Hat Tip: BB
Hat Tip: BB
Hat Tip: BB
Hat Tip: BB
Hat Tip: BB
By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media
Obama biographer David Maraniss wrote an 1139-word article, “The Audacity of Doubt,” for The Washington Post on Sunday that purported to be a refutation of what some critics have been saying about the President. Maraniss focuses mostly on questions about Obama’s religion and place of birth and pretends to have the answers.
However, Maraniss ignored the fact that the critics were right four years ago when they identified communist Frank Marshall Davis as Obama’s mentor in Hawaii and the mysterious “Frank” from Obama’s book, Dreams from My Father.
Maraniss had written a 10,000-word piece for the Post in 2008, when the information could have made a difference in the campaign, ignoring this critical fact. He told me in an email that he had ignored Davis because he had somehow concluded that Davis didn’t have much of an impact on Obama.
The Maraniss piece, “Though Obama Had to Leave to Find Himself, It Is Hawaii That Made His Rise Possible,” ran in the August 22, 2008 edition of the Post.
Not content to slink away with egg on his face for ignoring the story of the century, Maraniss spent years working on a book about Obama, thinking the public would regard it as definitive. He is suffering under a delusion.
Since Maraniss wants us to believe he dwells on “facts,” here are some inconvenient facts about Davis before we get into the tawdry and highly personal side of the Obama-Davis relationship:
- Davis was the subject of a 600-page FBI file.
- Davis was under FBI surveillance for 19 years for his Communist Party activities.
- Davis was on the FBI’s security index, meaning he could be arrested in the event of a national emergency.
- Davis wrote a pornographic novel, Sex Rebel, that was autobiographical and disclosed that he had sex with children.
- Davis was a heavy drinker and marijuana user.
It’s true that communism is not perceived as being as much of a threat as it used to be, but can you imagine what the reaction might be among the American people, even now, if they were told by the major papers and network news programs that a top Communist Party operative molded their President’s views on economic, foreign policy and cultural issues? This is the story that has to be suppressed at any cost, four years later during a critical election year.
Having ignored the story of the decisive influence that Davis exercised over Obama in his growing up years, Maraniss now goes after other writers who have been investigating Obama in order to clear up some of the lingering mysteries about him. It is apparent that Maraniss is afraid of being proven wrong again. He wants people to think his 641 page book is the ultimate truth.
Maraniss says in his Post article on Sunday that he holds many Obama critics “in contempt for the way they disregard facts and common sense and undermine the role of serious history as they concoct conspiracy theories that portray the president as dangerous, alien and less than American.” But not once in this follow-up article four years later did Maraniss mention the name of Obama’s communist mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, or how he, Maraniss, had ignored Davis in that 10,000-word 2008 Post article.
This omission may be his strange way of conceding, without saying so, that the “critics” had gotten that part of the story right. After all, “Frank” was Davis, and Maraniss knows it.
Maraniss doesn’t name the Obama critics. But one of them is Jack Cashill, an “obsessed conspiratorialist,” in the words of Maraniss, for theorizing that Obama’s book Dreams from My Father was ghost written by Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers. Maraniss calls Ayers “the former radical.”
My position all along has been that, whether Ayers wrote it or not, Obama’s name is on it, and he has to take responsibility for what is in it. That includes the cover-up regarding “Frank.” It is not unprecedented for politicians to have ghost writers, but since their names are on the book, the politicians have to take the credit or blame for what was said—or not said. Of course, if Ayers did write the book, it makes their relationship much closer than we were led to believe.
The Dreams book covers up Obama’s extensive use of illegal drugs, and here is where Maraniss truly does his homework and performs a public service. He says, in passages that are perhaps too brutally honest for pro-Obama liberals to take, that Obama was a major dope smoker, not the occasional user we were led to believe. Maraniss says Obama was a member of the “Choom Gang,” a group of heavy users of the drug.
This is important for many reasons, including that the effects of the drug are reflected in various personality disorders, and so the public is left wondering what the illegal substances may have done to Obama’s way of thinking. Obama has promoted the notion, in an interview with Rolling Stone, the rock-and-roll magazine, that marijuana has “medical benefits,” while acknowledging that federal law prohibits its use and cultivation. He has let Attorney General Eric Holder handle this one.
Cashill says that Maraniss comes across as “testy” in his new Post column because his book about Obama has not done well, and that his massive advance “will never be recouped by the publisher.” This may be the case. But he may also be testy because he realizes he missed the importance of the Frank Marshall Davis story, and that the Obama critics were right all along.
Paul Kengor points out that writers and historians always focus on the mentor, in order to explain the background, history and future policies of a major political figure like a presidential candidate—except when it came to Obama. Why?
Although Maraniss should be commended for exposing Obama as a major drug abuser, something Obama concealed from voters in 2008, the superficial treatment of Frank Marshall Davis is a major blot on Maraniss’s record. He will never be able to recover from it.
My stories about Davis have become a broken record, but it is necessary to play this record again and again because “journalists” such as Maraniss persist in their dishonest campaign to ignore his influence on the current occupant of the Oval Office. His Post article is only the latest example of his deceptive writing on this matter.
Why does he do it?
The short answer is that he thinks he can get away with it. He thinks his writing, based on the reputation of someone who writes long books about important people, can drown out all of the others who seek the truth and raise inconvenient and uncomfortable questions.
But why ignore such a critical and central fact about Obama? The answer in this case has to be that the truth is so powerful and so damaging to Obama that it has to be ignored. The lid has to be kept on this story, to the best of the ability of Maraniss and his ilk to do so. That is why the cover-up continues.
Admitting Obama was a doper is one thing; writing about his Communist mentor is something far more serious that opens a Pandora’s box.
But is the story more than that of an agent of a Moscow-funded political party having access to our President for eight years of his young life? This is where the story of Frank Marshall Davis takes a very bizarre sexual turn.
Paul Kengor’s new book, THE COMMUNIST Frank Marshall Davis: The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor, explains the Davis influence on Obama’s economic views. Rusty Weiss and I quoted Kengor in a piece we did on how Davis’s racism influenced Obama.
The other and equally disturbing area of influence is the cultural sphere. As writer Andrew Walden has noted, the term “Sex Rebel,” as Davis used it, was meant to characterize Davis’s rebellion against American society, another part of the communist revolution, which was to him a way to strike back against religion and its strictures on promiscuous sexual activity. Perversion was a central aspect of Davis’s communist identity. That’s why he wrote Sex Rebel.
We can see this facet of Davis’s Marxism reflected in Obama, at least in terms of his policies on such subjects as gay rights, gay marriage, gays in the military, and so forth. Obama’s openly gay appointee Kevin Jennings facilitated that at the Department of Education, while Leon Panetta supervises this radical transformation at the Pentagon, our last line of defense, even while he bemoans anticipated cuts to the Pentagon budget.
In the latest example of this subversion from within, Panetta’s Department of Defense issued a policy approving members of the U.S. Armed Forces to march in a “gay pride” parade while wearing their service-issued uniforms. Rep. Randy Forbes called it a “clear violation” of DoD rules and regulations that prohibit service members from wearing the uniform “during or in connection with furthering political activities.”
Many people do not know that the Communist Manifesto called for the abolition of the traditional family, in addition to the abolition of private property. “Families and the moral order stand firmly in the way of any socialist revolution,” notes conservative writer Robert Knight. “Families and religion inculcate independence and a strong set of values and personal responsibility.”
Although he ignored Davis four years ago in his lengthy article in the Post, the Maraniss book, Barack Obama: The Story, mentions Davis a few times. He admits that Davis was “under surveillance” by the FBI because of his “past associations with the Communist party.” He says Obama “later estimated that he saw Davis ‘ten to fifteen times,’” a report apparently based on an interview with Obama.
Paul Kengor notes that Obama mentioned “Frank” 22 times in Dreams.
Of course, Maraniss also acknowledges that Davis was “the Frank character” in Obama’s book, Dreams from My Father, without analyzing why Obama would have wanted to conceal Frank’s complete name and identity. He also does not credit those of us who revealed “Frank” to be Davis and released his 600-page FBI file (Maraniss doesn’t even mention the FBI file).
In other passages, Maraniss simply calls Davis “the black poet,” the “aging black poet,” and the “old black poet.” So Davis’s communism takes a back seat to his “poetry.”
Maraniss does admit that Obama wrote a poem about Davis called “Pop,” with some strange lines about stains and smells on shorts. “He looks at Pop and sees something that repels him and attracts him, that he wants to run away from yet knows he must embrace,” Maraniss wrote, as if to explain what Obama was thinking and doing.
But what exactly does this mean?
Cashill wrote, “…there is enough talk in Sex Rebel about the taste and texture of semen to merit the suspicion that the ‘breath’ and ‘amber stain’ references in ‘Pop’ refer to the exchange of something other than whiskey, especially since the stains are on their ‘shorts,’ not on their shirts.”
The nation recoils in horror at the child predator Jerry Sandusky, the Penn State football coach protected and even facilitated by the university where he worked. Yet, the fact that Obama was under the tutelage of a pedophile for eight years continues to be a non-story.
But it gets even worse. In reviewing Kengor’s book on Davis, Cashill writes, “The one area that I wish Kengor had explored was his possible relationship with Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham.” Filmmaker Joel Gilbert has done so, with dramatic photos, in “Dreams from My Real Father.”
It is a story that even some conservatives do not want to tackle, as the presidential election approaches.
But what if it is true?
Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected].
By: Tom Tancredo
“John Roberts says impeach Obama now”
Oh, you missed that headline? Let me refresh your memory by summarizing the principle behind the Roberts decision on Obamacare. If we apply the Roberts principle to the impeachment question, then impeachment is not only a good idea, it is a constitutional imperative.
The argument heard most often against impeaching and removing President Obama is the following. Well, yes, we all know Obama deserves to be impeached and removed, but we have elections for that – and, moreover, the election is less than four months away.
But our Supreme Court chief justice disagrees with that line of thought.
Roberts believes, as we all must, that constitutional imperatives are different and quite separate from political imperatives. In Roberts’ opinion, the political imperative for overturning Obamacare was irrelevant to the constitutional question of whether or not Congress had the authority to enact Obamacare. He concluded that Congress does have that constitutional authority –and that constitutional principles trump political imperatives.
What does that have to do with impeachment? It’s very simple.
That principle means that if there is a constitutionally valid reason to impeach and remove a president, then the election process is irrelevant. If a president should be removed for violating the Constitution, then he should be removed today, not four months from today or four years from today.
To put it another way, the constitutional reasons for removing a president are quite different from the political reasons for voting against an incumbent. And here, some of the critics of impeachment are quite right: a president should never be impeached for political reasons, that is, for disagreements over domestic or foreign policy. That, indeed, is the business of elections.
But in Obama’s case, the arguments for impeachment are not based on policy disagreements but on his actions in violation of the Constitution.
Obama has committed at least a half-dozen specific offenses that meet the standards set in the Constitution for impeachment and removal. Thus, there is a constitutional imperative for removing him through the constitutionally prescribed process, not through an election.
In fact, when adequate grounds for impeachment exist, delaying impeachment because of an impending election is an affront to the Constitution! That’s putting politics ahead of the Constitution! Justice Roberts would not approve.
Viewed from this constitutional perspective, the reasons for inaction on an impeachment resolution in the House of Representatives seem not only weak but downright cowardly. The gap between the courage of patriots and the timidity of Republican leaders in Congress is sickening. Tens of millions of Americans believe Barack Hussein Obama needs to be impeached by the House and then removed by a vote of the Senate. Yet, not a single member of Congress has drafted and introduced a formal impeachment resolution to start the process. This is an insult to the Constitution, and as such, it is shameful.
What we hear as an excuse is this cynical argument: If Obama loses the election in November, impeachment is unnecessary. And if he wins, impeachment is impossible because Republicans will be accused of “sour grapes.” Both statements are wrongheaded and surprisingly naïve.
To put that question in more concrete terms, ask yourself this: If Obama loses the election on Nov. 6, do you trust him and his lame-duck Congress to govern the nation in a constitutional manner for the 10 weeks between his defeat and the inauguration of his successor on Jan. 20, 2013? If you answered “no!” then you must also agree that it is imperative to remove him as soon as possible.
Yes, we all understand that the present Democrat-controlled Senate will never take up an impeachment resolution even if one were passed by the House. But Justice Roberts would say that is irrelevant. Impeachment is a necessary and proper step when the Constitution has been violated, regardless of the political prospects for success of the indictment.
Is there adequate evidence to warrant a serious, formal impeachment investigation by the House Judiciary Committee? Yes, absolutely, and committee Chairman Lamar Smith ought to start that process immediately.
There is an avalanche of evidence that Obama has committed numerous crimes against the Constitution. Here are only a few examples:
- He violated the Constitution by appointing executive branch officials when the Senate was not in recess.
- He approved leaks of sensitive national security information for purely political gain.
- He improperly used executive privilege to block a congressional investigation of Eric Holder’s participation in the illegal Fast and Furious gun-walking scandal.
- He violated congressional authority by ordering an end to the lawful deportation of illegal immigrants.
- He ordered or personally approved grants and contracts to private companies as a payoff for political campaign support.
The list goes on. These are not mere policy disagreements. Any president of any party who behaves in this manner ought to be removed through the constitutional prescribed manner – impeachment.
And that process needs to begin now, not in January or June of 2013.
Hat Tip: BB
Hat Tip: BB