06/29/16

Why Does Obama Hate Britain?

By: Cliff Kincaid | Accuracy in Media

Coming to the end of the Obama administration, with the wreckage of its foreign policy all around us, the naïve conservatives running the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal are begging President Obama to offer “A New American Deal for Europe.”

“It’s time for the U.S. to get back in the game because America needs a confident, prosperous Europe as a partner to defend the West against the rise of authoritarian regimes and global disorder,” the editorial writers say. In the case of Obama, however, this is like waiting for the tooth fairy or the Easter bunny.

Europe is already dominated by the Germany of Angela Merkel, an agent, or at least a stooge, of Russia’s Vladimir Putin. Her welcome mat to Syrian refugees has been disastrous for her own country, an unsurprising development considering the fact that Air Force General Philip M. Breedlove had described the exodus of refugees from the Middle East as a form of “weaponization” used by Russia and its ally Syria to destabilize Europe. Breedlove served as the Commander of U.S. European Command.

But rather than confront Russia, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier hasaccused NATO of “warmongering” because the alliance is conducting military exercises in order to repel a full-blown Russian invasion of Europe. This is a sure sign of the German government’s desire to accommodate Russian interests in Europe.

Christopher Story, a former economic adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, had always warned of Russian-German collaboration in wanting to dominate Europe. His massive volume, The European Union Collective: Enemy of Its Member States, was published in 2002.

Incredibly, Bloomberg reports that Obama is now proposing to use the Brexit as an excuse to replace Britain with Germany as America’s key ally in Europe.

Britain’s decision to leave the EU was a patriotic but dangerous move, not only because Obama is the U.S. President and he opposed Brexit, but because of the global forces now arrayed against it. Billionaire hedge fund operator George Soros, who argued for Britain to “remain” in the EU, now warns, “…the UK itself may not survive. Scotland, which voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU, can be expected to make another attempt to gain its independence, and some officials in Northern Ireland, where voters also backed Remain, have already called for unification with the Republic of Ireland.”

A major Democratic moneybags who backs such figures as current Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Soros is capable of destabilizing entire countries. In 1992 he engaged in a complex financial transaction that resulted in the Bank of England losing billions of dollars defending the British pound sterling, before having to devalue it.

This time around, his spokesman denies that Soros speculated against the pound, but admits that “because of his generally bearish outlook on world markets, Mr. Soros did profit from other investments.”

Trying to get Merkel off the hook for what has happened to Germany, Soros wrote that while her decision in welcoming the refugees “was an inspiring gesture,” it was “not properly thought out” because the “sudden influx of asylum-seekers disrupted people in their everyday lives across the EU.”

It’s hard to believe this was “not properly thought out,” and that Merkel didn’t know what she was doing. In any case, Soros says “the disintegration of the EU” is now “practically irreversible.” He stands ready to pick up the pieces, making tons of money, and then funneling a major portion of it into liberal coffers. Over the last 32 years,according to their own estimate, the Soros-funded Open Society Foundations had expenditures of more than $13 billion.

From their perspective, the British people were desperate to save what’s left of their nation, whose capital, London, recently elected a Muslim Mayor, Sadiq Khan, who has connections to radical Islam.

For his part, Obama said openly that he wanted the British to stay in the EU. Otherwise, he said they would end up at the back of the line for trade deals.

Nigel Farage, leader of the U.K. Independence Party, quite rightly blasted Obama for those remarks. But he said at the same time that Putin had behaved in a more “statesmanlike” manner. Putin had just returned from a meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping and spoke of their growing strategic alliance against the West, consisting of expanding political, economic, and military operations.

Obama’s terrible treatment of an ally is not surprising. Obama views Britain as a white colonial power that oppressed his brothers and sisters of color, and Muslims around the world.

In 2012, it was reported that Obama had removed the bust of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who rallied the British people during WWII, from the Oval Office, and sent it back to the British Embassy. The White House scrambled to correct that, saying the bust had just been moved somewhere else in the White House complex.

Where does this hatred come from? All roads lead to Obama’s mentor, the Communist Frank Marshall Davis, the man the media haven’t wanted to talk about for seven years now.

Professor Paul Kengor, author of a book about Davis, notes that he “harbored a special hatred for Winston Churchill, who, like [Democratic President Harry S.] Truman, opposed Stalin’s Soviet Union—the country to which Davis dedicated his heart, his mind, his soul, and his pen.” Davis, a propagandist for the Communist Party in Hawaii, had written that “the only people Churchill gives a rap about are the white people of the British Empire,” and that Churchill wanted America to join him in bludgeoning “all other countries into submission.” He complained that Churchill favored a postwar U.S.-UK alliance that excluded the USSR.

Despite Obama’s anti-British mentality, the Journal’s recent editorial said, “An important first signal would be for the U.S. to invite the U.K. to begin bilateral free-trade talks that run alongside current talks with the EU.”

But the Journal editorial writers have to know that Obama has no intention of pursuing that idea. However, Art Harman, who was legislative director for former Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX), has proposed a bill to do just that. Harman tells AIM that “just introducing such a bill or resolution would send our great ally the message that they can vote according to their best interests without fear that the U.S. would cost them trade if they vote the ‘wrong’ way, and to reassure markets that Obama’s threat will not stand.”

Harman suggests that the bill should be called “The Winston Churchill Trade Continuation Act.”

Cliff Kincaid

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected]View the complete archives from Cliff Kincaid.

10/28/15

A Stamp for Disgraced Newsman Cronkite?

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

Before Dan Rather disgraced himself as the anchor of the CBS Evening News, there was Walter Cronkite, who paved the way for a communist takeover of South Vietnam and openly despised and attacked President Ronald Reagan’s peace-through-strength policies. Cronkite, who became an advocate of world government and a stooge of Soviet propaganda operations, is now the subject of a campaign to put his likeness on an official U.S. postage stamp.

The terrible truth about Walter Cronkite, as we noted in 2009 after his passing, is that he “symbolized liberal media bias and used that bias with disastrous consequences for our nation and the world.”

This wasn’t just our opinion. The 1974 book by Dr. Ernest W. LeFever, TV and National Defense, examined in meticulous detail how CBS News programs under Cronkite “were frequently critical of U.S. policy,” usually from a perspective that “implied or called for a lesser military commitment and lower defense expenditures.”

The CBS News bias against a strong national defense continued when President Reagan took office, after the policies of Democratic President Jimmy Carter had severely weakened America’s standing in the world.

The push for a Cronkite stamp comes at a time when Robert Redford is playing Cronkite’s successor, Dan Rather, in a movie ironically titled “Truth” and based on a lie. Rather used forged documents to smear Republican President George W. Bush’s military service.

The proposed stamp seems to be a case of the old media longing for the days when a figure like Cronkite, once known as “the most trusted man in America,” could manipulate the public and affect national policy with little, if any, dissent.

The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) and the Radio Television Digital News Association are leading the campaign to have the Citizens’ Stamp Advisory Committee, a 12-member group appointed by the postmaster general, issue a stamp in Cronkite’s honor.

As CBS Evening News anchorman, Cronkite campaigned against the American effort to save Vietnam from communism and attacked President Reagan for his anti-communist and anti-Soviet views. What was suspected during his life became known after his death. Cronkite was named in his FBI file as having been targeted in a Soviet “active measures” campaign against President Reagan’s anti-communist foreign policy.

Later in life, as if to confirm his role as an agent of influence against his own government, Cronkite made an appearance before the World Federalist Association, which favors world government financed by global taxes, and called for the U.S. to renounce “some of its sovereignty” and pass a series of United Nations treaties. Then-First Lady Hillary Clinton also appeared, via videotape, to pay tribute to the former CBS Evening News anchorman.

In 1988, Cronkite addressed a left-wing People for the American Way conference and denounced President Reagan for the “unilateral” military actions in Grenada, when the U.S. military evicted a communist gang, and Libya, when Reagan ordered a military strike in retaliation for the acts of terrorism against Americans.

Incredibly, Cronkite said that the smartest president he ever met was Jimmy Carter. The Carter presidency paved the way for the coming to power of the communist Sandinistas in Nicaragua and the Islamic zealots in Iran. Later in life, Carter became an advocate of the interests of the Arab/Muslim world against Israel.

But SPJ at-large board member Bill McCloskey told Accuracy in Media, “In my view, Walter Cronkite deserves to be commemorated by the Postal Service as were a few other prominent journalists. He had a talent for engaging the American public in the important issues of the day in a way that they could understand and digest. His talent showed particularly in his reporting on Watergate and Vietnam, two very complex stories that had great importance to his audience, which was vast. There is a reason he was known as ‘the most trusted man in America.’ Certainly Walter Cronkite fulfills the Postal Service’s goal of commemorating American history better than some of the current crop of stamps featuring stylized eagles, flowers, ducks and bunnies.”

Regarding coverage of the war in Southeast Asia, Cronkite “contributed a great deal to our defeat in Vietnam,” noted Accuracy in Media founder Reed Irvine.

As we have previously pointed out, the bloody result of the Vietnam War was 58,260 U.S. servicemen and nearly one million civilians dead. The South Vietnamese military lost about a quarter of a million, while tens of thousands of South Vietnamese allies of the U.S. were left behind after the American military withdrawal and tortured in communist camps. Thousands of others fled in leaky boats, becoming known as the “boat people.”

Professor Paul Kengor’s book, All The Dupes Fit To Print: Journalists Who Have Served As Tools of Communist Propaganda, devotes a chapter to Cronkite, noting he was singled out in Soviet propaganda operations as willing to go along with communist campaigns against U.S. foreign policy. The record is clear for anyone, including professional journalists, to see.

Nevertheless, Arizona State University’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication has joined the campaign to honor Cronkite, saying it is encouraging alumni, students, faculty, staff and the journalism community to write a letter of support to the Citizens’ Stamp Advisory Committee.

Cronkite School Dean Christopher Callahan said, “Walter Cronkite is our school’s guiding light…We are rallying our network of students, alumni, faculty and friends to get behind this fantastic proposal by the Society of Professional Journalists and the Radio Television Digital News Association.”

The eagles, flowers, ducks and bunnies that the SPJ’s McCloskey says are featured on stamps are harmless. Cronkite left a legacy of suffering and death and helped destroy objective news reporting in the process. It is shocking that a journalism school is named after him and that the SPJ, which maintains an ethics code, is leading a campaign to honor the disgraced journalist.

However, a stamp in tribute to Cronkite would be on the same level as a movie honoring his disgraced successor.

After honoring Cronkite, can a stamp paying tribute to Brian Williams be far behind? Williams’ lies are penny ante compared to Cronkite’s ability to destroy a free South Vietnam, apologize for Soviet communism, and promote world government.

Citizens’ Stamp Advisory Committee, 475 L’Enfant Plaza SW, Room 3300, Washington, DC 20260-3501.

07/2/15

Celebrate the 4th: Impeach Kagan and Ginsburg

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

Justice Antonin Scalia said in his dissent in the same-sex marriage case that the ruling was a threat to our democratic form of government and constitutes a “judicial Putsch,” or secret power grab. He didn’t just say the majority was wrong or misguided; he essentially said they had conspired to overthrow our form of government. His position on the Court may have made it impossible to supply specifics. But one possible explanation of what he meant is that he saw a conflict-of-interest on the part of members of the majority, which required their recusal from the case.

Rather than investigate what Scalia is hinting at, our media have opened fire on Scalia for blowing the whistle on judicial corruption.

In fact, the push for gay marriage has been tainted by lies from the beginning. As Professor Paul Kengor notes, Obama himself was caught lying by his own adviser, David Axelrod, who now admits Obama favored gay marriage when he was publicly opposing it to get elected. “According to Axelrod,” Kengor told WorldNetDaily, “Obama supported gay marriage as far back as the mid-1990s, when he was an aspiring Chicago politician. He publicly suggested otherwise, however, in order to get votes, especially from African-Americans who rejected gay marriage in higher numbers than white Americans.”

Kengor, author of Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage, said he believes Obama was influenced in favor of “a more open view toward sexuality” by his communist mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, a pornographer and pedophile. But Obama was careful to sound conservative and Christian on these issues when he ran for president.

What’s more, as AIM has documented on numerous occasions, media “coverage” of the issue has been non-stop propaganda, much of it emanating from a group called the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association. Most people haven’t heard of the group, which is the way they want it. The nature of gay pride parades has even been censored, prohibiting the public from understanding that the homosexual movement celebrates crude displays of nudity and vulgarity.

Politically, it would be one thing if Scalia had responded that there was an honest disagreement over the meaning of certain words in the Constitution. Instead, he said the majority subverted the Constitution by reading into it something that does not exist—the “right” to force government at all levels to recognize gay marriage. By inventing this “right,” Scalia and the other dissenters said, the Court has put our actual rights of freedom of religion and expression in grave jeopardy. This seems to be the nature of the “putsch” Scalia is talking about. He could very well be referring to behind-the-scenes pressures put on the Justices by homosexual elite forces, the financially powerful one to two percent, who seem to have so much sway over the media, academia and the corporate world. These people are now attempting to suppress a new film, “An Open Secret,” about pedophilia in Hollywood.

Whatever the reason for the putsch, our form of government has been overthrown and another put in its place—a judicial dictatorship that is devoted to elevating to protected status a sexual minority seeking the abolition of traditional values. Left unchecked in its drive for power over others, this cabal threatens not only our heritage but America’s standing in the world as a superpower. It appears the Obama administration wants to spend more money on Pentagon gay pride events and climate change than actual weapons systems to defend America.

As we get ready to celebrate Independence Day, however, we can rest assured that the American people remember enough about the founding of their country that they cannot and will not accept a judicial tyranny. That would make a complete mockery of what July 4^th is all about and what millions of Americans have sacrificed for.

The critical part of the law in the gay marriage case is Title 28, Part I, Chapter 21, Section 455 of the U.S. Code, which is applicable to judges and courts. It says, “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” These disqualifications include cases in which “he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party…”

Our media didn’t treat it as a big deal, but Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg had both officiated at gay weddings. Groups such as the National Organization for Marriage, the American Family Association, the Coalition of African American Pastors, and the Foundation for Moral Law had called for Kagan and Ginsburg to withdraw from the case.

Matthew Kidd, executive director of the Foundation for Moral Law, told Accuracy in Media that the failure by Kagan and Ginsburg to withdraw from the case leaves them open to impeachment and removal from the bench.

But will Congress act?

According to the Supreme Court website, the only Justice to be impeached was Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1805. It says the House of Representatives passed Articles of Impeachment against him; however, he was acquitted by the Senate. A majority is required for impeachment in the House but a two-thirds vote is required for conviction.

In the case of Kagan, an Obama appointee, she may have had a personal conflict-of-interest. This is a sensitive matter, but various reports indicated that Kagan was a known lesbian before she was nominated to the Court by President Obama. For example, the gay blog QueerTY had identified her as a lesbian. That would mean she was compromised on homosexual issues prior to her ascension to the bench and after she was confirmed. This is a conflict of interest that cannot be tolerated.

Whether the reports of her lesbianism are true or not, we know that Kagan had an extremely radical record as Dean of Harvard Law School (2003 to 2009) where she promoted homosexuality and transgenderism. Nevertheless, she was confirmed to the Supreme Court in a 63 to 37 vote.

Kagan “avoided the sort of scrutiny that some nominees have faced,” The Washington Post noted at the time.

We now see the evidence of what happens when the media and Congress fail to do their jobs.

Congress, however, can try to undo some of the damage by holding hearings into the possible impeachment of Justices Kagan and Ginsburg. This would be one way of getting to the bottom of Scalia’s sensational charge that America’s democratic system has been subverted and stolen from the American people.

We are bound to hear that impeachment would be difficult and conviction impossible. There’s always an excuse for not taking bold action in Washington, D.C. But a congressional failure to act, in the wake of Scalia’s extraordinary charge of a judicial Putsch, would suggest that celebrating July 4^th means fireworks and nothing more.

I think enough Americans are sufficiently concerned about this matter that they want to see some real fireworks, in the form of Congress exposing the lies, corruption and conflicts of interest that went into the sick and tyrannical gay marriage ruling.

Members of Congress taking up this cause will not get sympathetic headlines in the media. But it is something that has to be done if Independence Day is going to have any meaning left at all.

06/30/15

Scholar Speaks on Obama’s Red Mentor

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

The black scholar who previously revealed Obama’s personal relationship with Communist Party operative Frank Marshall Davis is now speaking in detail on the record. Professor Gerald Horne says that while the relationship is noteworthy and should have been uncovered by the press, there is no evidence that Davis turned Obama “into some sort of Manchurian candidate.”

However, Professor Paul Kengor’s book about Davis, The Communist, argues that Davis had a significant influence on the formation of Obama’s Marxist views and policies as President.

Horne, who holds the John J. and Rebecca Moores Chair of History and African American Studies at the University of Houston, is a contributor to Communist Party USA publications such as Political Affairs magazine. He spoke at a March 23, 2007, event at New York University’s Tamiment Library to celebrate the donation of Communist Party materials to the library.

It was at that event that Horne, speaking before an audience that included Communist Party leaders, discussed then-Senator Barack Obama’s relationship with a Communist Party figure in Hawaii, Davis, who died in 1987.

The revelation that a U.S. senator preparing to run for president was linked to a high-level official of the Communist Party, a party which had been funded by Moscow and used to infiltrate the U.S. government, seemed like big news. Yet, despite coverage of Horne’s remarks by blogger Trevor Loudon and Accuracy in Media before Obama won his first presidential term in 2008, the major U.S. media ignored the relationship and the matter of whether Davis had influenced Obama’s politics, and even had recruited him to the Marxist cause. It was apparent that the media did not want to publicize anything that might inhibit the election of the first black president in the U.S.

In my interview, Horne said he came across the activities of Davis while researching his book on labor unions in Hawaii, Fighting in Paradise: Labor Unions, Racism and Communists in the Making of Modern Hawaii, 2011.

“So as I was reading about Frank Marshall Davis there was the simultaneous ascension to influence of then-Senator Barack Obama and I read his memoir [Dreams from My Father], where he talks about a character by the name of Frank and I just put two and two together,” Horne told me. “I don’t think it took a great logical leap.” He added, “The press should have uncovered this, not some obscure professor in Houston.”

In that 2007 speech at Tamiment Library, entitled, “Rethinking the History and Future of the Communist Party,” Horne had referred to Davis as “an African-American poet and journalist” who was “certainly in the orbit of the CP—if not a member …” and had become a friend to Barack Obama and his family in Hawaii.

Horne also noted that Obama, in his memoir, spoke “warmly of an older black poet, he identifies simply as ‘Frank’ as being a decisive influence in helping him to find his present identity as an African-American…”

The Horne speech was subsequently published in the Communist Party newspaper People’s World.

New Zealand researcher Trevor Loudon, who has written two books on Marxist influence in the Obama administration and Congress, discovered the Horne speech identifying “Frank” as Frank Marshall Davis and treated the revelation as a significant fact regarding Obama’s presidential run. We confirmed the information in a February 18, 2008, column, “Obama’s Communist Mentor.” Later that year we obtained the 600-page FBI file on Davis, confirming his actual membership in the CPUSA and raising suspicions that Davis was a Soviet espionage agent.

But the major media refused to treat the information as a serious impediment to Obama’s fitness for office. The Obama campaign lied about Davis, portraying him as just a civil rights activist.

I argued in the interview with Horne that the failure of the press to uncover or publicize the evidence of the Obama-Davis connection was the result of liberals or “progressives” thinking that the relationship would hurt Obama’s chances to be president.

Horne said he wasn’t convinced that was the case, at least in terms of how the black community would react, since Davis had a reputation as a noted black literary figure who had been an associate of the prominent black novelist Richard Wright, a former CPUSA member. Horne said membership in the CPUSA did not “carry as much opprobrium” in the black community “as it might carry in other communities.” In addition, he argued, “if you start digging deep in terms of the public and published record about Obama and Davis, you quickly find there’s not much there. I mean we know that Obama mentioned him. We know that Davis was a radical. But we’re not able to make the link that Davis turned Obama into some sort of Manchurian candidate.”

In fact, however, Obama makes at least 22 explicit references to “Frank” in his memoir, talks about how Davis influenced his thinking on race and other matters during eight years in Hawaii, and in a recently discovered 1995 speech promoting his book acknowledged that Davis had “schooled” him on the subject of white racism.

Horne countered, “Some of my friends on the left who are quite hostile to Obama would say that if Davis schooled Obama, he didn’t do a very good job.”

Back in 2007, however, Horne had predicted that Obama, then a somewhat obscure political figure, would go down in history.

Horne said, “At some point in the future, a teacher will add to her syllabus Barack’s memoir and instruct her students to read it alongside Frank Marshall Davis’ equally affecting memoir, ‘Living the Blues’ and when that day comes, I’m sure a future student will not only examine critically the Frankenstein monsters that U.S. imperialism created in order to subdue Communist parties but will also be moved to come to this historic and wonderful archive in order to gain insight on what has befallen this complex and intriguing planet on which we reside.”

The role of Communist parties here and abroad is a favorite subject of Horne, who has written more than 30 books. These books include:

Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America (2014).

Black Revolutionary: William Patterson and the Globalization of the African-American Freedom Struggle (2014).

From the Barrel of a Gun: The U.S. and the War Against Zimbabwe (2001).

The Final Victim of the Blacklist: John Howard Lawson, Dean of the Hollywood Ten (2005).

The Communist Party USA backed Obama for president in 2008, and in 2012 said his re-election was “absolutely essential.”

Current policies and programs of the CPUSA include support for Obamacare, rights for homosexuals, and Pope Francis’ encyclical on climate change.

06/27/15

Overthrow the Judicial Dictatorship

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

Commentators have missed the real significance of Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in the gay marriage case. He calls the decision a judicial “Putsch,” an attempt to overthrow a form of government—ours. His dissent, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, was written “to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.”

His comment about the Court using the kind of reasoning we find in a fortune cookie is a funny line. But there is much of the Scalia dissent that is not funny and which serves as a warning to the American people about what the Court has done to us.

Scalia understands the power and meaning of words and he chose the word “putsch” for a specific purpose. One definition of the term means “a secretly plotted and suddenly executed attempt to overthrow a government…” Another definition is “a plotted revolt or attempt to overthrow a government, especially one that depends upon suddenness and speed.”

Hence, Scalia is saying this was not only a blatant power grab and the creation of a “right” that does not exist, but a decision that depends on public ignorance about what is really taking place. It is our system of checks and balances and self-rule that has been undermined, he says.

In that sense, he is warning us that we need to understand the real significance of this decision, and go beyond all the commentators talking about “marriage equality” and “equal rights” for homosexuals. In effect, he is saying that the decision is really not about gay rights, but about the future of our constitutional republic, and the ability of the people to govern themselves rather than be governed by an elite panel making up laws and rights as they go.

Scalia’s dissent cannot be understood by listening to summaries made by commentators who probably didn’t read it. Although I may be accused of exaggerating the import of his dissent, my conclusion is that he is calling for nothing less than the American people to understand that a judicial dictatorship has emerged in this country and that its power must be addressed, checked, and overruled.

The implication of his dissent is that we, the American people, have to neutralize this panel, perhaps by removing the offenders from the court, and put in place a group of thinkers who are answerable to the Constitution and the people whose rights the Court is supposed to protect.

He says the majority on the court undermined the main principle of the American Revolution—“the freedom to govern themselves”—by sabotaging the right of the people to decide these matters. The Court destroyed the definition of marriage as one man and one woman “in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law.” In other words, the Court acted unlawfully and unconstitutionally.

Scalia called the decision “a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government.”

Justice Scalia goes on, however, to attempt to explain why this is happening. He basically says, in so many words, that the majority of the Court is un-American, completely out of touch with American traditions and the views of ordinary Americans. He rips the Federal Judiciary as “hardly a cross-section of America,” people from elite law schools, with not a single person from middle-America, and not a single evangelical Christian or even a Protestant of any denomination. He calls the Court, on which he serves, a “highly unrepresentative panel of nine,” that has engaged in “social transformation” of the United States.

More than that, after examining the elite views and backgrounds of the “notorious nine,” he declares that while the American Revolution was a rejection of “taxation without representation,” we have in the gay marriage case, “social transformation without representation.”

One cannot help but think that Scalia wants readers to recall Obama’s promise of the “fundamental transformation” of America, except that in this case Obama has been assisted by five judges who did not represent, or even care about, the views of America as a whole.

While Scalia zeroed in on his colleagues on the Court, we can easily apply his analysis to the unelected members of the liberal media who pretend to offer the American people an objective and sensible interpretation of the decision.

On CNN, for example, anchor Brooke Baldwin “moderated” a discussion between lesbian liberal Sally Kohn and liberal pro-gay “Republican” Margaret Hoover. The only issue was when the Republican Party would accept gay rights and sell out conservative Christians. Baldwin herself is a member, or at least a supporter, of the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association.

Conservatives watching Fox News and hoping for a pro-traditional values perspective are likely to be seriously disappointed as well. The new Fox star, Megyn Kelly, is getting rave reviews from the liberals for defending homosexual and transgender rights. A special report by Peter LaBarbera examines how Fox has been almost as biased on this issue as other media, calling the channel “unfair, unbalanced and afraid.” The word “afraid” describes the general failure to challenge the homosexual movement, into which Fox News has been pouring a significant amount of money for many years. Indeed, some “conservatives” have gone way over to the other side, with Greg Gutfeld, another rising Fox star, insisting that gay marriage is a conservative concept.

The Scalia dissent demonstrates why the fight for traditional values cannot and must not stop. That fight must continue because our form of democratic self-government is in grave jeopardy, and has in fact suffered a major blow. A federal constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage is one obvious course of action. But that won’t solve the basic problem of an emerging judicial dictatorship willing to redefine historical institutions, make up rights, and defy common sense.

The court’s reputation for “clear thinking and sober analysis” is in danger because of this terribly misguided decision, Scalia writes. In other words, the Court is drunk with power and cannot see or think straight.

The same can be said about the major media, which cover this decision as just another controversial ruling that people will disagree on.

In fact, as the Scalia dissent notes, this decision will live in infamy. It is as if a Pearl Harbor-type attack has been achieved on America’s moral fabric and constitutional foundations.

In this context, Scalia talks about the Court overreaching its authority and moving “one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.” In my view, this is an open invitation for responsible elected officials to take power away from this Court and return it to the people.

But how will the Republican Party respond? Some big money players are demanding the white flag of surrender, so the GOP can “move on.” This is what the British “Conservative” Party has done, and we see the consequences there, as Christians are now being arrested by police or fired from their jobs for expressing views in favor of traditional values and traditional marriage.

Scalia’s discussion of “social transformation” of the United States without the voluntary input or approval of the people captures the essence of the coup that has been carried out. This process now has to be explained in terms that most people understand. It is, in fact, the phenomenon of cultural Marxism, an insidious process explained so forcefully in Professor Paul Kengor’s new book, Takedown.

As Kengor notes, gay marriage is only the beginning of this cultural transformation. By redefining the historical institution, the Court has opened the door to multiple wives, group marriages, sibling marriages, fathers and stepfathers marrying daughters and stepdaughters, and uncles marrying nieces.

A country that descends to the bottom of the barrel morally and culturally will not be able to defend itself against its foreign adversaries and enemies. Indeed, we have the evidence all around us that, as the culture has degenerated, our ability to defend ourselves has simultaneously been weakened. The recent Pentagon gay pride event featured a male General introducing his husband, as a transgender Pentagon civilian employee looked on.

The next step, from the point of view of those objecting to this fundamental transformation of America, has to be to find those elected leaders willing to act. The presidential campaign of 2016 is an opportunity to find out who understands the crisis and whether they have a way out.

06/19/15

Obama’s Horrendous Father’s Day Example

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

When Barack Obama campaigned for president in 2008, few Americans would have guessed that his administration would become the most anti-family force in U.S. history by celebrating gay marriage and the spectacle of men becoming women through the phenomenon of “transgenderism.” Obama had portrayed himself as a committed pro-family Christian who recognized the importance of male role models and fathers in the family structure. “Of all the rocks upon which we build our lives, we are reminded today that family is the most important. And we are called to recognize and honor how critical every father is to that foundation,” Obama said in a “Fatherhood speech” in June of that year.

But in response to Bruce Jenner, a biological father of six, declaring he was actually female, Obama said, “It takes courage to share your story.” Nothing was said about the impact such a bizarre declaration would have on one’s children, or the condition of one’s mental state to bring that about. Obama seemed to be endorsing genital mutilation as a way out of mental confusion or mental illness.

Obama’s definition of family has certainly changed. Indeed, he was once in favor of marriage being between one man and one woman, and today he celebrates fatherless and motherless families. He lied about his commitment to traditional marriage in order to get elected. It was a big con, but only one of many deceptions from the candidate of “hope and change” whose lasting legacy, as noted in Professor Paul Kengor’s new book Takedown, could very well be cultural and not economic transformation. After all, parts of Obamacare could be repealed over time, and economic reforms could arrest our debt problem, which has accelerated under Obama. But restoring the traditional family is a mammoth undertaking that even Republican presidential candidates are generally afraid to talk about.

Speaking to the Apostolic Church of God in Chicago in that 2008 speech, Obama had quoted from the Bible and said to the congregation, “if we are honest with ourselves” they would have to admit that “too many fathers…[are] missing from too many lives and too many homes. They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it.”

But the fact that “Bruce” Jenner will go missing from that family is something that is now celebrated by Obama.

If Obama had told that black congregation that he would be a president who would go down in history as praising a man for dressing up like a woman, the audience would have probably laughed out loud, thinking it was a joke. Who could have anticipated that a man who once lectured the nation on the need for a strong father would later defend a father’s decision to quit being one.

Another major deception from Obama was his claim that he never really had a father who was part of his life. In a 2013 Morehouse College address, he said, “I was raised by a heroic single mom, wonderful grandparents—made incredible sacrifices for me. And I know there are moms and grandparents here today who did the same thing for all of you. But I sure wish I had had a father who was not only present, but involved. Didn’t know my dad. And so my whole life, I’ve tried to be for Michelle and my girls what my father was not for my mother and me. I want to break that cycle where a father is not at home—(applause)—where a father is not helping to raise that son or daughter. I want to be a better father, a better husband, a better man.”

Filmmaker Joel Gilbert says that Obama’s comments about not having a father present in his childhood are 100 percent bogus, and that he had several fathers or father-figures.

Gilbert, director of the film, “Dreams from My Real Father,” examines Obama’s formative years and comes to the determination that the Communist Party member and suspected Soviet espionage agent, Frank Marshall Davis, was Obama’s real biological father. He believes the Kenyan Obama was a “father in name only” who was used to cover up an affair between Davis and Obama’s mother. Gilbert added, “Obama’s problem was not a lack of fathers, rather it was that his biological father became his ideological mentor and radicalized him into an anti-American ideology.”

We broke the story in the U.S. that Davis was Obama’s childhood mentor, a fact that The Washington Post still will not admit. Obama himself admits Davis “schooled” him on white racism. “All my research has indicated that Obama visited with Davis about three times per week during his entire youth from age 10 to 18,” Gilbert says. “Davis gave him money, taught him to drink whiskey, took him to strip clubs, and indoctrinated Obama during those formative years with his Communist view of the world.”

In addition to Davis, however, Gilbert says Obama had other “fathers” or father figures. These included his grandfather, “gramps,” a constant father figure presence, and his adopted father, Lolo Soetoro, whom he stayed in touch with even after his mother divorced him. He adds, “Never one to be without a father figure, Obama enlisted a [Frank Marshall Davis] carbon copy ideologue, whom he said ‘was like an uncle.’” That was the notorious Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who functioned like a father to Obama after Frank Marshall Davis died. Like Davis, Wright was a vicious anti-American.

The idea that Davis is truly Obama’s “real father” is certainly controversial and could only be solved definitively by DNA analysis. However, Gilbert recently interviewed Obama’s half-brother, Malik Obama, who says that “Frank Marshall Davis and Barack look alike,” and that Barack does not look like his father, the Kenyan Obama. Comparison photos between Frank Marshall Davis and President Obama are indeed striking. Malik Obama says he would welcome a DNA test, and that this might explain why Barack dumped the Kenyan Obamas after he was elected President.

Once a strong proponent of the traditional meaning of Father’s Day, in order to get elected to the presidency, Obama will now go down in history for demeaning this national celebration honoring fathers and fatherhood.

Consider Barack Obama as the President who celebrated a man for acting and trying to look like a woman. At this rate, Father’s Day cards will one day be sold in the “he” and “she” categories.

The impact on our young people from this presidential “example” will be seen and felt in the years ahead: more sexual confusion, alienation from family, mental illness and suicides.

This is what progressive “change” looks like.

06/17/15

Study Marxism to Understand Hillary

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush’s speech that launched his presidential campaign on Monday noted that Hillary Clinton’s “progressive agenda” includes the admonition that traditional religious beliefs “have to be changed.” Mrs. Clinton’s entire quote, in talking about opposition to her version of feminism and demands for abortion, was that “…deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”

Bush also said of the Democrats, “They have offered a progressive agenda that includes everything but progress.”

But it’s never been the case that the progressive agenda offers real progress, as ordinary people understand the term. Instead, the “progressives” offer what Professor Paul Kengor calls cultural Marxism. This is the planned disintegration of the traditional family structure that has been the basis of Western civilization. Kengor, author of the new book, Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage, told me in an interview that the progressives are guided by the belief that “new rights are coming all the time and that everything is in a state of evolution.” He added, “There are no absolutes for them.” Hence, the gay rights movement has now morphed into rights for so-called transgenders, as we see in the relentless media propaganda that is designed to convince the public that men can, and perhaps should, become women. Kengor says the next step is for “progress” or “evolution” to a new level that includes such concepts and arrangements as multiple wives, group marriages, sibling marriages, fathers and stepfathers marrying daughters and stepdaughters, and uncles marrying nieces.

It’s no secret that Bill and Hillary Clinton’s family structure exists in name only. Bill, the disgraced former president impeached by the House, betrayed Hillary and had sex with a White House intern. He is a serial adulterer. But the Clintons have stayed together for political reasons, so that Hillary can pursue her political career. Together, along with daughter Chelsea, this arrangement has generated nearly $2 billion in donations to a family foundation that now finds itself embroiled in financial scandals over where the money went, and what it paid for.

Looking back on Mrs. Clinton’s career, I continue to be struck by the wisdom of Barbara Olson, the author of the 1999 book Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Olson was the lawyer and conservative commentator who was murdered by Islamic terrorists when the aircraft she was on, American Airlines Flight 77, was hijacked and flown into the Pentagon in the September 11, 2001, attacks. The crash killed 125 people on the ground and another 64 passengers and crew.

I interviewed Olson on December 8, 2000, when I hosted a radio show in the Washington, D.C. area. What follows is an edited transcript of that interview.

Q: Do you believe that Hillary Rodham Clinton is a Marxist?

A: I believe she has a political ideology that has its roots in Marxism. In her formative years, Marxism was a very important part of her ideology…But when you look at her ideas on health and education, you see more government and less individual control. You see very little regard for families…

Q: Do you see Hillary as in favor of Socialist-style thinking at the global level?

A: We saw that with her activities as First Lady. She traveled more than any other First Lady. She had a global view. She spoke at the Beijing conference on women. She was very active in organizations and conferences that seem to be concerned about human rights but which are also directed toward a centralized governmental view. That is, one world. I looked at her travels and saw what she was doing. I always assumed Hillary was going to run for president. And I assumed that these international travels and her work with the Beijing women’s conference and the U.N. were going to be her way into the White House; that she was going to have a foreign policy platform that not many women have…

Q: So you do believe that she will run for president?

A: I do. She believes her ideology to the core. She’s worked for it behind Bill Clinton for years. I have thought that Hillary was going to run for the White House since 1993 when I started investigating the Clintons. She doesn’t compromise. She doesn’t come to the center. She believes in a true leftist, Socialist kind of government.

Q: She portrays her causes such as children’s rights and women’s rights in such an attractive manner. She has put conservatives on the defensive once again.

A: She has. That’s the central focus of her public relations campaign…But her ideas about health care and education have very little to do with women and children. They are the lever she uses to bring the government into the family.

Q: She’s been pushing treaties such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Isn’t she promoting global government?

A: Yes. We all know about her book, It Takes a Village. She says the future is not family but the larger village of teachers, pediatricians and social workers. She talks about raising children as less of a parental task than a social one…You have the destruction of the family unit. That’s very basic when you study socialism and Marxism.

Mrs. Clinton’s speech to the Women in the World Summit, where she spoke on how religious beliefs have to be changed, was significant for several reasons. The event was sponsored by Tina Brown, who launched The Daily Beast and later became editor-in-chief of Newsweek. The event was conducted in association with The New York Times, and included actress Meryl Streep and comedian Jon Stewart. These were the elites of the progressive media and Hollywood.

Typically, Mrs. Clinton talked about families at the event. “We know that when women are strong, families are strong,” she said. “When families are strong, countries are strong.” It’s important to understand this comment in light of her own failed marriage, which she has held together for political purposes, and how she has adopted the entire progressive agenda regarding how traditional families have to be changed to accommodate new sexual rights and new “family” structures. Olson’s book is still important in order to understand what Mrs. Clinton means by families, and how Marxists use family-friendly jargon to confuse and mislead. Kengor’s book is absolutely essential to understand how the progressive agenda would continue to transform the nation under a President Hillary Clinton.

Jeb Bush’s presidential campaign announcement demonstrated that he is aware of the political and semantic games that the modern-day progressives are playing on the American people. If he focuses on this Marxist strain in the Democratic Party in order to identify the forces that are rotting America to the core, he will find many conservatives receptive to his message. At the same time, if he pursues this course, the progressives in the media who gathered around Hillary Clinton during that April feminist summit will come down on the former Florida governor like a ton of bricks.

Will Bush follow up with a full frontal assault on the progressive forces destroying America? Or will he wilt under pressure and make nice with those prepared to destroy the country he wants to lead?

06/12/15

The Marxist/Gay “Takedown” of America

By: Cliff Kincaid
America’s Survival

Paul Kengor’s new book, Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage, examines “cultural Marxism,” the application of Marxism to culture rather than the economic sphere. Kengor’s book, available from WorldNetDaily and other sites, outlines how this movement to “fundamentally transform” America has reached its zenith under the presidency of Barack Obama and the Democratic Party. Things have happened so quickly, he notes, that “everyday Americans” have even been conditioned to embrace major aspects of this revolutionary change.

06/1/15

Have We Lost the Cultural War?

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

Paul Kengor’s new book, Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage, provides a detailed explanation of why, according to a new Gallup poll, “Americans are more likely now than in the early 2000s to find a variety of behaviors morally acceptable, including gay and lesbian relations, having a baby outside of marriage and sex between an unmarried man and woman.” Gallup notes, “Moral acceptability of many of these issues is now at a record-high level.”

What we are witnessing is a “shift to the left” that has been carefully orchestrated and planned over the course of decades. It is a phenomenon known as “cultural Marxism,” the application of Marxism to culture rather than the economic sphere. Kengor’s book, published by an arm of WorldNetDaily, outlines how this movement has operated, naming the names of the individuals and organizations that have been part of it, and how they have reached their zenith under the presidency of Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.

Significantly, he writes, Obama’s “most enduring legacy may be on American culture,” not in economics or foreign policy.

This seems mystifying, since as a candidate Obama had presented himself as a strong family man and a Christian, with two young daughters and a wife devoted to them. And yet, Kengor, author of The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis: the Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor, has documented how Frank Marshall Davis, a communist atheist and pedophile, had an enormous influence on Obama. Kengor documents this yet again in the chapter of his new book, “The Gay-Marriage President and His Mentor.”

A professor who has written several books on politics, religion, and anti-communism, Kengor focuses on the role of the universities, especially Columbia University, in this cultural transformation. He calls them “indoctrination centers.” The products, he writes, “now pervade other cultural institutions critical to changing society’s opinions: media, television, films, education, and, the greatest influencer of all…the Internet, where they commandeer engines like Google and Yahoo! and Facebook and Mozilla…”

The evil genius behind the “fundamental transformation” of America lies in making it appear that this descent into immorality and paganism is somehow “progressive,” and a move to a higher level of consciousness. The book documents how the Judeo-Christian foundations of this country are being dismantled right before our eyes. It is not an accident. It is the planned destruction of America and the religious values that gave birth to our political and economic freedoms.

As recently as the 1990s, Kengor points out, there was a bipartisan consensus that children needed to have a dad and a mom. Now, that consensus has been rejected, as fatherless or motherless families are being embraced. Things have happened so quickly, he notes, that “everyday Americans” have even been conditioned to embrace major aspects of this revolutionary change.

As a student of the Marxist notion of dialectical change, I found Kengor’s treatment of the Marxist call for the “abolition of the family” to be fascinating. He devotes several pages to a discussion of what Marx meant by that phrase, and whether abolition means termination or gradual transcendence. What cannot be disputed is that the destruction of the traditional family results in more power for the government to control our lives and interfere with families. “As long as the traditional family is reversed,” he notes, “Marxism is advanced.”

The Marxist viewpoint was openly expressed by Professor Melissa Harris-Perry of MSNBC, who advocated a “collective notion” of control of children in advertisements for the cable channel. “We have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families…” she said.

As the family unit withers away, the government would take control of the children.

The next step is for “progress” or “evolution” to a new level, with such concepts and arrangements as multiple wives, group marriages, sibling marriages, fathers and stepfathers marrying daughters and stepdaughters, and uncles marrying nieces.

If you think this is somehow impossible, Kengor quotes directly from a group called “Beyond Marriage,” which has issued a statement, “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision.” Prominent among this group is Chai Feldblum, a Georgetown University law professor and a commissioner on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) under President Obama.

The author of the paper, “Gay Is Good: The Moral Case for Marriage Equality and More,” Feldblum argues, “the moral case for supporting the range of other creative ways in which we currently construct our intimate relations outside of marriage.”

What is particularly disturbing about this progression is that Georgetown advertises itself as the nation’s oldest Catholic and Jesuit university. It seems difficult to square its Catholic reputation with having someone like Feldblum on the payroll “teaching” students. Then, again, this is clearly part of the transformation that has been going on for decades and which is meticulously documented in the Kengor book.

Kengor is astounded by this turn of events, about how “everyday mainstream Americans” have come to accept ideas and concepts that are destroying their very own country. “We are breaking new ground in the long, long sweep of human history,” he writes, “and the groundbreakers act as if it is no big deal whatsoever…”

What’s worse, as we have repeatedly noted, the so-called “conservative media” have abandoned the struggle as well, as Fox News personality Greg Gutfeld and the once-conservative National Review have endorsed same-sex marriage. (Gutfeld has been rewarded with his own show on the Fox News Channel).

So what is the way out of this cultural collapse?

Kengor, a Roman Catholic, devotes a whole chapter, “The Voice of Sheen,” to the wisdom of Catholic Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, who had popular radio and television shows and wrote two important books, Communism and the Conscience of the West, and Peace of Soul. Sheen understood how Marxism was designed to destroy the traditional family.

“The Universal Roman Catholic Church was far and away the dominant international voice of opposition to the communist movement and its tumultuous machinations,” Kengor notes.

Fulton Sheen died in 1979, but DVDs of his talks and programs are still extremely popular among traditional Catholics.

Strangely, Kengor’s book begins with a quotation from Pope Francis about the threat to the family, as if the current pope will somehow emerge as a Fulton Sheen-type of Catholic or world leader. Instead, however, Francis has embraced pro-homosexual priests, the United Nations agenda, liberation theologians, Barack Obama, Raul Castro and Mahmoud Abbas.

By contrast, Sheen supported traditional Catholic teaching on homosexuality and had described how “false compassion” was “gradually growing in this country” to the point where “pity…is shown not to the mugged, but to the mugger…to the dope fiends, to the beatniks, to the prostitutes, to the homosexuals, to the punks…” He spoke up for the “decent man,” who, he said, “is practically off the reservation.”

It seems like he was describing cultural Marxism.

Today, the decent man is not only “off the reservation,” but is in danger of extinction himself.

Ironically, the liberals tried to demonize the late Senator Joseph McCarthy (R-WI) by asking, “Have you no sense of decency?,” when he investigated communists in the federal government. Yet, as the Kengor book makes clear, McCarthy didn’t go far enough; the Marxist manipulation of culture was never examined in the detail that was required.

Now that we can see the damage and destruction all around us, the decent men and women of the United States can see they are in danger of losing their families and their country. The book Takedown is must-reading so we can understand the terrible predicament we are in.

But whether we will get the moral leadership we need from the churches remains to be seen. Some religious leaders will try to make peace with the “change,” while others will resist it on the basis of sound principles based on natural law. Kengor notes that another objective of the cultural Marxists is the complete “takedown of religious institutions,” so more confrontations are on the way. The plan is to “rob” Americans of their First Amendment religious freedoms.

He quotes the aforementioned Feldblum of “Catholic” Georgetown University as saying, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”

Will the Republican presidential candidates come to the defense of the “decent man” and the traditional family? Or will they pander to the progressive constituencies demanding special rights for an increasing number of sexual minorities?

This is an “especially exciting time for extreme leftists,” Kengor writes, for they are “genuinely transforming human nature” and America itself, with “the unwitting support of a huge swatch of oblivious citizens and voters.”

But the American revolutionaries of 1776 faced overwhelming odds and their descendants may not go away quietly.

04/14/15

Obama Admits Communist “Schooled” him on White Racism

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

In his 1995 book, Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama never discussed the identity of the mysterious “Frank” who had given him important advice on growing up black in what was described as a white racist world. We learned in 2008 that “Frank” was Frank Marshall Davis, a member of the Communist Party who was the subject of a 600-page FBI file. Still, the major media never asked Obama about this important relationship during his growing up years in Hawaii.

Now, in an extraordinary development, video of Obama explicitly and openly identifying “Frank” as Frank Marshall Davis has suddenly surfaced on the Internet. The footage is said to have been recorded on September 20, 1995, with the program originally airing on Channel 37 Cambridge Municipal Television as an episode of the show, “The Author Series.”

It’s not clear how many saw this program when it aired. For some reason, this “From the Vault” Barack Obama presentation was just recently posted on YouTube. In the video, Obama is introduced as a Harvard Law School student and President of the Harvard Law Review. He discusses “Frank” as Frank Marshall Davis at about 8:37 in the video.

In his remarks, Obama never identifies Davis as a communist or even a leftist. But the remarks do reflect the significant influence that Davis had over his young life as he was growing up in Hawaii. Obama talks about how Davis “schools” him on the subject of race relations. The term implies a teacher-student relationship the two of them had, confirming what we had reported back in 2008, that Davis had functioned as Obama’s “mentor.”

It’s important to understand what Obama is saying here. Getting ready to read directly from his book, Dreams from My Father, Obama talks about the passages ending with “me having a conversation with a close friend of my maternal grandfather, a close friend of gramps, a black man from Kansas, named Frank, actually at the time a fairly well-known poet named Frank Marshall Davis, who had moved to Hawaii and lived there, and so I have a discussion with him about the kinds of frustrations I’m having, and he sorts of schools me that I should get used to these frustrations…”

Davis was indeed a black poet. His works included attacks on Christianity. One Davis poem referred to Christ irreverently as a “nigger.” Davis was himself an atheist.

However, Davis was better known as a communist propagandist whose work for the Communist Party in Hawaii earned him surveillance by the FBI and placement on its “security index.” Davis was also a pornographer who engaged in bizarre sexual practices, even pedophilia.

Needless to say, Obama’s willingness to identify “Frank” as Davis before this audience raises questions as to why “Frank” wasn’t identified by his full name—Frank Marshall Davis—in the book itself. Obama made references to “Frank” 22 times throughout his book. Paul Kengor notes that Obama’s audio version of Dreams from My Father omitted every reference to “Frank” that was in the book. Those omissions were clearly designed to keep people from asking questions about “Frank,” since Obama was considering a run for the presidency.

Today, in 2015, discovering film of Obama identifying “Frank” as Davis is confirmation of the obvious. It doesn’t make a lot of difference politically, since Obama is serving out his second term. But it could have made a difference seven years ago, in 2008, when we identified “Frank” as Davis, during Obama’s campaign for his first term in office.

The clip of Obama talking about Davis during his 1995 Cambridge presentation is important for other reasons, however.

By his own admission, Obama was preoccupied with his own feelings and thoughts about race relations. He saw himself as an “angry young man” whose father was absent from his life. He said he was “without father figures around who might guide and steer my anger.”

That’s significant because it’s clear, from the passages he reads, that Davis became that father figure. Davis was indeed picked by his white grandfather to be a role model or father figure for the young Barack Obama.

In the passages he read back in 1995, Obama discussed inviting some white friends to a black party and seeing them squirm. “They’re trying to tap their foot to the beat and being extraordinarily friendly,” he said. They are trying to fit in but they are uncomfortable and they tell Obama they want to leave. Obama concluded, “What I have had to put up with every day of my life is something that they find so objectionable that they can’t even put up with a day.”

This is like a revelation to Obama about the world of white racism. All of this he says “triggers” something in his head and he comprehends a “new map of the world.” He gets a sense of the anger and betrayal in society and even in his own family, where he is being raised by his white grandfather, “Gramps,” and white grandmother, “Toot.” This leads him to seek advice from “Frank.” Frank Marshall Davis then “sort of schools me that I should get used to these frustrations,” Obama says.

The passages that he reads from the book before the Cambridge audience include a discussion of when his own white grandmother was accosted by a black panhandler. Davis told Obama that his grandmother was right to be scared and that “She understands that black people have reason to hate.”

In other words, Davis did not encourage Obama to pursue racial harmony or reconciliation. He told Obama that blacks have a reason, or right, to hate.

It is significant that, back in 1995, Obama decided to read these passages. They clearly reflect what he is all about.

This was also clear to us from reading the book and understanding what Davis was all about. We wrote a column back in 2012 that was titled, “Reason to Hate: Barack Obama’s Racist Roots.” Paul Kengor’s book on Davis, The Communist. Frank Marshall Davis: The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor, examined in more detail the Davis mentality and ideology that shaped Obama.

Kengor’s book documented that Davis:

Considered American racism a “disease” that “Red Russia” haid solved
Wrote in a column on July 20, 1946, that the Soviet Union had, “n less than a generation,” abolished “discrimination and racism”
Wrote that “the only people” Winston Churchill cared about were “the white people of the British empire”
Labeled the Marshall Plan for Western Europe after World War II a form of white imperialism, designed to “help maintain European empires at the expense of exploited dark colonial peoples”
Considered anti-communism a form of racism.

In the video, Obama says that Davis’s remarks about blacks having “a reason to hate” had a profound impact on him. “The earth shook under my feet, ready to crack open at any moment,” he wrote. “I stopped, trying to steady myself, and know for the first time that I was utterly alone.”

During his talk at the Cambridge Public Library, Obama also says some nice things about white people. While he faults America for not making “a serious effort” to address racial problems, he does say that “Americans are decent people” and comments that some things have changed for the better.

But one can sense that the anger is still there.

Looking back at this presentation, and taking into account the policies of the Obama administration, there can be no doubt that Davis’s racism did have a profound impact on Obama.

As we wrote back in 2012, after examining the racist outlook of Davis, “The Obama administration’s tactics are to exploit and manipulate racial and ethnic differences for political gain. This is not an accident but a deliberate political strategy that one can find in the mind of Obama’s communist mentor Frank Marshall Davis, who ‘educated Obama during his critical growing up years. Black people, Davis told Obama, have ‘reason to hate.’ The evidence shows that Obama has incorporated that hatred in his policies and pronouncements.”

Now that Obama’s personal confirmation of the critical role that Davis played in helping to formulate his worldview on racial politics has been made public, perhaps The Washington Post will admit that those of us who warned about Davis’s influence on Obama were right. But we doubt it. The Post won’t ever admit that it missed this story.

Davis’s communism had an impact on Obama as well. Perhaps racism was the hook that got Obama into the Marxist movement. Like Davis, it looks like Obama does see Marxism as the answer to white racism. And that helps explain why the true identity of “Frank” was concealed during Obama’s run for the presidency.