# History Reveals Progressives as Dupes!



## PoliticalChic (Dec 6, 2010)

Historian and tireless researcher, Dr. Paul Kangor has written another book destined to be a NYTimes blockbuster: *DUPES: How Americas Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.*

The following is from an interview he did with the Daily Caller:

 1.  Why did you write the book?
I know people will think I wrote it to be polemical or sensational, but the fact is that I would have never had this idea if I hadnt been regularly reading *Soviet archives *for previous projects, and especially the Soviet Comintern Archives on CPUSA that is, Communist Party USA. There are hundreds of reels of microfiche from this archive just sitting on shelves at the Library of Congress: This material is shocking, fully vindicating the worst fears and claims of anti-communists throughout the 20th century. It shows not only that American communists were secretly serving the Soviet Union, but that they considered themselves loyal Soviet patriots. They were absolutely, unequivocally dedicated to the goal of worldwide communism, headquartered in Moscow, with the United States itself becoming a communist state. 

2. I have all of the weekly columns written by *Obamas mentor, Frank Marshall Davis*, for the 1949-50 Honolulu Record, which was the CPUSA organ in Hawaii. These columns are unbelievably outrageous. Davis toed the Stalinist line unerringly, perfectly parroting every talking point of the Communist Party. This means that Davis demonized the Democratic Party leadership opposing Stalin at the time. Davis turned Harry Truman into a monster,  Our current presidents mentor in Hawaii in the 1970s was a pro-Soviet communist. Americans, voting for change, voted Daviss pupil president in November 2008.

3. Beyond Davis, the material on *Ted Kennedy *is likewise shocking. I include the entire May 1983 KGB document on Kennedys private offer to Yuri Andropov  an offer to work against Ronald Reagan. The letter has since been resealed in Russian archives. We publish it in its entirety in both Russian and English.

4. *John Deweys *deep admiration for the Soviet Union in the late 1920s, and the fact that the Bolsheviks were busy translating Deweys education works into Russian even before they swept American public schools and trained a century of American public-school teachers. Dewey is the father of modern American public education. The Soviets adored his work, believing* it was perfect for a communist state*

We also have documents and testimonies and quotes on all sorts of other figures: Upton Sinclair, Benjamin Spock, H.G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, Arthur Miller, Lillian Hellman, Howard Zinn, Walter Cronkite, and a rich cast of dupes from Hollywood  Katharine Hepburn, Gene Kelly, Judy Garlandamong others.

5. .  The book discusses *Jimmy Carters *record of dealing with Communism and Islamism. Impressive record, right?

Horrible. Jimmy Carter is the bridge between those two threats, making a seamless transition from being duped during the Cold War to being duped into the War on Terror. Carters actions and comments regarding Leonid Brezhnev (USSR) and the Ayatollah (Iran) in 1979  the latters Islamic revolution basically birthing modern Islamic terrorism  were repeated again and again by Carter well after his presidency. For instance, see his post-Cold War comments on the likes of Kim in North Korea, Hamas, Iraq, the Palestinians. Its no coincidence that the cover of this book features Carter kissing Leonid Brezhnev in June 1979  just a few months before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, incidentally. 

5.  Who are the *biggest dupes in government today*?
Those would be politicians like *Dick Durbin, John Kerry*, Pete Stark, Barbara Lee, and Maxine Waters. The duping in the War on Terror, however, is quite different. ... Its an unwitting form of assistance. Thats what a dupe does: unwittingly, unknowingly helps the adversary.

That said, there has been some *deliberate manipulation by the enemy in the War on Terror.* For instance, the way that Congressman Jim McDermott was rolled by Saddam Husseins crew in Baghdad in late 2002 is disturbing. I detail that at length in the book.

6.  Your research uncovers *Soviet records that show that it was a specific policy of the Soviet Union to target liberals, especially academics and the leftwing religious figures.* Can you explain this further?

Those were the two groups most successfully targeted by communists. On page 65, I include a 1920 letter from the Comintern listing *four pages of liberal college professors *to be targeted with communist materials. Among them, by the way, is Dr. Harry F. Ward, the liberal Methodist who was one of the *founding members of the ACLU. *Ward was one of the biggest dupes I encountered in all of my research.

Generally, the* Religious Left *is a tragic case. Herb Romerstein, the veteran investigator of the communist movement and authority on the Venona papers, calls the Religious Left *the biggest suckers of them all. *It would be laughable if it werent so tragic. These liberal Christians were sheep led to the slaughter. The brooding communists privately held them in contempt for their breathtaking gullibility.

7.   Explain *the harm that these progressive dupes have caused*? And when you say they have aided Americas enemies, do you believe this was their intention?

It wasnt their intention. Thats the very essence of being duped: youre unwittingly misled. A dupe has been deliberately manipulated  preyed by those with concealed purposes not disclosed to the dupe. This can have the ultimate effect of helping the enemy, ...

The dupes are culpable, to some degree, but they are really innocent. Theyre oblivious.
10 questions with DUPES author Paul Kengor | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment


----------



## jillian (Dec 6, 2010)

you read too much rightwingnut garbage. it's rotting your brain. *shakes head*


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 6, 2010)

jillian said:


> you read too much rightwingnut garbage. it's rotting your brain. *shakes head*



Oh, shucks....I guess that means you won't want a copy for Chanukah...??

But...you don't doubt every historical reference in the tome, do you?

(If you change your mind, Amazon: DUPES: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century [Hardcover]
Paul Kengor  
$19.77)


----------



## California Girl (Dec 6, 2010)

jillian said:


> you read too much rightwingnut garbage. it's rotting your brain. *shakes head*



He may be a conservative, but he's a pretty smart guy... at least what he claims is fact, actually is fact. His research is impressive and, while you may not like what he has to say, you might want to read some of his shit before you assume he's a rightwingnut.


----------



## rdean (Dec 6, 2010)

I got this far and then I couldn't go on anymore.  It was just too stupid.

*Ayatollah (Iran) in 1979 &#8212; the latter&#8217;s Islamic revolution basically birthing modern Islamic terrorism*

What started "modern Islamic Terrorism" was the discovery of "Middle Eastern Oil".  Did that really need to be explained to right wing nitwits?  Guess so.  Talk about "dupes".  I bet the majority of Republicans still believe Saddam was behind 9/11.


----------



## California Girl (Dec 6, 2010)

rdean said:


> I got this far and then I couldn't go on anymore.  It was just too stupid.
> 
> *Ayatollah (Iran) in 1979  the latters Islamic revolution basically birthing modern Islamic terrorism*
> 
> What started "modern Islamic Terrorism" was the discovery of "Middle Eastern Oil".  Did that really need to be explained to right wing nitwits?  Guess so.  Talk about "dupes".  I bet the majority of Republicans still believe Saddam was behind 9/11.



 You're so dumb it's actually funny.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Dec 6, 2010)

Progressive = Useful Idiot.


----------



## Revere (Dec 6, 2010)

Hmm.  Oil was discovered in lots of places in the world, but the only place in the world the discovery of oil created terrorism was the Middle East.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 7, 2010)

rdean said:


> I got this far and then I couldn't go on anymore.  It was just too stupid.
> 
> *Ayatollah (Iran) in 1979  the latters Islamic revolution basically birthing modern Islamic terrorism*
> 
> What started "modern Islamic Terrorism" was the discovery of "Middle Eastern Oil".  Did that really need to be explained to right wing nitwits?  Guess so.  Talk about "dupes".  I bet the majority of Republicans still believe Saddam was behind 9/11.



Deanie- you read?  You actually read!!!
Hey...are you just braggin'?

I'm not sure what the Lexile rating is for this book, but I'm pretty sure it's beyond yours...you might want to check this out:

"Enter your Lexile measure, select your interests, and find books you'd like to read!"
The Lexile Framework for Reading | Lexile.com


----------



## Granny (Dec 7, 2010)

Sounds like a book I need to put on my reading "wish list" - which seems to have lengthened rapidly the last couple of years.


----------



## Micky G. Jagger (Dec 7, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> Americas Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives... have all of the weekly columns written by Obamas mentor, Frank Marshall Davis.


Frank Marshall Davis wasn't Obama's trusted counselor or guide.


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 7, 2010)

Some right wing townhall guys book about commies coming out of the woodwork is not my idea of a scholorly read.

Hes a religious nutter who hates half of his own countrymen.

merry christmas con style.


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 7, 2010)

God and Ronald Reagan: A Spiritual Life by Paul Kengor

Hes got a series of these books about God and so and so.

I do not trust this guys accessment of any historical document.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 7, 2010)

Micky G. Jagger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Americas Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives... have all of the weekly columns written by Obamas mentor, Frank Marshall Davis.
> ...



"In his memoir Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama wrote about "Frank", a friend of his grandfather's. "Frank" told Obama that he and Stanley (Obama's maternal grandfather) both had grown up only 50 miles apart, near Wichita, although they did not meet until Hawaii. He described the way race relations were back then, including Jim Crow, and his view that there had been little progress since then. As Obama remembered, "It made me smile, *thinking back on Frank and his old Black Power, dashiki self. *In some ways he was as incurable as my mother, as certain in his faith, living in the same sixties time warp that Hawaii had created."[19] Obama also *remembered Frank *later in life when he took a job in South Chicago as a community organizer and took some time one day to *visit the areas where Frank had lived and wrote in his book,* "I imagined Frank in a baggy suit and wide lapels, standing in front of the old Regal Theatre, waiting to see Duke or Ella emerge from a gig." [20]

In the opinion of Gerald Horne, a contributing editor to the CPUSA publication Political Affairs,* Davis was "a decisive influence in helping Obama to find his present identity"* as an African-American.[21] Claims that *Davis was a political influence on Obama *were made by Jerome Corsi in his anti-Obama book The Obama Nation.[22] A rebuttal released by Obama's presidential campaign, titled Unfit for Publication, *confirmed that "Frank" was Frank Marshall Davis, *but disputes those claims about the nature of their relationship.[23]

20.^ Barack Obama, Dreams from My Father, Paper Back Edition, Chapter 8, Page 145
21.^ Gerald Horne, Rethinking the History and Future of the Communist Party, Political Affairs Magazine, March 28, 2007 (deleted from Political Affairs Magazine website; but still available at Archive.org)
22.^ The Obama Nation, Jerome Corsi, p. 85, Simon and Schuster (2008)
23.^ Unfit for Publication (pdf)
Frank Marshall Davis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"In
his books, Obama admits attending socialist conferences and coming into
contact with Marxist literature. But he ridicules the charge of being a
hard-core academic Marxist, which was made by his colorful and outspoken 2004
U.S. Senate opponent, Republican Alan Keyes.

However,
*through Frank Marshall Davis, Obama had an admitted relationship with someone
who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). *The
record shows that Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where,
at some point in time, he developed *a close relationship, almost like a son,
with Davis, *listening to his poetry and getting
advice on his career path. But *Obama, in his book, Dreams From My Father, refers to him repeatedly as just Frank.*

The
reason is apparent: *Davis was a known communist
who belonged to a party subservient to the Soviet Union.* In fact, the 1951
report of the Commission on Subversive Activities to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii identified him as a
CPUSA member."
Obamas Communist Mentor


"Maya Soetoro-Ng, Obama's half-sister, told the Associated Press recently that her grandfather had seen *Mr Davis was a "point of connection, a bridge if you will, to the larger African-American experience for my brother". *Confederate Yankee: Obama Mentor Frank Marshall Davis an Admitted Child Rapist


Feel free to retract your post.


----------



## Ravi (Dec 7, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> Micky G. Jagger said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Your post proves you wrong and Micky correct.


----------



## editec (Dec 7, 2010)

Yeah those Soviets duped the bejesus out of us, didn't they?

That must be why they're the only superpower left standing, I guess.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 7, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Some right wing townhall guys book about commies coming out of the woodwork is not my idea of a scholorly read.
> 
> Hes a religious nutter who hates half of his own countrymen.
> 
> merry christmas con style.



Just thought you might be interested in the opinions of some other folks, those who read the book.  From Amazon.com...

"I can't emphasize how impressed I was when I looked at the endnotes of this book. Students of history will appreciate the fact that nearly all of the sources used in this book are primary! A rare find for an academic book these days! The author gives everyone, those who will agree and disagree with him, the chance to look at publicly available sources and draw their own conclusions. As a result, I could hardly disagree with any of his conclusions."

" Professor Kengor's latest scholarly, thoroughly documented work, based upon recently released Soviet archives and FBI files, provides powerful evidence of how a number of American liberals directly contributed to the advancement of world-wide Communism - doubtless history's deadliest ideology, ultimately claiming more than 100 million lives. "

"As with all of Professor Kengor's books, Dupes is well written, thoroughly researched and thought-provoking. Moreover, he has, with this book, performed a great historical and public service - helping us to better understand the threat we still face as a nation, as our leaders choose to let their ideology, rather than the overwhelming evidence laid out clearly before them, guide their foreign policy decision-making."

"Dr. Kengor, through much fact sifting, proves why he is an authority on communist era history."

"The book is extremely well-researched by a brave historian and has many photos of the documents examined-here for the first time-and should serve as a warning for both camps,the Left and the Right,about the way the adversaries of America have succeeded-and still continue-in manipulating the brains of those who are naive enough to believe lies."


And, Ms. Truthie, knowing how you like to be fully informed, I have no doubt you will be reading the book shortly.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 7, 2010)

The best part, for which I give the Soviets boatloads of credit, is that the vast majority of the Democrats can't even tell their party was body snatched by Moscow.

I admire the grace and elegance of taking over an entire political party and having 98% of its members seamless support the new organization.

Kudos to Moscow!


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 7, 2010)

Only a "useful idiot" would consider the Soviets a reliable source!


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 7, 2010)

Ravi said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Micky G. Jagger said:
> ...



Ravi- you been drinkin' again????


----------



## Ravi (Dec 7, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


No, but you've been lying again...or maybe just being stupid, it is very hard to tell.


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 7, 2010)

When will these people learn it is NOT illegal to be a communist in America?

There were very few black people in hawaii and this man was a successful black poet.

Highly educated and knew American black history.

Obamas Grand parents wanted him to know other black people.

The man had kids that were likely Obamas age.

To try and create an image of Obama as some fucking commie because he knew a man who was a commie is just how stupid this idiot writer is.

The writer is a far worse person than this old black poet.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 7, 2010)

Ravi said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Time to send Ravi back to school...

Shall we review?

1. Mikey G said "Frank Marshall Davis wasn't Obama's trusted counselor or guide."

2. I blew that mistake out of the water with linked references...

3. Poor Ravi chimed in with the clearly erroneous "Your post proves you wrong and Micky correct."

4. Now, I couldn't allow that, so I inqured as to Ravi's state of inebriation...

5. But Ravi, hard wired to the liberal jargon, responded with " lying again" and the vituperative "just being stupid"...so it becomes incumbent upon me to prove to whom those titles belong:

a. We take from Obama's "thinking back on Frank and his old Black Power, dashiki self"...that Frank was firmly implanted in his mind.

b. And, "remembered Frank" implies the same.

c. Again by Obama, "visit the areas where Frank had lived and wrote in his book," gives us the understanding of how well he knew Frank, and the impressions Frank had on him. After all, how many times have you felt the need to re-live episodes from an acquaintance's life? Visited their former habitats?

d. And "Davis was "a decisive influence in helping Obama to find his present identity" provides third party documentation that Frank was Obama's "...Obama's trusted counselor or guide."

e. And an author's further research reveals that Frank "Davis was a political influence on Obama," and I  contend that this also documents that Frank was Obama's "...Obama's trusted counselor or guide."

f. Lest there be any doubt that the 'Frank' in the Obama book was, in fact, Frank Marshall Davis, we find "Obama's presidential campaign, titled Unfit for Publication, confirmed that "Frank" was Frank Marshall Davis,"

g. Study the words in the next link, " a close relationship, almost like a son,
with Davis."  Is there any doubt that a father would logically be considered to be a "trusted counselor or guide."?

Need more, or are you grinding your teeth already?

h. OK...how about one more: Obama's half-sister also adds testimony in "Mr Davis was a "point of connection, a bridge if you will, to the larger African-American experience for my brother". 


So, poor Ravi, it seems that the terms 'lying' and 'stupid' have come back to bite you in the posterior, eh?

Now, here is a chance to retrieve some sense of honor from this episode: simply apologize.


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 7, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> Micky G. Jagger said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



If Jerome Corsi said it, then it _MUST _be true!


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 7, 2010)

jillian said:


> you read too much rightwingnut garbage. it's rotting your brain. *shakes head*



I'm telling you people, her goal is to cut and paste the entire internet onto USMB.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 7, 2010)

The day after Obama agrees to an uber-rightwing tax plan,  

accusing him of being a Communist would be...

what?

...an extremely brilliant parody?

Considering the source, unfortunately, no...


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 7, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> The day after Obama agrees to an uber-rightwing tax plan,
> 
> accusing him of being a Communist would be...
> 
> ...



Carby, you evince an amazing consistency: you never really contribute anything to a discussion....

At least it keeps you off the street corner.


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 7, 2010)

What a fucking hack you are PC.

He provides far more facts than you do.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 7, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> What a fucking hack you are PC.
> 
> He provides far more facts than you do.



Can you provide them?


----------



## Ravi (Dec 7, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> edited for conciseness:


PC, you have found a few passing comments by Obama and several by other people expressing an opinion.

None of them add up to this dude being Obama's mentor in the least.

I can assume correctly that the book you are peddling is full of hysterical bullshit.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 7, 2010)

Ravi said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > edited for conciseness:
> ...




"...you have found a few passing comments by Obama and several by other people..."
Glad you found that 'lying' and 'stupid' were out of place.

"I can assume ..."

Now, Ravi, surely you know what they say about assuming?

When you assume, you make an ass out of u and me.
~ Oscar Wilde on Assumption

Rather than assume, wouldn't the scholarly technique be to read the book and see if you could find said errors?

Don't be afraid.


----------



## WillowTree (Dec 7, 2010)

editec said:


> Yeah those Soviets duped the bejesus out of us, didn't they?
> 
> That must be why they're the only superpower left standing, I guess.



No, but George Bush did. that's why we call ya's DUmmies.


----------



## Ravi (Dec 7, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


When you've already posted one glaring lie from the book there is no need to read the book.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 7, 2010)

Ravi said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



You have yet to uncover any 'glaring lies.'

No, your posts indicate, to me, the fear that one's worldview is built on a base of sand, and it is slowly sifting away...

I blame President Obama for that...you were so happy with his election, and so sure that he had the right stuff...

Your posts were so self-assured back then, challenging, and abrasive...
It was fun answering them.

Now there seem to be fewer such voices on the board, and the ones remaining seem toned down.

Takes a little energy out of the debate.


----------



## rikules (Dec 7, 2010)

jillian said:


> you read too much rightwingnut garbage. it's rotting your brain. *shakes head*



progressives fought the british and helped to create the good ole USA
progressives are the ones who helped free the slave
progressives helped bring (relative equality) for blacks
progressives fought for  womens' suffrage
progressives helped get women into the armed forces and out of the kitchen
progressives helped gays come out of the closet and into our communities
progressives help get rid of illogical and repressive religious laws


historically speaking progressives are beating the pants off of conservatives

it's as bad as last nights pats/jets score

progressives 45, conservatives 3


----------



## Ravi (Dec 7, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Sure I have. He claimed someone was Obama's mentor and the someone was not. 

As for Obama, I was happy he won because Palin is a toad...and that is the one and only reason I voted for him.


----------



## logical4u (Dec 7, 2010)

The far left are NOT interested in history or facts.  If they are presented with either, they yell their mantra louder.  They never learned that wisdom and intelligence are two, very different things.  Thanks for the post.


----------



## Kaleokualoha (Dec 7, 2010)

Analysis of Kengor&#8217;s &#8220;Dupes&#8221; suggests that Kengor is still falsifying evidence against Davis, afterr LYING about Davis's involvement in the 1949 Honolulu NAACP incident.  Now it seems that contrary to Davis&#8217;s actual 1950 &#8220;Frank-ly Speaking&#8221; column ("Free Enterprise or Socialism" at hawaii.edu/uhwo/clear/HonoluluRecord1/frankblog1950.html), Kengor indicates that Davis SUPPORTED socialism, when in fact Davis REJECTED socialism (i.e., letting &#8220;the government own and operate our major industries&#8221. Davis said socialism was a &#8220;HORROR&#8221;! 

Davis said that we didn&#8217;t have free enterprise any more. Davis supported small businessmen, which he considered a &#8220;casualty&#8221; of monopolies. He said they are the BACKBONE of free enterprise.&#8221; He said we had to decide to OUST the monopolies, which were driving us down the road to ruin, and restore a competing system of free enterprise. In the ACTUAL&#8221;Free Enterprise or Socialism&#8221; column from which Kengor stacks his evidence, Davis wrote:

&#8220;As for free enterprise, it doesn&#8217;t live here any more. At the same time we have manufactured a national horror of socialism. Meanwhile, the dictatorship of the monopolies is driving us down the road to ruin. And so, with still rising unemployment and a mounting depression, the time draws nearer when we will have to decide to oust the monopolies and restore a competing system of free enterprise, or let the government own and operate our major industries.&#8221;

&#8220;Backbone of Free Enterprise Broken: In this control by monopoly, the small businessman, the backbone of free enterprise, has been a casualty. He cannot compete against the tremendous financial reserves of the huge monopolies, and thus we find more and more forced into bankruptcy or absorbed by the monopolies. Those small businessmen who supported the Marshall Plan have been unable to get but a pittance of orders, for here it&#8217;s the Big Boys Who, through their contacts with official Washington, walk off with the fat contracts.&#8221;

I encourage everyone to compare the original source material with Kengor&#8217;s misrepresentation of that same source, both in this case and in his misrepresentation of the 1949 Honolulu NAACP incident.  (Kengor falsely claimed that the NAACP's Roy Wilkins criticized Davis, when in reality it was a rookie Honolulu NAACP board member who criticized Davis.)

BTW:  I'm glad that PoliticalChic likes historical references, because I have documented my analysis of the disinformation campaign against the Obama-Davis relationship.  Paul Kengor and AIM's Cliff Kincaid are only the tip of the iceberg.

&#8220;Truth is generally the best vindication against slander.&#8221;
&#8211; Abraham Lincoln


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 7, 2010)

Kaleokualoha said:


> Analysis of Kengors Dupes suggests that Kengor is still falsifying evidence against Davis, afterr LYING about Davis's involvement in the 1949 Honolulu NAACP incident.  Now it seems that contrary to Daviss actual 1950 Frank-ly Speaking column ("Free Enterprise or Socialism" at hawaii.edu/uhwo/clear/HonoluluRecord1/frankblog1950.html), Kengor indicates that Davis SUPPORTED socialism, when in fact Davis REJECTED socialism (i.e., letting the government own and operate our major industries). Davis said socialism was a HORROR!
> 
> Davis said that we didnt have free enterprise any more. Davis supported small businessmen, which he considered a casualty of monopolies. He said they are the BACKBONE of free enterprise. He said we had to decide to OUST the monopolies, which were driving us down the road to ruin, and restore a competing system of free enterprise. In the ACTUALFree Enterprise or Socialism column from which Kengor stacks his evidence, Davis wrote:
> 
> ...



Now this is the kind of post that all who disagree should be able to organize!

Bravo...rep on the way.

BTW, your link doesn't seem to work.

Also, the proponderance of information that I have seen runs counter to the import of yours..

For example:

"Frank Marshall Davis (1905-1987) was a black poet and writer (he *wrote for the Honolulu Record, a Communist newspaper), and a known member of the Soviet-controlled Communist Party USA (CPUSA).* Accuracy in Media editor Cliff Kincaid has done important investigative work detailing Davis' Communist ties.

Davis' good friend Paul Robeson, who himself was a dedicated *Stalinist,* persuaded him in 1948 to move to Honoloulu, Hawaii. In 1950 Edward Berman, a member of the NAACP's Honolulu branch, *testified to the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) that Davis had "sneaked" into local NAACP meetings to "propagandize" the organization's members about America's "racial problems," with "the avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line."*

*Davis was identified unequivocally as a CPUSA member in a 1951 report of the Commission on Subversive Activities *to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii (CSALTH), which, along with HUAC, also charged that Davis was affiliated with a number of *communist-front organizations*. According to Max Friedman, a former undercover member of several Communist-controlled "anti-war" groups, Davis testified in 1956 before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee and *took the Fifth Amendment when asked about his Communist Party membership.*In the 1970s Davis met a teenage Barack Obama and his family, who also lived in Hawaii. Davis soon became the young man's mentor and advisor.

In his 1995 book, Dreams From My Father, *Obama writes about Davis *but does not reveal the latter's full name, identifying him only as "a poet named Frank" -- a man with much "hard-earned knowledge" who had known "some modest notoriety once" and was "a contemporary of Richard Wright and Langston Hughes during his years in Chicago," but was now "pushing eighty." (Several sources -- including Professor Gerald Horne, Dr. Kathryn Takara, and libertarian writer Trevor Loudon -- have confirmed that Obama's "Frank" was indeed Frank Marshall Davis.)

Obama in his book recounts how, just prior to heading off to Occidental College in 1979, he *spent some time with "Frank *and his old Black Power dashiki self." Says Obama, "Frank" told him that college was merely "an advanced degree in compromise," and cautioned him *not to "start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that sh--."*

Davis also told Obama, "What I'm trying to tell you is you [white] grandma's right to be scared.... She understands that black people have a reason to hate. That's just how it is. For your sake, I wish it were otherwise. But it's not. So you might as well get used to it."

Davis penned many poems during his lifetime. One of them, titled "*To the Red Army," hailed the Soviet revolution and condemned the "rich industrialists"* in Washington DC and London who allegedly wanted Hitler and the Nazis to "wipe Communism from the globe."

*Davis also wrote poems deriding traditional Christianity*. In some of these compositions, Davis called Christ "a Dixie ******" who was nothing more than "another New White Hope"; he derided Christians as hypocrites "who buy righteousness like groceries"; and he spoke of Africans being killed with a "Christian gun" by missionaries following "the religion of Sweet Jesus," rather than by a spear."
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2323
(emphasis mine)

I, also, encourage all to do their own research as to the alleged "disinformation campaign against the Obama-Davis relationship," and believe that they will come away believing that there is no such campaign, rather ther is even more about the relationship that I chose not to go into.

Hope to see more of your work.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 7, 2010)

rikules said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > you read too much rightwingnut garbage. it's rotting your brain. *shakes head*
> ...



Rik-o, you're such a nice guy...

pity no knowledge goes with that character trait.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 7, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> What a fucking hack you are PC.
> 
> He provides far more facts than you do.



OMG, it's three hours since I asked Ms. Truthie to provide some of those facts....

nothing but the sound of crickets...

I hope nothing (serious) happened to her!


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 7, 2010)

Ravi said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Toad???

I'll give you 'toad'!

His name is Biden!
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE4D91F3CF931A1575AC0A961948260
 "Last night during the Vice Presidential debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin, Senator Biden made a comment about finding out what the folks on Main Street think:
&#8220;Look, all you have to do is go down Union Street with me in Wilmington or go to Katie&#8217;s Restaurant or walk into Home Depot with me where I spend a lot of time and you ask anybody in there whether or not the economic and foreign policy of this administration has made them better off in the last eight years.&#8221;
It turns out that Katie&#8217;s Italian restaurant in Wilmington closed down in the 1980&#8217;s, according to delawareonline.com."

From a 1987 NY Times piece about Biden's resume.
On Sunday night, Mr. Biden said emphatically that he intended to remain a candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination. ''I think if I can get by the next week, I can pull out of this if I can just get my story across,'' he said.
Most of Mr. Biden's statement was in response to a report in this week's issue of Newsweek magazine on a tape recording made by the C-SPAN network of an appearance by Mr. Biden at a home in Claremont, N.H., on April 3. It was a typical coffee-klatch style appearance before a small group. The network regularly records and broadcasts such events as part of its coverage of the Presidential campaign.

The tape, which was made available by C-SPAN in response to a reporter's request, showed a testy exchange in response to *a question about his law school record *from a man identified only as ''Frank.'' Mr. Biden looked at his questioner and said: *''I think I have a much higher I.Q. than you do.''*

He then went on to say that he* ''went to law school on a full academic scholarship - the only one in my class to have a full academic scholarship,'' *Mr. Biden said. He also said that he *''ended up in the top half'' of his class and won a prize in an international moot court competition. *In college, Mr. Biden said in the appearance, *he was ''the outstanding student in the political science department'' and ''graduated with three degrees from college.'' *

Comments on Assertions
*In his statement today*, Mr. Biden, who attended the Syracuse College of Law and graduated 76th in a class of 85, acknowledged: ''I* did not graduate in the top half *of my class at law school and my recollection of this was inacurate.''

*As for receiving three degrees,* Mr. Biden said: ''I graduated from the University of Delaware with a double major in history and political science. My reference to degrees at the Claremont event was intended to refer to these majors - I said 'three' and should have said 'two.' '' Mr. *Biden received a single B.A. in history and political science*.

''With regard to my being the outstanding student in the political science department,'' the statement went on. ''My name was put up for that award by David Ingersoll, who is still at the University of Delaware.''

In the Sunday interview, Mr. Biden said of *his claim that he went to school on full academic scholarship:* ''My recollection is - and I'd have to confirm this - but I don't recall paying any money to go to law school.'' Newsweek said Mr. Biden had gone to Syracuse ''on* half scholarship based on financial need.*'' 

Says He Also Received Grant
In his statement today, Mr. Biden did not directly dispute this, but said he received a scholarship from the Syracuse University College of Law ''based in part on academics'' as well as a grant from the Higher Education Scholarship Fund of the state of Delaware. He said the law school ''arranged for my first year's room and board by placing me as an assitant resident adviser in the undergraduate school.''
As for the moot court competition, Mr. Biden said he had won such a competition, with a partner, in Kingston, Ontario, on Dec. 12, 1967.

Mr. Biden acknowledged that in the testy exchange in New Hampshire, he had lost his temper. ''I exaggerate when I'm angry,'' Mr. Biden said, ''but I've never gone around telling people things that aren't true about me.'' Mr. Biden's questioner had made the query in a mild tone, but provoked an explosive response from Mr. Biden. 'Legitimate Questions of Press'
As for the continued, minute probing of his past, Mr. Biden told The Times: ''I guess every single word I've ever said is going to be dissected now.''

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977444712
 Biden attended the University of Delaware in Newark,[10] where *by his own later description he was a lazy student;*[11] He graduated with a double major in history and political science in 1965,[2] ranked *506th of 688 in his class*.[12] He went on to receive his J.D. from Syracuse University College of Law in 1968,[10] where *by his own description he again underperformed and ranked 76th of 85 students.*[11][13] He was admitted to the Delaware Bar in 1969.[10]

http://www.cdobs.com/archive/our-co...nitely-a-characterbut-does-he-have-character/
 On April 3, 1987, at a campaign stop in Claremont, New Hampshire, a voter named Frank innocently asked Biden what law school he attended and how he performed there. &#8220;I think I have a much higher IQ than you do,&#8221; Biden, who went to Syracuse University College of Law, answered. &#8220;I went to law school on a full academic scholarship.&#8221; He told the astonished man that while he admittedly did not do well his first year because he didn&#8217;t want to be in law school, he did much better his second and third years and &#8220;ended up in the top half&#8221; of his class. I won the international moot-court competition.&#8221;
*Without being asked, Biden then boasted about his performance in college *(at the University of Delaware), telling Frank that he had been named the &#8220;outstanding student in the political-science department. . . I graduated with three degrees from college . . . And I&#8217;d be delighted to sit back and *compare my IQ to yours *if you&#8217;d like, Frank.&#8221;
*There were a number of lies in this outburst and it was not long before they too were enumerated:*

&#8212;Biden got in trouble in 1965, during his first year in law school. He wrote a paper in which *he lifted five pages verbatim from the Fordham Law Review. He was given an &#8220;F&#8221; *in the course. He managed to avoid being bounced from law school, retook the course and earned a &#8220;B.&#8221; (He *had to repeat two other law school courses*, although not for plagiarizing.)

&#8212;He claimed that he was &#8220;the only one in my class to have a full academic scholarship.&#8221; He didn&#8217;t. He did have a half scholarship that was need based.
&#8212;He did not graduate from law school in the top half of his class. He graduated 76th out of 85&#8212;and he was near the bottom of his class all three years.
&#8212;*If he won the moot court competition&#8212;and he claimed at the time that he actually did&#8212;he did not put it on his resume, surprising for a man prone to so egregiously exaggerating his accomplishments. *

&#8212;He did not win the award for being the outstanding student in the political science department at Delaware, and he graduated with one degree, not three. He had a *&#8220;C&#8221; *average and graduated 506th in a class of 688.
At the time, he told a reporter, &#8220;I exaggerate when I&#8217;m angry.&#8221;

KSLA News 12 Shreveport, Louisiana |Reality check for Vice President Joe Biden
Biden gives wrong figures on unemployment in La. 
__________________



If you look up toad in the dictionary you will see Biden's pic.


----------



## Kaleokualoha (Dec 7, 2010)

PoliticalChic:  Sorry, the link did not work because new members cannot post complete links until after 15 posts.  Please just post the "hawaii . . ." into your browser.

BTW:  Your sources provide conflicting information because they are not primary sources (i.e., Davis's own words).


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 7, 2010)

Kaleokualoha said:


> PoliticalChic:  Sorry, the link did not work because new members cannot post complete links until after 15 posts.  Please just post the "hawaii . . ." into your browser.
> 
> BTW:  Your sources provide conflicting information because they are not primary sources (i.e., Davis's own words).



I did, and the essays were interesting...but over all, ther is a 'red tint' to some...check out April 20 & 27

And his support for Bridges is suspect, no?


----------



## Kaleokualoha (Dec 7, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> Kaleokualoha said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic:  Sorry, the link did not work because new members cannot post complete links until after 15 posts.  Please just post the "hawaii . . ." into your browser.
> ...



There is no doubt that Davis supported communists and published in communist-front journals.  But Davis did NOT believe in collectivism.  He even said that he would ally with the devil himself if it would help fight Jim Crow. But that is not the issue.  The issue is Davis's influence over Obama.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 7, 2010)

Kaleokualoha said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Kaleokualoha said:
> ...



"...no doubt that Davis supported communists and published in communist-front journals.  But Davis did NOT believe in collectivism."
That is pretty much the definition of syncretic.

Are you claiming that they had no relationship?

Some? How much?

And, are you aware of the other rumors?


----------



## Kaleokualoha (Dec 7, 2010)

I believe their relationship is accurately outlined in "Dreams."  No more.  No less.

University of Kansas Professor Edgar Tidwell, commonly acknowledged as an expert on the life and writing of Davis, writes that THESE were the radical goals of Frank Marshall Davis:

		(1) integration of armed forces

		(2) integration of AFL and CIO

		(3)  fair wages and other benefits for workers

		(4)  general dismantling of all laws supporting racial segregation

		(5)  end to laws supporting anti-Semitism

		(6)  end to atomic warfare

		(7)  rights for soldiers in combat zones to vote in national elections

		(8)  support for Fair Employment Practices Act

		(9)  support for a broad United Nations (not just US and Great Britain forming a world power union)

		(10) end to restrictive covenants in real estate

PLEASE NOTE:  Socialism was NOT one of his goals, which have mostly become mainstream standards by the 21st century.  Frank Marshall Davis was not out of line.  He was just ahead of his time! 

Professor Tidwell also commented:

"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."


----------



## Kaleokualoha (Dec 7, 2010)

Since the decline of print media, yellow journalism has evolved into an Internet-based disinformation network. True to its origin, yellow journalism still challenges ethical journalists.  Although many journalists try to be fair and balanced, and although many strive for accuracy in media, some fraudulently use such slogans just to hide their hypocrisy.  The pattern is clear to deception analysis:  Unethical journalists feed false information to leading pundits, who misrepresent reality to their gullible followers.  They create alternate realities: fantasy worlds of their own design, composed of a different house of cards to support each fraudulent meme.  As reported by Newsweek:  



> 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.
> [END QUOTE (newsweek.com/2010/08/28/alter-how-obama-can-fight-the-lies.html)  NOTE:  Add "www" to above semi-link]]


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 7, 2010)

Kaleokualoha said:


> Since the decline of print media, yellow journalism has evolved into an Internet-based disinformation network. True to its origin, yellow journalism still challenges ethical journalists.  Although many journalists try to be fair and balanced, and although many strive for accuracy in media, some fraudulently use such slogans just to hide their hypocrisy.  The pattern is clear to deception analysis:  Unethical journalists feed false information to leading pundits, who misrepresent reality to their gullible followers.  They create alternate realities: fantasy worlds of their own design, composed of a different house of cards to support each fraudulent meme.  As reported by Newsweek:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Kaleokualoha (Dec 7, 2010)

Here is the extent of my research on just one card in the house of cards disinformation against the Davis-Obama relationship:

DISINFORMATION 105:  

HONOLULU NAACP PILIKIA (TROUBLE) IN 1949

Just as an effective cover story requires consistency, so too does an effective disinformation campaign.  Trying to convince people that your target is an atheist Muslim probably wont work, nor would trying to convince them that he is a gay womanizer.  According to conventional wisdom, certain traits are mutually exclusive.   Internal consistency is the key to creating a credible illusion.  

Inconsistency is always a threat to crude disinformation campaigns.  Because illusions are often built by stacking lies upon other lies, the slightest misstep may cause the illusion to crumble.  Although an illusion may not survive serious scrutiny by an objective analyst, it should still be plausible to those with the appropriate predisposition to believe.  It should make sense to the casual observer.  This is a cardinal rule of effective disinformation.

In the series of disinformation claims regarding Frank Marshall Daviss encounter with the Honolulu Branch of the NAACP in 1949, Accuracy In Media (AIM) may have violated this cardinal rule.  Perhaps Cliff Kincaids theoretical mentor, the head of the Soviet KGBs active measures department, may be rolling over in HIS grave due to AIMs mutually exclusive messages:

SYNOPSIS:  By 1949, Roy Wilkins had become a vocal opponent of communist influence within the NAACP.   According to board member Edward Berman, the Honolulu branch was also in conflict due to the infusion of purportedly Stalinist new members from the recently defunct Hawaii Association for Civil Unity (HUAC).   Berman stated that Frank Marshall Davis appeared at ONE meeting to propagandize the membership about our racial problems, and was supported by the Stalinist group.  Based on Bermans one letter to the NAACP describing the situation, AIM fabricated four different versions of Daviss encounter with the Honolulu NAACP:

Fabricated Version #1 (Obamas Red Mentor Praised Red Army):  In this version, Berman criticized Davis for allegedly sneaking into NAACP meetings, while allegedly having the avowed intent of converting the same meetings.

Fabricated Version #2 (Obama Plays Reagan In Berlin, Al-Jazeera Journalist Funds Campaign):  Davis allegedly tries to take over meetings instead of sneaking into them.

Fabricated Version #3 (Return of the Dupes and the Anti-Anti-Communists):  Roy Wilkins supposedly criticized Davis directly when he rightly noted of Davis and his comrades:  they would now destroy the local branch of the NAACP."

Fabricated Version #4 (AP Lies About Obamas Red Mentor):  In this account Davis tried to take over the NAACP itself!

Obviously not all accounts can be true.  Even without reviewing the testimony, it should be readily apparent to an objective observer that some must be misrepresentations.  In fact, ALL are misrepresentations.


BACKGROUND:

In a report of Hearings Before The Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, April 17, 18, and 19 April 1950, page 2065 contains the testimony of Edward Berman, who testified [1]:

1. The Hawaii Association for Civic Unity (HACU) was organized back around 1946.  It was supposed to be a liberal organization for the purpose of civic unity.  He learned in 1947 that a lot of people had moved into the organization who were repugnant to the original membership.   He was invited to see if something could be done to neutralize the group that entered into the organization, who had practically taken it over.  As a result of the conflict between the left-wing and right-wing groups of the HACU, the organization just collapsed.  

2. Sometime in 1948, he got a call from Mrs. Catherine Christopher (acting president of the Honolulu NAACP), and from Miss Mary Noonan, who was secretary of the local Republican Club, and they asked him if he would join the NAACP.  The same elements who had once controlled HACU had moved into the NAACP.

3. He went to the first NAACP meeting, and found that the same group that had been in the HACU meeting had now moved over and had practically taken over the organization.  They got a few more people in and were soon in a position where their groups strength was about equal to the other group.  Both groups were trying to bring in people to offset each other.

4. He wrote a letter date September 26, 1949 TO Roy Wilkins, Acting Secretary, NAACP, which said:

    a. He is a member of the executive committee, Honolulu Branch.  He believes Mrs. Catherine Christopher, acting president of Honolulu Branch acted in good faith by not holding an election under prevailing circumstances.

    b. He was at one of the election meetings at which Davis 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 recently sneaked into the organization with the avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line.

    c. These others were the same party liners who tried to take over and dominate an organization known locally as the Hawaii Committee for Civic Unity.  The organization collapsed, due to their tactics.  Having destroyed that organization they would now destroy the local branch of the NAACP.

    d. I am Caucasian.  There is no segregation here.  The point I am making is that the Communist Party was deliberately trying to stir up racism in an area where there is fine racial unity and harmony.  It is better to have no organization than to have these tactics continue.  Mrs. Christopher acted in good faith.  She knew what was going on and it was her method of checking them.  Already, scores of Negro members were frightened away from these meetings because of the influx of this element.

Mr. Berman read the response of the NAACP to the Honolulu Branch:  The board on November 14, 1949 voted to revoke the charter of the Honolulu branch for the following reasons:

The officers of the Honolulu branch have, by their failure, refusal or neglect to complete the holding of the election of officers as required by the constitution and bylaws for branches and as ordered by the national office, been guilty of conduct inimical to the best interest of the NAACP.

The difference in the problems of racial discrimination in the continental United States and their solution as contrasted with the problems of the Territory makes difficult the applicability of techniques and methods used by branches and the national office to effect the policy of the association in the Territory.


SALIENT FEATURES OF BACKGROUND:

1. Berman was white, joined the NAACP the previous year, and believed there was NO segregation in Hawaii.

2. Berman was involved in an NAACP power struggle with left-wing members who had once controlled HACU.  Both groups were trying to bring in people to offset each other.  As a result, the acting president did not hold elections.

3. Berman wrote a letter to Wilkins, which stated:

    a. Berman was at an election meeting at which Davis 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.

    b. Davis was SUPPORTED BY OTHERS who recently sneaked into the organization with the avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line.

4. As proof of Bermans bias, please note that he claimed Davis had just sneaked here on a boat.  

    a.  Reality disagrees:  In December 1948, several articles in the Honolulu Star- Bulletin and Honolulu Advertiser announced the Davis's imminent arrival, then their delay, and finally their belated arrival. Several were accompanied by photos of the two. The press presented Davis as a successful journalist, and as a poet and 1937 Julius Rosenwald Fellow.  There were contradictory reports on the purpose of their trip. "Executive Editor of ANP Is Due Tonight" says that Davis is in Honolulu for a visit that will combine a vacation with business . . . [that he] is planning a story on racial groups in the Islands . . . [and that] Davis also plans to visit army and navy posts" (December 8, 1948). "Negro Press Executive Here" says that Davis "is here on an inspection and vacation tour of the islands . . . [and] will tour army and navy installations and other territorial institutions" (December 14, 1948, 10). "Davis Considers Hawai`i Advanced in Democracy" says the Davises are in Hawai`i "for a visit of not less than four months. Davis will write a series of articles on his observations of the island scene and also will work on a book of poetry which he hopes will capture the spirit of the islands in verse," although the photo caption accompanying the article says the Davises are "in Honolulu for an indefinite visit" (10). Davis's wife was presented as an artist, writer, and executive editor of a national press agency, who planned "to do watercolors of the islands during her stay" (Honolulu Star-Bulletin, December 10, 1948). [7]

    b. Please note that the above reference is from Dr. Takara, and cited in AIMs initial attack against Davis in Feb 2008.  Please note that local newspapers published articles anticipating and reporting his arrival.  This is not sneaking here on a boat, as misrepresented by Edward Berman.

    c. Because Berman misrepresented the racial situation in Hawaii, and he misrepresented Daviss arrival in Hawaii, Berman likely misrepresented Davis at the NAACP meeting.  Davis suddenly appeared on the scene to propagandize the membership about our racial problems in Hawaii may also be an exaggeration.

    d. As a journalist, Davis attended the Honolulu NAACP meeting.  From this kernel of truth, three distinct webs of lies were built:
         i.  Berman exaggerated Daviss actual actions to implicate Davis.
        ii.  AIM exaggerated Bermans testimony to implicate Davis.
       iii.  AIM exaggerated Davis actions to implicate Obama.

5.  Although AIMs misrepresentation is built on Bermans misrepresentation, Berman did not accuse Davis of sneaking into meetings, trying to take over meetings, or having the avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line.  Berman accused Davis of propagandizing the membership about racial problems, which is probably an exaggeration itself.

6. The NAACP revoked the Honolulu branch charter because they refused to hold elections, not to keep them from being dominated by communists.


A.I.M. SPECIFIC MISREPRESENTATION REGARDING 1949 NAACP:

Fabricated Version #1:  In his report Obamas Red Mentor Praised Red Army, AIMs Cliff Kincaid claimed:  The House Committee on Un-American Activities (HCUA) took testimony in 1950 from a member of the Honolulu branch of the NAACP, Edward Berman, who referred to "Comrade Davis" as someone who "sneaked" into the NAACP meetings "with the avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line."[3] In this version, Berman criticized Davis for allegedly sneaking into NAACP meetings, while allegedly having the avowed intent of converting the same meetings.

FACTS:  

a.	Contrary to Kincaids claims, Bermans testimony did NOT claim:
i.	Davis sneaked into any meeting 
ii.	Davis attended more than this one meeting
iii.	Davis had the avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line.

b.	Kincaids claim is inherently absurd.  If a person has the avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line, they could hardly sneak into a meeting.

c.	Bermans letter stated that Davis WAS SUPPORTED BY OTHERS who RECENTLY "sneaked" into meetings "with the avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line.  Kincaid misrepresented the others purpose as Daviss purpose.


Fabricated Version #2 In his report Obama Plays Reagan In Berlin, Al-Jazeera Journalist Funds Campaign, Kincaid makes a slightly different claim.  In this version, he states We already knew Davis was a Stalinist.  NAACP member Edward Berman testified that "comrade Davis" tried to take over meetings of the organization in Hawaii "for the purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line."[5] Note that in this version, Davis did not sneak into meetings.  Instead he allegedly tried to take over meetings.

FACTS:  

a.	We do not know that Davis was a "Stalinist." He actually criticized Stalin, by name, in his writing. [2] 

b.	In this version, Kincaid changes his misrepresentation of Bermans letter from saying that Davis sneaked into meetings, to saying that Davis tried to take over meetings.  In fact, Bermans letter did not say either of these.

c.	Berman did NOT testify that Davis tried to take over meetings at all, much less taking over meetings "for the purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line."

d.	Berman mentioned Davis at only one meeting, not meetings, 

e.	In Berman's words, the only action Davis took was when he "suddenly appeared on the scene to propagandize the membership about our `racial problems' here in Hawaii."  Berman does NOT connect Davis with trying to convert it into a front for the Stalinist line.

f.	Romerstein's research reveals that Berman said that at ONE meeting, Davis was SUPPORTED BY OTHERS who recently "sneaked" into the NAACP meetings "with the avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line.  Kincaid therefore misrepresents the Berman testimony in at least four ways:
          i.	Berman testified about Davis's presence at one meeting, not "meetings" as falsely claimed by Kincaid.
         ii.	According to Berman, Davis did not try to "take over" this or any other meeting, as falsely claimed by Kincaid.  He only "appeared on the scene to propagandize" about racial problems.
        iii.	Kincaid completely misrepresents Bermans assessment of Daviss purpose.  Daviss purpose, according to Berman, was to propagandize about racial problems.  According to Berman, Davis did NOT attend the meeting "for the purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line.  Davis was only supported by OTHERS who had RECENTLY sneaked into meetings (not this meeting) with the "avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line."  In changing the subject from others to Davis, Kincaid also changes avowed intent and purpose into just purpose.  With this change, Kincaid completely misrepresents Bermans assessment of Daviss purpose.
       iv.	Further, Kincaid failed to mention the context of Berman's remarks, including the fact that Berman was a rookie member of the Board, and a Caucasian who believed there was NO segregation in Hawaii.  Even decades later, some landlords refused to rent to people of certain ethnic groups.


Fabricated Version #3 (Return of the Dupes and the Anti-Anti-Communists):  The most outrageous version comes from AIM guest columnist Paul Kengor:  Finally, if that doesn't concern liberals, they should understand how communists, including Frank Marshall Davis, used the civil-rights movement, and again and again exploited and undermined the NAACP. Romerstein lays this out at length in his report. He quotes Roy Wilkins of the NAACP, who rightly noted of Davis and his comrades: "they would now destroy the local branch of the NAACP." They would do so after having destroyed another good civil-rights organization. "Comrade Davis," wrote Wilkins, "was supported by others who recently sneaked' into the organization with the avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line." Wilkins knew well that this was a standard "tactic" by the communists; it was known by everyone involved in the NAACP at the time. Wilkins, like many civil-rights leaders of his time, refused to be duped by Davis and his comrades.[4] Note that in this version, Roy Wilkins, instead of Berman, allegedly criticized Davis.

FACTS:  The letter was written TO Roy Wilkins, not BY Roy Wilkins.  Wilkins had a reputation of denouncing communists within the civil rights movement [36].  Falsely attributing these remarks to Wilkins greatly enhanced their credibility.  I can find no evidence in this report that Wilkins had any opinion of Davis.

Fabricated Version #4:  In his report AP Lies About Obamas Red Mentor, Kincaid give a fourth version:  AP doesnt note the evidence that Davis and his comrades tried to take over the NAACP in order to transform its Honolulu branch into a front for the Stalinist line. In this account Davis tried to take over the NAACP itself!

FACTS:  In fact, there is no such evidence.  Kincaid is AGAIN misrepresenting the testimony of Edward Berman, rookie board member of the Honolulu NAACP!  Romersteins research only indicates that Davis suddenly appeared on the scene to propagandize the membership about our racial problems in Hawaii.  According to Romersteins research, Davis did NOTHING to take over the NAACP or any of its branches to transform it into a front for the Stalinist line. 



References (Add "www" to each url):

#1:  usasurvival.org/docs/hawaii-obama.pdf
#2:  books.google.com/books?id=kt5LMD-OnxoC&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=%22the+new+red+negro%22+communist+davis&source=web&ots=B-HaNJA9HW&sig=ZiOltjxuI1QwdjCAvvEC0f4NnGQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result
#3:  aim.org/aim-column/obamas-red-mentor-praised-red-army/
#4:  aim.org/guest-column/return-of-the-dupes-and-the-anti-anti-communists/
#5:  aim.org/aim-column/obama-plays-reagan-in-berlin/
#6:  aim.org/aim-column/ap-lies-about-obamas-red-mentor/
#7:  2.hawaii.edu/~takara/frank_marshall_davis.htm


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 7, 2010)

Kaleokualoha said:


> Here is the extent of my research on just one card in the house of cards disinformation against the Davis-Obama relationship:
> 
> DISINFORMATION 105:
> 
> ...



Oh, man...that's the way to post!


----------



## Kaleokualoha (Dec 7, 2010)

"Discover The Networks" is part of the Conservative Disinformation Network (CDN).  "Conservapedia" outlines their fantasyland.


According to Newsweek (newsweek.com/2010/11/01/power-list.html), conservative pundits are Americas most influential political figures.  Rush Limbaugh and Fox hosts Beck, Hannity and ORielly are on top, with audiences in the millions.   As leading pundits, their information comes from a variety of sources, some of which are propaganda outlets more than legitimate journalism.   They are just the tip of the disinformation iceberg. 

Some pundits present disinformation supplied by faux journalists conducting faux opposition research with faux evidence, such as so-called Accuracy in Media (AIM).  Pundits may then frame their targets with this bogus evidence, accusing them of imaginary offenses (e.g. death panels), even though their evidence has not been verified by journalistic standards.  Although such trickery has always been part of politics, 20th century police states (such as Nazi Germany and the USSR) provided a lasting template for future disinformation campaigns.  Soviet KGB active measures planners refined the process, which is alive and well today in the Conservative Disinformation Network (CDN).  

Disinformation is the recognized enemy of legitimate research, including journalism and intelligence analysis.  Disinformation is a counter-intelligence tool designed to deceive analysis, and some intelligence officers have been trained in Deception Analysis by the C.I.A.  Unfortunately, civilians rarely enjoy such protection.  They are virtually clay in the hands of CDN propaganda specialists, who create alternate realities virtually at will.  The CDN demonstrates the extraordinary leverage now possible when Internet-based disinformation campaigns subvert legitimate journalism.

The integrity of mainstream journalism was compromised in 2002, when the Bush administration (supported by the CDN) misled Americans into supporting the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses.  Mainstream media failed to use due diligence when examining Bush administration claims regarding the Iraqi threat, and when examining exaggeration of those claims by the media.  Further, the false arguments made by leading conservatives today are reminiscent of the false arguments made by the Bush administration after 2001 (e.g. John Yoos torture memo).  They all involve fabricating evidence that contradicts pre-existing proof, then using the fabricated evidence to excuse their offenses.   In this case, the CDN used a public-private partnership to sell the Iraq war:

	a. Masterful Deception I:  The Iraqi WMD Hoax.  The DoD joint staff proponent agency for deception planning (DoD/OSP?) may have devised a flawless special plan to exaggerate the Iraqi threat:  The Bush administrations ad hoc Counter-Terrorism Evaluation Group feeds false information (e.g. WMD stockpile and mobile weapons lab reports) from false defectors (e.g. Curveball, I.N.C., etc.) to the Intelligence Community (IC).  Coincidentally (?), in a stunning lack of due diligence, the IC swallowed these falsehoods.  Despite exonerating United Nations inspections, the IC dutifully reported them (with qualifications) to the Bush administration in a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE).  Not content with the NIEs limitations, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee, the Bush administration further exaggerated the Iraqi threat both explicitly and implicitly (washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/05/AR2008060501523.html).  An alternate reality molehill was skillfully created, and even more skillfully made into an alternate reality mountain range, by cumulative misrepresentation.  Thus, the WMD hoax was created.

	b. Masterful Deception II:  Iraqi 9/11 Responsibility.  The ease with which Americans faulted Iraq for 9/11, without ANY explicit accusations to that effect from the Bush administration, also reflects a masterful special plan.  The share of Americans who believed Iraq was responsible for 9/11 may be compared to the share of Germans who believed the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" hoax.  Anti-Semitic Nazi propaganda was relentless under Goebbels, but anti-Iraq propaganda only required a small push from the Bush administration to acquire a life of its own within the CDN.   The Senate Intelligence Committee reported (washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/05/AR2008060501523.html) that the Bush administration implicitly linked 9/11 to Iraq, but Iraq was never explicitly accused of responsibility.  As a result, many Americans falsely believed Iraq was responsible for 9/11 in addition to stockpiling WMD after 2001.

	c. Honorable Mention:  Swiftboating John Kerry and Smearing Barack Obama. This disinformation network again showed its teeth by swiftboating John Kerry in the 2004 election, and has again displayed its power by creating an alternate reality regarding Barack Obamas background.  As mainstream media examine the most flagrant examples of current political misrepresentation, perhaps we should examine the integrity of opposition research BEHIND the scenes. 

Since conservatives lost power in 2008, their deception planning occurs in the private sector.  Until conservatives regain the Presidency, they must depend on the Conservative Disinformation Network (CDN) to manipulate gullible Americans. 

	a. Information Laundering:   To this end, some conservative media sources (especially those published exclusively on the Internet) serve as information laundering fronts for propaganda, just as some stores serve as money laundering fronts for criminal activity.  Their disinformation becomes more credible when published by honest-sounding sources like the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Accuracy in Media, or by fraudulent college professors like Dr. Paul Kengor.  

	b. Cesspool of Lies:  Peel back this protective coloring, however, to reveal their insidious cesspool of smears, falsehoods, and other disinformation.  A simple challenge to any of their most outrageous lies easily reveals their deception, as they will stonewall, obfuscate, or make ad hominem attacks rather than provide responsive answers to legitimate questions.

	c. Right-Wing Fantasyland:  When run by professional advocates posing as journalists, the CDN serves influential pundits as a virtual Ministry of Truth, creating alternate realities through propaganda.  As old media loses ground to the Internet, the CDN gains influence in promoting the revisionist mythology of Right-Wing Fantasyland.  Conservapedia provides a handy guide to this alternate reality, displaying a detailed view of each fraudulent house of cards.    


"Truth is generally the best vindication against slander."
  - Abraham Lincoln


----------



## Kaleokualoha (Dec 7, 2010)

Thanks for the kind words, Politicalchic!  Although we may have different opinions, I hope we can always communicate in a cordial and respectful manner.  If I stray from this path, please set me straight.  Thanks!


----------



## Revere (Dec 7, 2010)

Statism is collapsing at every level of government all over the world, and the fanatics want more statism.


----------



## Ravi (Dec 7, 2010)

LOL! PC and some newb exchange walls of text that no one reads. PC heaven!


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 7, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The day after Obama agrees to an uber-rightwing tax plan,
> ...



Then tell us how Obama's tax plan is evidence of his Communist 'roots'.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 7, 2010)

Ravi said:


> LOL! PC and some newb exchange walls of text that no one reads. PC heaven!



I would not entirely discount the possibility that PC and Krakatoa whatever are the same person.


----------



## Micky G. Jagger (Dec 8, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> "In his memoir Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama wrote about "Frank", a friend of his grandfather's."


 How does that make Davis Obama's trusted counselor or guide? 



> "Frank" told Obama that he and Stanley (Obama's maternal grandfather) both had grown up only 50 miles apart, near Wichita, although they did not meet until Hawaii.


 How does that make Davis Obama's trusted counselor or guide? 



> He described the way race relations were back then, including Jim Crow, and his view that there had been little progress since then.


 How does that make Davis Obama's trusted counselor or guide? 



> As Obama remembered, "It made me smile, *thinking back on Frank and his old Black Power, dashiki self. *In some ways he was as incurable as my mother, as certain in his faith, living in the same sixties time warp that Hawaii had created."[19]


 How does that make Davis Obama's trusted counselor or guide? 



> Obama also *remembered Frank *later in life when he took a job in South Chicago as a community organizer and took some time one day to *visit the areas where Frank had lived and wrote in his book,* "I imagined Frank in a baggy suit and wide lapels, standing in front of the old Regal Theatre, waiting to see Duke or Ella emerge from a gig." [20]


 How does that make Davis Obama's trusted counselor or guide? 



> In the opinion of Gerald Horne, a contributing editor to the CPUSA publication Political Affairs,* Davis was "a decisive influence in helping Obama to find his present identity"* as an African-American.


 How does that make Davis Obama's trusted counselor or guide? 



> [21] Claims that *Davis was a political influence on Obama *were made by Jerome Corsi in his anti-Obama book The Obama Nation.[22] A rebuttal released by Obama's presidential campaign, titled Unfit for Publication, *confirmed that "Frank" was Frank Marshall Davis, *but disputes those claims about the nature of their relationship.[23]


 How does that make Davis Obama's trusted counselor or guide?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 8, 2010)

Micky G. Jagger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > "In his memoir Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama wrote about "Frank", a friend of his grandfather's."
> ...



Micky g, perseveration is rarely a sign of intelligence...

If you actually want the answer, one which clearly obliterates your premise, consult post #23 in this very thread.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Dec 8, 2010)

1.a-Look at the disaster one gay created under our punishing "don't ask,  don't tell" policy. What else awaits America with the overturning of a  policy that was probably put there for a reason (apart from being the  only thing Bill Clinton ever did that I agreed with)? 

     b-Liberals don't care. Their approach is to rip out society's foundations without asking if they serve any purpose. 

     c-Why do we have immigration laws? What's with these borders? Why  do we have the institution of marriage, anyway? What do we need  standardized tests for? Hey, I like Keith Richards -- why not make  heroin legal? Let's take a sledgehammer to all these load-bearing walls  and just see what happens! 

     dFor liberals, gays in the military is a win-win proposition.  Either gays in the military works, or it wrecks the military, both of  which outcomes they enthusiastically support. 

Welcome to AnnCoulter.com

2.Liberals are from mars, Conservatives are from Earth


                                                        [FONT=times new roman,times]a.One  of the things I like so much about writing for American Thinker is the  comments page. Readers offer so much: tips for books to read, quotes to  ponder, spiritual inspiration. And then there are times when the  comments absolutely floor me.
[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]b-I  was shocked that readers were shocked about my previously viewing  Marxism as sublime. I was astonished that readers were astonished about  my young client's [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]freak-out about Styrofoam[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times].
[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]c.I  realized that liberals really do live on another planet. Sometimes I  feel like I'm having a Close Encounter of the Political Kind.  [/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]d.C*onservatives  can mistakenly assume that liberals think like they d*o, in a learned  and rational way. This is an exercise in futility since liberalism is  not based on logic.[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]*x.To  become a conservative, I've had to learn a whole new language*, one  based on reason. If conservatives want to understand the liberal mind,  they should consider becoming bilingual, too.[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]y.Liberals  live in a stratosphere *centered on emotions and magical thinking*. If  you've tried to reason with your daughter and she looks at you  blankly; if your neighbor changes the subject during your compelling  arguments; if your cousin says this about Obama: "I don't know why.  I  just like the guy"...that's why.
American Thinker: Liberals Are from Mars, Conservatives Are from Earth

i am egerly waiting four your rebuttal, leftists.
[/FONT]


----------



## Ravi (Dec 8, 2010)

L.K.Eder said:


> 1.a-Look at the disaster one gay created under our punishing "don't ask,  don't tell" policy. What else awaits America with the overturning of a  policy that was probably put there for a reason (apart from being the  only thing Bill Clinton ever did that I agreed with)?
> 
> b-Liberals don't care. Their approach is to rip out society's foundations without asking if they serve any purpose.
> 
> ...


That may be the best post, EVAH!!!


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 8, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Oh, I'm sorry.  Times up.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 8, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Carby, know why I look forward to your posts?

It's because they are so easy to skewer...

1. "Then tell us..."
Let's begin here.  There are only three cases where the 'us' would be appropriate: a) if you were the editor of a newspaper, b) if you were royalty, or c) if you have a tapeworm...
I truly hope you recover.

2. When you have an oh-so-weak argument, try to pretend that the opponent has said something that you can defend, even if they have not said same....
but very juvenile.
For example....this is the operative passage from the OP...

"2. I have all of the weekly columns written by Obamas mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, for the 1949-50 Honolulu Record, which was the CPUSA organ in Hawaii. These columns are unbelievably outrageous. Davis toed the Stalinist line unerringly, perfectly parroting every talking point of the Communist Party. This means that Davis demonized the Democratic Party leadership opposing Stalin at the time. Davis turned Harry Truman into a monster,  Our current presidents mentor in Hawaii in the 1970s was a pro-Soviet communist. Americans, voting for change, voted Daviss pupil president in November 2008."

Your quibble is about "evidence of his Communist 'roots'" with the 'his' referring to President Obama.

Had you actual skill in reading, you would notice that nowhere does the phrase 'Obama's communist roots' appear.

Had you actual skill in comprehension, you would have noticed that the appellation of 'communist' belongs to Frank Marshall Davis.
Davis was the one with 'communist roots,' according to Dr. Kangor.


3. To make your post more pointed and appropriate, I would have first asked the opponent if he/she was suggesting that President Obama had 'communist' roots or inclinations...
That would have baited the hook, no?

4. And I do so appreciate you use of the term 'brilliant' in any connection with my posts...Why, I'm almost blushing.

5. But, sadly, Carby, once again "you never really contribute anything to a discussion...." just your usual carping and grousing.
Did you notice the wll constructed post that links info counter to the OP? 
Learn from poster 'K."

But, hey, don't let that stop you...carry on with what ever ability you can muster!


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 8, 2010)

Kaleokualoha said:


> Here is the extent of my research on just one card in the house of cards disinformation against the Davis-Obama relationship:
> 
> DISINFORMATION 105:
> 
> ...



Just curious, I could understand such a spirited defense of President Obama, for example, but what is your attachment to Davis?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 8, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > LOL! PC and some newb exchange walls of text that no one reads. PC heaven!
> ...



You know what's really funny about this post?

It's your inadvertent admission that you, or any on your side, are not capable
of this kind of post!

This is most fun when you guys trip yourself up!

You get the Cynthia McKinney Brilliant Democrat Award!


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 8, 2010)

Whoa!!!

*Obamas father is Communist Frank Marshall Davis*

Obama&#8217;s father is Communist Frank Marshall Davis | The Obambi.com Blog www.obambi.com


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 8, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



We're not capable of cutting and pasting copious volumes of crap no one is actually reading?

Wanna bet?  I'll bet you your presence on this forum against mine that I am in fact as capable at cutting and pasting crap as you are.

We'll agree on an impartial judge, and will be bound by our word that we'll will leave this forum forever if that judge decides against either of us.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 8, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> Whoa!!!
> 
> *Obama&#8217;s father is Communist Frank Marshall Davis*
> 
> Obama&#8217;s father is Communist Frank Marshall Davis | The Obambi.com Blog www.obambi.com



In all seriousness, Carb, I know that you are posting this to, what....show it to be idiotic?...but I don't think that this is one that either side should give voice to.

It's an attack on his family that we should avoid.

It would be good if you could delete that post.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 8, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



I understand why you might wish that I leave, but can you actually think that I want you to leave???

After all, what good would this debate be without the human piñata?


While your suggestion expresses the pain I cause you, it documents you as truly juvenile.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Dec 8, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



dude, it's hard work. you have to alferbetize the paragrpahs. and bold some sentecne3s.

you can spot the original contributions by their atrocious speleign stupididy.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 8, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > I got this far and then I couldn't go on anymore.  It was just too stupid.
> ...



He didn't say he READ that far.  He said he GOT that far.  I'm assuming that means his mommy had to stop at that point and go do something else, and hasn't come back to read him any more yet.


----------



## Kaleokualoha (Dec 8, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Whoa!!!
> ...


----------



## Micky G. Jagger (Dec 9, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> Micky g, perseveration is rarely a sign of intelligence...



I take that to mean you don't know how those things make Davis Obama's trusted counselor or guide.



> If you actually want the answer, one which clearly obliterates your premise, consult post #23 in this very thread.



First, explain how the post proves that Davis was Obama's trusted counselor or guide.


----------



## midcan5 (Dec 9, 2010)

*"President Eisenhower describes his administration's political philosophy as 'dynamic conservatism,' then as 'progressive, dynamic conservatism,' then as 'progressive moderation,' then as 'moderate progressivism,' and then as 'positive progressivism.'"*  William Manchester



It is curious how ideas get lumped together in the minds of the wingnuts on the right. PC is the online version of Glenn Beck. One wishes history were so simple or so easy, but the reality is much too complicated for the right. They can only look back and see what they want to see and then move forward and stupidly act like there is some strange congruence. One of the larges ironies is PC will criticize educators and education while she follows blindly revisionist nonsense.  Just amazing.

Words and Ideas in the wingnut world become sticks instead of study items. After a while of reading PC's posts one would think progressives were the fault of rainy days. But I guess that makes everything so simple. Put bad thing here, how easy.  


This piece from Harpers is historically interesting even where I disagree or hope to disagree with his assumptions. 

"Since the 1890s, Hoover and his contemporaries had promoted this brand of progressivism as an alternative not only to the political and corporate corruption of the Gilded Age but also to the furious class and regional warfare that progressivisms predecessor, populism, seemed to promise. Progressivism aspired to be something of a political science itself, untrammeled by ideological or partisan influence: there was a right way and a wrong way to do things, and all unselfish and uncorrupted individuals could be counted on to do the right thing, once they were shown what that was.

There were plenty of progressives, led by Teddy Roosevelt, who understood that bringing real change meant fighting to bust up trusts, regain public ownership of utilities, and secure rights for labor, women, and others. But the great national effort inspired by World War I softened memories of the bitter class conflict that had characterized much of American politics since the Civil War, just as the rollicking prosperity of the 1920s erased memories of the postwar Red Scare and the crushing of labor unions. Throughout the decade, big business sought to co-opt any lingering labor resentments by forming company unions under what they called the American Plan. Volunteerism and boosterism would take care of the rest. Prosperity would come through an always rising stock market."  Barack Hoover Obama: The best and the brightest blow it again?By Kevin Baker (Harper's Magazine)


By the way the first two progressive steps were: equality before the law and civil rights and the second, universal suffrage. For the thinkers among the readers here, check this book out. Excellent writing too. [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Rhetoric-Reaction-Perversity-Futility-Jeopardy/dp/067476868X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246553514&sr=1-3]Amazon.com: The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy (9780674768680): Albert O. Hirschman: Books[/ame]





History Outline, things do change, not always quickly or sensibly. 

MIT OpenCourseWare | Political Science | 17.037 American Political Thought, Spring 2004 | Lecture Notes

'The New Inegalitarians, or the Descent of Man'

· 1870s-1900s
- Mark Twain called it the Gilded Age.
- Shift from a country of small farmers to large corporations and masses of workers.
- Characterized by a strengthened faith in science, inequality of income, unruliness of cities.
- Immigration seen as a threat to civic homogeneity; republicanism, and Protestantism.
· Darwins theory of evolution:
- Survival of the fittest
- Effects: notions of natural rights given by God became a fairy tale for many.
- Standards of conduct became relative.
· Politics of the time:
- Democrats: against civil service reforms, favored states rights, trumpeted White Protestantism.
- Republicans: emphasized strong economic growth, against regulation, split on race matters.
- Growth of third parties: Populists, Socialists/Workers Union, beginning of Progressives  combat corruption of established political parties and large corporations.
· No new civic ideologies emerged, but leading thinkers began to accept evolution, which reshaped their thinking on many issues."


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 9, 2010)

Kaleokualoha said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 9, 2010)

midcan5 said:


> *"President Eisenhower describes his administration's political philosophy as 'dynamic conservatism,' then as 'progressive, dynamic conservatism,' then as 'progressive moderation,' then as 'moderate progressivism,' and then as 'positive progressivism.'"*  William Manchester
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1. Midcan, earlier your posts were erudite, extensive, and had a light-hearted banter to them. Sadly, this has changed, and you now never miss an opportunity to insert the barbs that one expects from lesser members of the board. That, and the metronomic regularity of the cliched 'wingnuts' suggest to me that my posts have taken a toll on your confidence in your worldview...and with good reason.

I have no problem pointing out that your posts paint you as a toe-the-line leftist, and at least as far to that end of the spectrum as I am to the right.

The difference, of course, is that my view is correct, while yours is delusional.

2. "PC is the online version of Glenn Beck. "
I'll tell you how pleased I am with that comparison as soon as you name the Beck-bestsellers that you have read.

Nor would it surpise me if your opinion of Mr. Beck is as empty as your political philosophy, and, if you have not read any...it certainly doesn't stop you from your strong opinion, does it.

3. "One of the larges ironies is PC will criticize educators and education..."
Ah, there it is!
You have taken criticisms of the educational system personally!
You do realize that I have never included your spouse in said critiism, and, incidently you might want to have her to check your spelling.

And try to be more objective in the future.


4. Yours is such a petulent little post...I'll wait for you to state specific problems you have with mine before I slice them up...

5. "By the way the first two progressive steps were..."
Self-serving....and wrong.

Actually, the first steps of the progressives were:

a) Throwing aside the restrictions placed on the government by the Constitution, and, as Wilson suggested, "...stripped off and thrown aside like a garment..."
Karl Marx And Liberal Fascism  Tarpon's Swamp

b) and sneering at the concept of people having unalienable rights:   &#8220;No doubt a lot of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual, ..."  From his 1890 essay 'Leaders of Men.'

I'll continue to pound the concepts of intrusive government, progressive philosophies that require activist judges since the American people will not validate their agendas, and tax policies that discourage economic growth...

you guys can't stand debate, can you?

...how ironic that just this week your champion agreed with GOP tax doctine, proving that the right has been correct all along...

could that be why you're so testy?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 10, 2010)

Micky G. Jagger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Micky g, perseveration is rarely a sign of intelligence...
> ...



Since you cannot be that dense, i.e. Post #23, your post must be the equivalent of shuttting your eyes and covering your ears, and shouting 'I can't hear you- so you're not talking..."

Glad to see you working to ability.

Grow up.
Wise up.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 10, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



So that's a no, I take it.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 10, 2010)

Micky G. Jagger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Micky g, perseveration is rarely a sign of intelligence...
> ...



It doesn't.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 10, 2010)

L.K.Eder said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Not to mention the tedious hours spent scouring the online thesaurus, so in the event she actually attempts to inject an original thought into the mix, she can put a couple long words into it,

for pseudo-intellectual ornamentation.


----------



## Kaleokualoha (Dec 10, 2010)

It seems that critics misrepresented Davis as Obama's "mentor" based on circumstantial evidence, despite explicit primary source evidence to the contrary (Obama's words), just as critics misrepresented Davis as being an "avowed communist" or having "communist values" based on circumstantial evidence, despite explicit primary source evidence to the contrary (Davis's words).

Although Obama's book indicates "Frank" was a family friend who offered him advice on racial issues, Obama wrote that Davis "fell short" and his views were "incurable."   Although Obama may have been fond of him, Obama's book proves that Obama did not consider Davis to be a "wise and trusted counselor," which is the standard definition of "mentor."   By what creative definition can Davis be considered his "mentor"?  

Further, according to "Dreams," Obama visited Davis only twice on his own after visiting with Gramps:  once to discuss his grandmother's bus stop incident, and three years later before leaving for college.   When did Davis's alleged "communist training" of Obama occur?  

By exaggerating evidence that Davis advised Obama, yet ignoring evidence from the same source that Obama did NOT Frank to be a wise and trusted advisor, those who spread the urban myth Davis was Obama's "mentor" may be as dishonest as ex-D.A. Mike Nifong.  The "Nifong Syndrome" is the stacking of evidence by ignoring evidence that does not fit one's agenda.  By portraying Davis as Obama's mentor, despite conclusive evidence to the contrary, fraudulent "opposition research" by Cliff Kincaid and others permeates the blogosphere.   Their travesty of journalistic ethics, like their "AIM Reports,"  demonstrates that they are unreliable sources of information on the Davis-Obama relationship.   As the epitome of contemporary propaganda, Cliff Kincaid may be a worthy successor to Reich Minister Joseph Goebbels.

Such rhetorical deception was highlighted in the story of Alice's adventures in "Through The Looking-Glass," 

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone. "It means just what I choose it to mean - neither more or less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."

It is indeed regrettable that so many honest people have been hoodwinked by Kincaid's ironically named "Accuracy In Media" (AIM).  Fraudulent memes, unwittingly propagated by well-intentioned bloggers, have spread throughout the blogosphere, which proves the effectiveness of viral disinformation campaigns.  Even the title of Kincaid's initial attack, "Obama's Communist Mentor," is itself a masterful deception.  Through the "fallacy of equivocation*," it implies three enduring falsehoods:

    - That Davis was an avowed or known communist who advocated collectivist principles.  The evidence, however, indicates that Davis was a closet communist who never advocated communism.  In fact, he rejected the "horror of socialism" in his writing.

    - That Davis had a continuing mentorship with teenage Obama, "almost like a son."  Evidence, however, indicates that Davis was an occasionally visited family friend whom Obama visited only once in the three years before Obama left for college. 

    - That Davis taught communism to young Obama.  The evidence, however, supports nothing of the sort.  "Dreams" indicates that although Davis offered advice on racial issues, Obama did not even trust that advice.

(*The "fallacy of equivocation" is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense, by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time. It occurs when an equivocal word or phrase makes an unsound argument appear sound. It deceives through ambiguity.)

This misrepresentation of Frank as Obama's mentor was only the first deceptive step in building a house of cards against Obama.  Their scam misrepresented Frank as a virtual Dr. Frank-enstein who created a Marxist Obama.  In doing so, opponents may have thought they had a silver bullet.  After all, who would bother to defend an obscure dead black poet?  The Dead Poets Society?  Not likely, so the scam developed.  Slander ensued.

"Piety requires us to honor truth above our friends."
  - Aristotle (384 BC - 322 BC),


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 10, 2010)

Kaleokualoha said:


> It seems that critics misrepresented Davis as Obama's "mentor" based on circumstantial evidence, despite explicit primary source evidence to the contrary (Obama's words), just as critics misrepresented Davis as being an "avowed communist" or having "communist values" based on circumstantial evidence, despite explicit primary source evidence to the contrary (Davis's words).
> 
> Although Obama's book indicates "Frank" was a family friend who offered him advice on racial issues, Obama wrote that Davis "fell short" and his views were "incurable."   Although Obama may have been fond of him, Obama's book proves that Obama did not consider Davis to be a "wise and trusted counselor," which is the standard definition of "mentor."   By what creative definition can Davis be considered his "mentor"?
> 
> ...



How about an answer to post #64?

What the dilio?


----------



## Kaleokualoha (Dec 10, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> Kaleokualoha said:
> 
> 
> > Here is the extent of my research on just one card in the house of cards disinformation against the Davis-Obama relationship:
> ...



Oops, sorry!  I missed your question.  As a retired Air Force Intelligence Officer with specific training in Deception Analysis by the C.I.A. in 1989, I am familiar with political disinformation.  I am familiar with disinformation campaigns, including Pope Gregory's misrepresentation of Mary Magdalene, Russian and German misrepresentation of Judaism, Operation Fortitude protecting the D-Day invasion, Operation Left Hook protecting the coalition drive into Kuwait, and the misrepresentation of the Iraqi threat this century.  I am also the son of Frank Marshall Davis (see my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/Kaleokualoha), and you can track my battles against this disinformation by searching for "kaleokualoha."  My identity, however, should not affect any rational discussion on this topic.

Thanks for asking!

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


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 10, 2010)

Kaleokualoha said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Kaleokualoha said:
> ...


----------



## frazzledgear (Dec 11, 2010)

jillian said:


> you read too much rightwingnut garbage. it's rotting your brain. *shakes head*



Have you never read any history of communism both Soviet and in the US?  This isn't new stuff and it IS very accurate.  His thesis is simply expanding on the known facts.  This isn't "rightwing garbage" but I think your ill-informed comments further prove this guy's point about "dupes"!  You haven't read his work, yet you so breezily dismiss out of hand his entire work even though it is based on known facts and existing documents.  This isn't a political opinion piece written by some political analyst!  Wow, what a monumental statement that is about your own lack of critical thinking skills that you have such hardened preconceived notions you are incapable of even considering, much less absorbing, any information you think MIGHT even contradict the false view you have of the world.  Who benefits from your blinders?   How truly sad.  

I read all sorts of book by all sorts of authors -but I wait until I have before coming to a conclusion about their work since I can't know that until I have read it!  Do you think this means anyone writing on the history of communism who doesn't wax rhapsodic and pretend it is a wonderful thing instead of being honest about i - is "rightwing"?  And anything written that is critical about communism or expands on the WELL KNOWN FACTS and documented history of communism including the communist movement and sympathizers in this country - is just "garbage"?  ARE YOU FOR REAL?  This author is writing about known history  -a history that closely parallels that of the communist movement in the UK during these same years!  Where they had their own share of dupes.  

*This author calls them "dupes -but Karl Marx had a name for them in his communist manifesto.  Marx called them "useful idiots".*  Which term would you prefer?

Before getting all warm and fuzzy about communism as if it is an honorable and worthy, admirable system, I strongly suggest you read a lot more history books.  The fact they tell the truth about communism does NOT make them "rightwing garbage", sorry.  Dismissing that history out of hand for no reason but the fact you just don't like those facts won't change the reality that is is one of the most inhumane systems of government ever devised by man -a system that is barely fit for an ant colony.  Anyone who wants to impose communism on everyone else should first be forced to experience it firsthand themselves.  Assuming they emerge alive.

Only those who CHOOSE to be dangerously ignorant would even try to defend communism which FOR A FACT resulted in gulags, forced labor camps, genocide, bloody purges, deliberate man-made famines, mass murder, show trials and pre-ordained extrajudicial executions and more atrocities like you've never seen.   With the Soviet Union one of the world's greatest megamurders in history killing around 61,000,000 people.  Communist China is the second greatest megamurder and Pol Pot slaughtered almost 1/3 of the entire Cambodian population in just a 3 year period -surely a record of some sort .   Please keep in mind these are their OWN CITIZENS they slaughtered.  Do you have any clue why?  If not, you haven't read near enough books!

You either have to be one of Marx's useful idiots or have no conscience and pure ice running through your veins to even think of defending such a hideously cruel, brutal, bloody, murderous, inhumane and evil system no matter where it has been imposed -and you did give defend it by suggesting this author's work amounted to nothing but "rightwing garbage".  So which is it?


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 11, 2010)

frazzledgear said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > you read too much rightwingnut garbage. it's rotting your brain. *shakes head*
> ...


I would say you are a "useful idiot" of the GOP propaganda machine. You are definitely more of an idiot than a dupe, but you are a perfect example of the gullibility of a CON$ervative know-it-all who knows nothing.

First of all, the CON$ claim it was Lenin not Marx who coined the term "useful idiots." And Lenin never said it!!!!! It is a complete CON$ervative fabrication. I challenge you to link to any writing or speech of Lenin or Marx that uses the term "useful Idiot."


----------



## Kaleokualoha (Dec 11, 2010)

Communist governments have run some of the most atrocious nations in history.  Untold numbers of well-intentioned people were seduced by the Marxist utopian vision, which could only remain a mirage because it conflicted with the basic human need for material incentive.

I believe that successful (non-coercive) "communist" societies may be possible only in communes small enough for everyone to know each other, which enabled familial relationships, such as in pre-historic tribes. When they grew too large for personal relationships, either the carrot or the stick was necessary. 

Anyone who is seduced by deceptive arguments may be considered a "dupe."  Americans were "duped" by Iraqi threat claims.  German's were duped by "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion."  Muslims are still being duped by Al Qaeda.  

Those who believe "Accuracy in Media" (AIM) or Paul Kengor's lies about Frank Marshall Davis are also being duped.  I hope to expose these lies by offering irrefutable empirical evidence to the contrary.

As a fair-minded thinker, you may be interested in this cordial exchange between myself and Max Friedman, Cliff Kincaid's researcher:  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.  


"I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. That is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant."
  - Martin Luther King Jr. (1929 - 1968)


----------



## midcan5 (Dec 12, 2010)

People like PC lead sad lives when the best they can do is make up history, confuse movements and ideas, and just plain ignore reality. For anyone interested in the progressive movement start with the book below, the authors also give further recommendations that are unusually unbiased and cover the real complexity of history and its connection to the modern world. 'Progressive' only became a bad word recently because liberals ran from 'liberal' because of decades of propaganda. PS The author was on cspan yesterday, jeez if you can follow his bizarre 'Alice in Wonderland' connections and conclusions you may as well just make up history. 

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Progressivism-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/019531106X/ref=pd_rhf_p_t_1]Amazon.com: Progressivism: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions) (9780195311068): Walter Nugent: Books[/ame]


From Amazon review: 

"In the history of American society and politics, "Progressivism" was a many-sided reform movement that emerged in the final years of the nineteenth century, flourished from about 1900 to 1920, and faded away by the early 1920s. In national politics, its greatest achievements occurred between 1910 and 1917. In state and local politics and in private reform efforts-churches, settlement houses, campaigns to fight diseases, for example - Progressive changes began appearing in the 1890s and continued into the 1920s. In these social-justice efforts, legions of activist women, despite lacking the suffrage, were enormously effective. Most prominent in national politics were the "big four": William Jennings Bryan, Theodore Roosevelt, Robert M. La Follette, and Woodrow Wilson. Mayors Tom Johnson and Sam "Golden Rule" Jones in Ohio led change in their cities, as did governors Hiram Johnson of California and James Vardaman of Mississippi. Lincoln Steffens, Ida Tarbell, and the rest of the crusaders (known as "muckrakers") spearheaded what would later be called investigative journalism."


----------



## Kaleokualoha (Dec 12, 2010)

Back to Paul Kengor, for your consideration:  His extensive use of footnotes may just be protective coloring that does not stand up to rigorous scrutiny.  When there is a pattern of misrepresentation, then simple statistical analysis should reveal the probability of random occurrence versus intelligent design.


----------



## Kaleokualoha (Dec 12, 2010)

Here are four significant misrepresentations:

1.  Dr. Kengor wrote "I promise you that Im not misrepresenting that one bit," but analysis of Kengors Dupes suggests that Kengor is still falsifying evidence against Davis. Contrary to Daviss actual 1950 Frank-ly Speaking column, which has been posted online for years  (Frank's Blog 1950), Kengor indicates that Davis SUPPORTED socialism, when in fact this column indicates that Davis REJECTED socialism (i.e., letting the government own and operate our major industries). Davis said socialism was a HORROR! 

2.  





> That document ordered American comrades (like Davis, who, at that point, lived in Chicago), to go to Hawaii.
> 
> The full text of the document is here []Articles Main. It advises the Hawaiian revolutionary movement about political slogans and suitable demands.
> 
> ...


----------



## jillian (Dec 13, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > you read too much rightwingnut garbage. it's rotting your brain. *shakes head*
> ...



it is very easy to manipulate "historical reference". i see wingnuts do it every day.

just try looking at any of the israel threads to see the extremes.

you and yours just do it because it enables you to blather on about lefties.


----------



## Kaleokualoha (Dec 13, 2010)

jillian said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



I'm a newbie around here, but I haven't seen PoliticalChic blather.  On the other hand, I'm glad you brought up the issue of "historical references." It allows me to close the loop:  

I've identified four areas (above) where historical references do not support the claims of Dr. Kengor, not to mention the three other misrepresentations published by AIM on the NAACP issue.  These references were manipulated by "wingnuts" through extreme misrepresentation, despite the denials of Dr. Kengor.  

A disinformation campaign is like a house of cards, or an illusion fabricated over a framework of falsehoods.  When enough support is withdrawn, the disinformation reveals its true colors.  I've asked a number of times, but nobody yet has stepped forth to refute my analysis, or provide a plausible explanation for AIM researcher Max Friedman's sudden silence at Chesler Chronicles  Judge Sonia Sotomayor and Singing Sensation Susan Boyle.   

 Nothing is perfect, so your critique would enable me to polish my arguments.  Thanks!


----------



## Kaleokualoha (Jan 30, 2011)

Most of my research is now published by a neutral host at Kaleokualoha2878577.newsvine.com - Kaleokualoha-2878577


----------

