number is consistent with those of the period. Consider the Communist-party numbers of some of the Hollywood Ten figures whom liberals laughably still defend as innocent lambs: John Howard Lawson (47275), Albert Maltz (47196), Alvah Bessie (46836).In sum, a mentor of the current president of the United States was a Communist — and not only a party member, but an actual propagandist for Stalin’s USSR, a man who unceasingly demonized Democratic presidents and their policies and cherished ideals. Even in World War II, Davis was on the wrong side: He was flatly pro-Soviet and anti-American.

You can read Kengor’s entire piece at NRO.

Okay, so it turns out, Kaleokualoha, that your dad was indeed, beyond a shadow of a doubt,  a card carrying, propagandizing Stalinist Commie.

The question is whether you are  a progressive duped by Communists, or, conversely, a Communist who duped progressives, (you sure as hell didn’t dupe me)

I’ve determined the latter.

Linked by Doug Ross, thanks

About these ads

52 Responses to “Frankly Speaking…”

  1. Kaleokualoha Says:

    “Shill”? How is someone who is openly defending his family against falsehoods a “shill”? My name is Mark Kaleokualoha Davis. “Kaleokualoha” is hardly a “pseudonym. It is my middle name.

    I challenge you or anyone else to refute my evidence of “specific misrepresentation” on my blog.

    “Piety requires us to honor truth above our friends.”
    – Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC)

  2. Kaleokualoha Says:

    As a fair-minded thinker, you may be interested in this cordial exchange between myself and Max Friedman, Cliff Kincaid’s researcher: http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2009/05/31/judge-sonia-sotomayor-and-singing-sensation-susan-boyle/#comment-13017. Only the last few comments pertain to this situation. Please note that Max agreed to follow through with Cliff Kincaid regarding the specific misrepresentation I had identified in June 2009. Not a peep was heard from him since then.

  3. nicedeb Says:

    I challenge you or anyone else to refute my evidence of “specific misrepresentation” on my blog.

    Judging from your comments, there’d be too much b.s. and rubbish to wade through. I’ve already posted (in part), two of your b.s-filled comments to give readers a taste of your style. Anyone who reads Media Matters recognizes it.

    I think it’s beyond obvious now what your father was. Whatever “misrepresentations” you’ve been able to find with Kincaid’s research, are perhaps minor and insignificant inconsistencies that don’t in any way refute the conclusion that your father was a *card carrying committed Communist. You cannot refute the public record. Give it up.

    *Something tells me he took that literally.

  4. DGA Says:

    Wow Deb, he came back! Mark, true commies, like your dad Frank Davis, are like wood rot, they don’t go away until the host is dead, and the USA is still very much alive and kicking. We the conservatives, will defeat your kind no matter what it takes. Your hero obama has shown his cards to be just like your dad, a commie, not so much as he took the time to join the communist party as he didn’t, knowing that it would be political suicide, but that he didn’t join so as to fool the moderate left. Defend your father all you can, he will always be a commie.

  5. kingsjester Says:

    That’s alright, Deb. Mark tried to get me to publish his “novels” on my blog, too. His father was who he was. It’s a matter of history. You can find Mark’s blogs at Organizing for America.

  6. nicedeb Says:

    You can find Mark’s blogs at Organizing for America.

    I know, I linked to his blog.

  7. Sparky Says:

    The mentor did a great job on Dear Leader, and Stalin would be extremely proud. Government takeover of businesses, including healthcare, a centralized government expanding and intruding into citizen’s lives, class warfare, power to the unions, power to the people…straight out of the communist playbook. The same playbook Chavez is using to destroy his country. Wake the hell up American Citizens, before it’s too late!

  8. Kaleokualoha Says:

    “. . . will defeat your kind no matter what it takes”?

    What is “my kind”? Someone who defends his father against lies (i.e., “specific misrepresentation” identified on my blog)? Or are you presuming that I am a communist? As a retired Air Force Intelligence Officer, granted access to TS/SCI (SI/TK/G/B) classified material, I would be willing to compare national security credentials with you.

    “Truth is generally the best vindication against slander.”
    – Abraham Lincoln

  9. nicedeb Says:

    What sort of person brags about his military service?

    (That was a rhetorical question).

  10. DGA Says:

    “. . . will defeat your kind no matter what it takes”?
    Your kind, while you may or may not be a communist, are certainly a communist sympathizer and I bet a card carrying liberal. You wish to buy off the poor with money taken from those of us that have bothered to try to do something with our lives, and give it to those that sit on their asses whining about how the country has treated them badly, in exchange for votes, all the while knowing well and good that those ass sitters can only see into the future a week at a time, and don’t know what will happen to all of us given enough time for liberals to screw the economy permanently. Yes, “your kind”.

  11. Kaleokualoha Says:

    Jump to conclusions much? I am neither a communist nor a communist sympathizer, as reflected in my blog, nor have my posts indicated any of the characteristics attributed by DGA’s post. Such false attribution is a propaganda technique, as outlined by Jonathan Alter in Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/28/alter-how-obama-can-fight-the-lies.html):

    “The outlandish stories about Barack Hussein Obama are simply false: he wasn’t born outside the United States (the tabloid “proof” has been debunked as a crude forgery); he has never been a Muslim (he was raised by an atheist and became a practicing Christian in his 20s); his policies are not “socialist” (he explicitly rejected advice to nationalize the banks and wants the government out of General Motors and Chrysler as quickly as possible); he is not a “warmonger” (he promised in 2008 to withdraw from Iraq and escalate in Afghanistan and has done so); he is neither a coddler of terrorists (he has already ordered the killing of more “high value” Qaeda targets in 18 months than his predecessor did in eight years), nor a coddler of Wall Street (his financial-reform package, while watered down, was the most vigorous since the New Deal), nor an enemy of American business (he and the Chamber of Commerce favor tax credits for small business that were stymied by the GOP to deprive him of a victory). And that’s just the short list of lies.”

    My only goal in this issue is to refute the falsehoods circulating throughout the blogosphere regarding the Davis-Obama relationship. Misrepresenting speculation as fact is dishonest, and reflects your integrity (or lack thereof).

    Jumping to conclusions seems to be quite common in the fantasyland of the right-wing blogosphere. When asked to substantiate their conclusions, we may encounter bluster, red herrings, and ad hominem attacks more often than rational, focused answers. Military Intelligence students are quickly disabused of such behavior, and learn the value of supporting every conclusion they proffer.

    Researchers at the Rand Corporation and other highly regarded research institutions often come from such rigorous backgrounds, where conclusions are based on empirical evidence, rather than wishful thinking.

    It’s a pity that blogosphere researchers and commentators are not held to similar high standards of accuracy.

    “Have patience awhile; slanders are not long-lived. Truth is the child of time; erelong she shall appear to vindicate thee.” – Immanuel Kant

  12. nicedeb Says:

    Whatever dude. We’re not even talking about Obama right now. We’re talking about your Communist dad. I repeat:

    The real smoking gun, however, is Davis’s declassified 600-page FBI file, which was recently released through a freedom-of-information request by a fellow researcher. A cursory glance at these pages — which include accounts by informants and eyewitnesses — quickly reveals that Davis was a Communist. As evidence for readers, we have isolated and published about a dozen pages from the file in the appendix of my book, including one that lists Davis’s actual Communist-party number: 47544.

    Obfuscate that.

  13. Lanceman Says:

    As an observer who was directed here by like-minded people, One statement of Mark Davis pretty much negates any truthfulness in his diatribes:

    in a transparent attempt to smear Obama’s character.

    I can assure you, Mr. Davis, any objective person capable of using logic can only come to the conclusion that Barack Obama has NO character.

    Obama won the national election under the preponderance of ‘negro worship’ (rap culture) of the young whites indoctrinated by ’60s radicals and ‘white guilt’ (brought about by eight years of 24/7 non-stop Bush-bashing without refutation coupled with race-baiting since the ’60s by race pimps).
    By no means was this any kind of landslide, but to the left it was.
    Barack Obama, to an observer such as myself, has no ‘real’ skills other than the ability to read a teleprompter and incite emotionalism in others.
    Personally, he could not have gotten where he is without outside help. I feel certain that George Soros, who, jokingly or not, refers to himself as a god.
    Obama has never been allowed to fail. His nonsense of “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for” and “…the oceans recede and planet begin to heal” indicate to me that he very much considers HIMSELF to be a god, above the rest of us.
    Obama, much like his predecessor, Bill Clinton, his wife, and numerous others, are not just immoral, but amoral, and such men are always dangerous.

  14. Kaleokualoha Says:

    There is little doubt that Davis joined the CPUSA, as Professor Tidwell pointed out. That is not a point of contention, and has become a red herring.

    I am refuting the falsehoods about him, not the truth. Of course he was no angel, just as the Duke lacrosse team members were no angels. But critics are trying to railroad Davis with trumped-up evidence, just as some tried to railroad Dr. Hatfill in the anthrax letters case, and just as ex-D.A. Mike Nifong tried to railroad the Duke lacrosse team by stacking the evidence. Integrity requires an honest evaluation of existing evidence.

    Cliff Kincaid and his colleagues designed an elaborate scam. Instead of fake jewelry, they fake opposition research. They present false information about Frank Marshall Davis, like the Bush administration presented false information about the Iraqi threat. Both were the product of disinformation campaigns designed to frame their targets for imaginary offenses, because their actual behavior was insufficient. They combined fact with fabrication to create a tapestry of historical fiction, not unlike “The Da Vinci Code” or the persecution of Dr. Steven Hatfill during the anthrax scare.

    The AIM disinformation campaign consisted of a series of small lies fabricated to support the big lie that “His values, passed on to Obama, were those of a communist agent who pledged allegiance to Stalin” (see http://www.aim.org/aim-column/media-excuse-obamas-false-advertising).

    Through innuendo, half-truths** and outright fabrication, Obama’s opponents deliberately misrepresented a casual family friendship as political indoctrination sessions, or worse. In their rush to malign Obama, their scam transformed the legacy of a relatively obscure leftist poet into a “Stalinist agent” who corrupted Obama’s values. Slander and libel were their tools of their trade, because truth was irrelevant. Their perverted ethics find nothing wrong with such lies. Destroying Davis’s reputation was collateral damage. Cliff Kincaid may rationalize his deceit as a Leo Straussian “noble lie,” but in reality it is a dishonorable attack.

    A painstakingly documented analysis of Kincaid’s falsehoods is posted as “specific misrepresentation” at http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/Kaleokualoha/gGxdvX. I invite any person of integrity to refute my evidence against his body of lies. If he had authentic evidence of Davis’s radical influence, he would not need to fabricate such evidence.

    “The way to combat noxious ideas is with other ideas. The way to combat falsehoods is with truth.” – William O. Douglas

  15. yvonne Says:

    Mr. Davis protests too much. Frank Marshall Davis was a communist.

  16. Kaleokualoha Says:

    His membership is not a point of contention. The lies about him, however, are points of contention. What is the “appropriate” amount of protest when people are lying about your father?

  17. nicedeb Says:

    Okay, you say he wasn’t a Stalinist after 1938. He was a Stalinist after 1938. The record shows that he was spewing foul Stalinist propaganda until at least the 50′s.

    What are your points of contention with the 600 page FBI file on your dad?

  18. Kaleokualoha Says:

    You have been misinformed. He was never a Stalinist. In fact he criticized Stalin in writing.

    I imagine my points of contention with his file are similar to the points of contention that the King family had with MLK’s FBI file. On one hand, it is a carnival of speculation. On the other hand, the fact that neither were even charged with national security crimes, despite extensive surveillance, absolutely exonerates them.

    Thanks for asking!

  19. nicedeb Says:

    The public record shows that your father was an active propagandist for Stalin’s USSR during and after the war. That makes him a Stalinist.

  20. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere Says:

    On the other hand, the fact that neither were even charged with national security crimes, despite extensive surveillance, absolutely exonerates them.

    Right. Because prosecutors absolutely HAVE to prosecute when they have evidence of a crime being committed. ESPECIALLY when dealing with national security issues, because the crime always overrides any other interest in play, like the perpetrator’s value as a source of information if they continue what they are doing, unmolested. They would never run a “Coventry” scenario or a “Canary Trap”.

    I can’t tell you how many prosecutors I know would be thouroughly amused by your silly assertion.

  21. Kaleokualoha Says:

    Interesting that you would say that. It would make sense if he actually was an informant, as some in the blogosphere assert. He seemed to get a phone line more quickly than others in Hawaii. In his autobiography (“Livin’ The Blues”), he even outlines conversations he had with FBI agents.

    IF he was not an informant, and IF his activity exceeded the threshhold of probable cause, then why would he not have arrested along with the Hawaii Seven under the Smith Act? Is there any plausible explanation other than his activity did NOT provide evidence of criminal behavior?

    As they say on CSI: “Follow The Evidence”!

  22. Ellie Light Says:

    Wow selling red diapers in Hawaii must be very profitable indeed.

    Some of these comments remind me of the children of the Rosenburgs denying their parents were commies.

  23. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere Says:

    Interesting that you would say that. It would make sense if he actually was an informant, as some in the blogosphere assert. He seemed to get a phone line more quickly than others in Hawaii. In his autobiography (“Livin’ The Blues”), he even outlines conversations he had with FBI agents.

    IF he was not an informant, and IF his activity exceeded the threshhold of probable cause, then why would he not have arrested along with the Hawaii Seven under the Smith Act? Is there any plausible explanation other than his activity did NOT provide evidence of criminal behavior?

    Don’t view it as assisting Commerade Daddy, chief. If you understood the comment I made, you would understand that people/connections used for their information don’t always actually know that they are being used for their information, hence the mention of “Coventry”.

    I heard the author on our local drive-time show this afternoon. Made me think a lot about the Venona Papers and “Blacklisted By History”. There were a lot of communists that never got arrested and tried, including those in government, largely because they were protected due to their connections to prominent officials and even Presidents.

    Once again, there are a lot of people who could be prosecuted, but aren’t. Commerade Daddy was just one of many.

  24. Kaleokualoha Says:

    Being a CPUSA member was never illegal. WHY would he have been arrested?

  25. nicedeb Says:

    Your dad’s buddy in HI, ILWU regional director Jack Hall, was convicted under the Smith Act for conspiracy to overthrow the United States Government.

    http://www.conservapedia.com/Frank_Marshall_Davis

    So there’s that.

    But nobody’s ever said your dad was trying to overthrow the US gov (but who knows). It’s a moot point. He was a hardcore Communist who engaged in Stalinist propaganda, and who wrote perverted (possibly autobiographical) porn, and then had influence on the young Barack Obama throughout his teenage years.

    People find that noteworthy and concerning.

  26. nicedeb Says:

    Oh yeah. Your dad was also friends with Vernon Jarrett when they both wrote for the Commie paper, “the Chicago Defender.”

    Even throughout World War II, when the CPUSA "soft-pedaled" the fight against racism the editorial policies of the Defender were virtually indistinguishable from those of the Daily Worker

    http://www.conservapedia.com/Frank_Marshall_Davis

    Now, fellow red diaper baby, Jarrett works closely with Obama in the White House.

  27. Kaleokualoha Says:

    Your source, Conservapedia, is a sewer of delusionary propaganda. Perhaps they “forgot” to mention that the convictions of the Honolulu Seven, including Jack Hall, were overturned by the Supreme Court because they were invalid!

    “Have patience awhile; slanders are not long-lived. Truth is the child of time; erelong she shall appear to vindicate thee.” – Immanuel Kant

  28. nicedeb Says:

    Conservapedia, is a sewer of delusionary propaganda

    Ha. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree, does it?

    As for Jack Hall, whatever, like I said. Moot point.

  29. Lanceman Says:

    Mark, you are a fool. Anybody with an ounce of intelligence knows that ‘not guilty’ is not synonymous with ‘innocence’.
    What was the nature of the ‘invalidity’?
    Bill Ayers was guilty of what he was charged with regardless of screwups by law enforcements that negated any guilty verdict.
    Presumption of innocence under law refers to the state, not to individuals, because only the state can (legally) impose justice where applicable, not any one individual.
    Because a court rules the way it does in no way negates the truth.

  30. Kaleokualoha Says:

    “Nature of the invalidity”?

    “U.S. Supreme Court established a distinction between advocacy of a political doctrine and advocacy of action.” – http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/150/sesq3hawaiiseventrial

    The defendents never advocated such action, and were therefore INNOCENT of violating the Smith Act. They were exonerated of violating the Smith Act, and their conviction was invalid!

    Ad hominem attacks (e.g., “you are a fool”) reflect poorly upon your integrity. Mentioning a conviction without mentioning that it was overturned is a deceptive half-truth, and also reflects poorly upon any source’s integrity.

    “The way to combat noxious ideas is with other ideas. The way to combat falsehoods is with truth.”
    – William O. Douglas

  31. kingsjester Says:

    Now you know why he’s Spam at my blog site. Carry on, Mark. Revisionist history is always fascinating to listen to.

  32. Kaleokualoha Says:

    “Revisionist history is always fascinating to listen to”?

    Really? I’m confused. Are you saying that my statement that the convictions were overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States is “revisionist history”? On the contrary, THIS is revisionist history from Conservapedia: “The national NAACP acted by revoking the local Hawaiian chapter of the NAACP’s charter to prevent Communists from taking over the organization. ”

    In reality, according to the Congressional testimony of Edward Berman, 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.”
    http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/hawaii-obama.pdf (Exhibit 4A)

    Please note that the REAL reason for was that the board officers REFUSED to hold the elections, not “to prevent communists from taking over,” as FALSELY claimed by Conservapedia. Conservapedia’s lie, not my statement, is “revisionist history.” I challenge you to refute this analysis! As they say on CSI: “Follow the evidence.”

    The Conservapedia article contains other falsehoods as well. Conservapedia’s cesspool of lies serves as a roadmap through the delusions of Right-Wing Fantasyland. Care to review other examples of specific misrepresentation (i.e., lies) by Conservapedia? I will be happy to oblige!

    “The first duty of a man is the seeking after and the investigation of truth.” – Cicero (106 BC – 43 BC)

  33. kingsjester Says:

    How do you tell a communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
    -Ronald Reagan

  34. Kaleokualoha Says:

    Gee whiz, guys! Is refuting Conservapedia akin to refuting the Emperor’s New Clothes? Aren’t you interested in assessing the ACCURACY of Conservapedia, or are you comfortable with its Orwellian “Ministry of Truth” behavior?

    I can offer other examples of disinformation against Frank Marshall Davis. Just ask!

    “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” – Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 – 1860)

  35. nicedeb Says:

    Dude. You bore us. Your father’s communist activities are very well documented, and you haven’t been able to refute my post in any way, shape or form.

    Give it a rest.

  36. Kaleokualoha Says:

    “. . . you haven’t been able to refute my post in any way, shape or form.”

    You said he was a “Stalinist,” when in fact he criticized Stalin in writing. According to dictionary.com, a “Stalinist” is someone who is “an advocate or supporter of Stalin or Stalinism.” Since he criticized Stalin in writing, he was NOT an advocate or supporter of Stalin or Stalinism. Therefore, he was not a “Stalinist.” Therefore, your assertion has been refuted!

  37. nicedeb Says:

    That is such a weak point it is laughable. I was a Bush supporter, yet criticized him in writing. Please.

    To say that someone is not a Stalinist just because he once criticized him in writing, when at the same time he was advocating the Stalinist line in his writings is delusional. I’m sorry.

  38. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere Says:

    To say that someone is not a Stalinist just because he once criticized him in writing, when at the same time he was advocating the Stalinist line in his writings is delusional. I’m sorry.

    No, Commerade Daddy’s dear defending boy is the one who is sorry. “Daddy coudn’t have been a commie because he was never arrested and convicted.”

    Yeah. The volumes that say otherwise were just authored by people who had nothing better to do than sit around and make shit up about Commerade Daddy. Whatever.

  39. Kaleokualoha Says:

    ““Daddy coudn’t have been a commie because he was never arrested and convicted”?

    Do you have problems with reading comprehension? On 7 Oct I posted this his CPUSA was not a point of contention, yet you still raise it (red herring). FYI: “Being a commie” is not a crime.

    “Stalinism” is the principles of communism associated with Joseph Stalin, characterized esp. by the extreme suppression of dissident political or ideological views, the concentration of power in one person, and an aggressive international policy. – dictionary.com.

    Unless you have evidence that Davis advocated or supported THIS doctrine, your claim is unsubstantiated and without merit. The fact that AIM’s EXPERT on the life and writings of Davis stated that Davis was NOT a Stalinist is just further proof!

    Frank Marshall Davis was not a Stalinist. Accuracy In Media’s Cliff Kincaid appears to have originated the “Stalinist” fraudulent meme sometime between February and June 2008. In Kincaid’s original (February 2008) attack against Davis (http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-communist-mentor), he does NOT call Davis a “Stalinist.” Kincaid reports that Davis joined the CPUSA during WWII, citing Edgar Tidwell, “an expert on the life and writings of Davis.”

    In June 2008, however, Kincaid starts the “Stalinist” falsehood (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_571431.html). This is where Kincaid explains that he calls Davis a “Stalinist” because “he stayed with the CPUSA after the Hitler-Stalin pact” (1939). This contradicts Kincaid’s February 2008 column, which states Davis did not even JOIN the CPUSA until later. Obviously Davis could not have “stayed with” the CPUSA before he even joined the CPUSA. Obviously, Kincaid’s stated reason is invalid. Evidently, something else changed between February and June 2008, when Kincaid suddenly starts calling Davis a “Stalinist.” Davis suddenly became a “Stalinist” because Cliff Kincaid said so??

    I doubt you will find any references to Davis being a “Stalinist” before Kincaid’s new label. Did the FBI or Congressional investigators consider him a “Stalinist”? Kincaid’s “Stalinist” claim seems to be a classic straw man tactic: exaggeration to produce an easier target.

  40. Kaleokualoha Says:

    BTW: To accept some evidence from Professor Tidwell, yet to reject other evidence on the same subject from Professor Tidwell, is a deceptive technique known as “stacking the evidence.” Ex-D.A. Mike Nifong was disgraced for stacking the evidence, as should anyone else. It is a serious breach of integrity, and reflects poorly upon anyone’s integrity.

    “The first duty of a man is the seeking after and the investigation of truth.” – Cicero (106 BC – 43 BC)

  41. nicedeb Says:

    You’re just repeating yourself, now. The information I’m basing my Stalinist charge on is not Kincaid’s, but Paul Kenger’s, who has spent the last two decades sifting through mountains of evidence to come to that conclusion.

    You should think about buying his book.

  42. Kaleokualoha Says:

    Kengor is not an expert on the life and writings of Davis. Professor Tidwell has MUCH more experience in this are than Kengor, who lacks scholarly objectivity. Kengor is a liar who falsely claimed that the NAACP’s Roy Wilkins criticized Davis, based on the Congressional testimony of Edward Berman.

    But Kengor, a proven liar, is more credible to you? Did Kengor actually say Davis was a “Stalinist”? Any objective analysis would differ, because none of Kengor’s posted analysis of Davis’s writing actually meets the DEFINITION of “Stalinist” (i.e. ” extreme suppression of dissident political or ideological views, the concentration of power in one person, and an aggressive international policy”).

    If you find any primary source evidence (i.e., Davis’s writings) that meets the definition of “Stalinist,” please advise.

    “Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.” – Sir Winston Churchill (1874 – 1965)

  43. Kaleokualoha Says:

    BTW: I just reviewed Kengor’s National Review article, and could not find any mention of “Stalinist.” If this was not Kengor’s conclusion, then is this just YOUR conclusion? That’s not very nice, Deb!

  44. nicedeb Says:

    The fact that he was actively promoting the Stalinist party line in his Frankly speaking columns, as I have said before:

    Stalinism: the political, economic, and social principles and policies associated with Stalin; especially : the theory and practice of communism developed by Stalin from Marxism-Leninism and marked especially by rigid authoritarianism, widespread use of terror, and often emphasis on Russian nationalism. Stalinism.

    http://www.aolsvc.merriam-webster.aol.com/dictionary/stalinist

    Your dad parroted the propaganda coming out of Stalinist USSR during and after the war. He obviously agreed with many of its tenets, if not all of them.

    But Kengor, a proven liar, is more credible to you?

    Trying to destroy the messenger because you don’t like his message is sort of a commie thing to do, isn’t it?

  45. nicedeb Says:

    In sum, a mentor of the current president of the United States was a Communist — and not only a party member, but an actual propagandist for Stalin’s USSR, a man who unceasingly demonized Democratic presidents and their policies and cherished ideals. Even in World War II, Davis was on the wrong side: He was flatly pro-Soviet and anti-American.

    “an actual propagandist for Stalin’s USSR”.

    That would qualify as Stalinist by most definitions.

  46. Lanceman Says:

    I only use ad-hominem attacks when the combatant becomes tedious, a point you reach in spades.
    Denying that your ‘father’ was what we know and believe him to have been, is to deny the very existence of liberalism/progressivism/socialism/communism/totalitarianism/ad nauseum.
    Obama was drawn to like-minded people his entire life including your ‘father’. 20 years in ‘Reverend’ Wright’s ‘church’ is all the indication we need of what kind of man he is.
    I personally do not associate with liberals, street corner blacks,anti-government nutjobs, or anyone else whose views I find unpalatable.
    Guilt by association may be forgivable once, but when a pattern is clearly established like obama has, only one conclusion can be reached.

  47. Kaleokualoha Says:

    “That would qualify as Stalinist by most definitions”? Really? Not according to dictionary.com or Mirriam-Webster!

    Question #1: Please give examples from established dictionaries that support your definition.

    2. If your creative definition (“active propagandist for Stalin’s USSR”) qualifies someone as a Stalinist, then did active propagandists for Kruschev’s USSR make them “Kruschevist”? Were propagandists from Gorbachev’s USSR “Gorbachevists”?

    While Frank Marshall Davis may have suffered from Left-Wing Fantasyland delusions based on Soviet propaganda regarding the “worker’s paradise,” this is not “Stalinism” according to standard definitions, which require more than being a “propagandist for Stalin’s USSR.” They require support for more than Stalin’s USSR. They require advocacy or support of Stalin (a person) or Stalinism (a TYPE of communism)!

    A more sophisticated analysis will distinguish between support for a country and support for political leaders.

    3. By your definition, any propagandist for the United States could be considered an “Obamist,” REGARDLESS of whether they support the particular philosophy that distinguishes Obama from other Presidents. Are all Voice of America workers “Obamists”? Were their predecessors “Bushists”? Please!!

    4. Since it was not Kengor’s conclusion, but yours, that Davis was a “Stalinist,” then upon what basis does YOUR assessment supercede the judgment of AIM’s “expert on the life and writing of Davis,” Professor Tidwell? What are YOUR academic or national security credentials? Why are YOU stacking the evidence?

  48. nicedeb Says:

    Why do you keep leaping to the conclusion that Kengor didn’t consider him a Stalinist when you haven’t even read his book? My strong impression is that a man who parroted the Communist party line during WWII while Stalin was in power —-HIS propaganda….was a Stalinist:
    promoting the “political, economic, and social principles and policies associated with Stalin” . – the Merriam/Webster dictionary definition.

    You are really getting tedious. You’re nitpicking about the definitions of Stalinism is pointless. Your dad was a Communist radical who very unfortunately had too much influence over the young Barack Obama, and now we’re all paying for it.

  49. Kaleokualoha Says:

    Research is tedious. Honest research is even more tedious. I learned that during my years as an Air Force Intelligence Officer.

    I am searching for the ORIGIN of your posted claim that he was a “Stalinist.” Are you just repeating Kengor’s claim, or did you reach that conclusion yourself? It’s such an important claim that I believe it would have been posted in his online article IF he ever made it.

    In the absence of such evidence, and in the absence of any other link to YOUR source, it appears that this was YOUR conclusion, not his. If so, then you are contradicting AIM’s expert on the life and writings of Davis.

    As posted above: “When asked to substantiate their conclusions, we may encounter bluster, red herrings, and ad hominem attacks more often than rational, focused answers.” Are you the exception to this pattern?

    Once again, please provide your exact SOURCE of this “Stalinist” claim in a rational, focused answer. Thanks!

    “Truth is generally the best vindication against slander.”
    – Abraham Lincoln

  50. Kaleokualoha Says:

    YOU WROTE: “But Kengor, a proven liar, is more credible to you?

    Trying to destroy the messenger because you don’t like his message is sort of a commie thing to do, isn’t it?

    RESPONSE: I almost missed this one. I am trying to “destroy the messenger” not because I “don’t like his message.” “Liking” is not even a factor. I am attacking Kengor because he is a proven LIAR regarding my father. Why is this so difficult to understand?

    Based on Berman’s testimony, he claimed that Roy Wilkins criticized my father. That was an absolute lie, one of four different (and conflicting) AIM misrepresentations of Berman’s testimony. Is this “nitpicking”? Do we need to review Berman’s testimony again?

  51. nicedeb Says:

    #1 Kenger is not a proven liar just because you say so.

    #2 AGAIN, I’m going by the dictionary definition of the word Stalinist, and the published data that has been collected that points to his being a Stalinist, as I keep telling you. You refuse to accept this, because obfuscation is your stock and trade, and you keep trying to make the issue more nuanced, and complex than it is.

    I am through allowing my blog to be a vehicle for your propaganda.

    One of the neat things about having a blog is I get to have the last word, and this is it.

    Hasta la vista, baby.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  • Blog Stats

    • 4,587,087 hits
  • free counters
  • Is your cat plotting to kill you?
  • Follow

    Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

    Join 507 other followers

    %d bloggers like this: