Saturday, March 12, 2011

The Seedy Side of the Obama Story: Dr. Drew Reviews Jack Cashill's Deconstructing Obama

Jack Cashill voices the pain of those of us who are doing the journalistic work we once thought was the sole responsibility of CBS’s 60 Minutes.  You can catch his appearance on CSPAN2 by clicking here.  I identify with Cashill. In his newest book, he indicates it is not so easy to balance his efforts to save Western civilization with his concurrent responsibilities for bagging leaves in time for the city leaf collectors. In my case, I have sought to expose President Barack Obama’s intellectual roots as a revolutionary Marxist while addressing my nagging doubts about the necessity of rinsing dishes prior to racking them up in the dishwasher. If you understand that neither Cashill or me are kidding about our lives, then you will be thrilled by the tone and fresh insight in Deconstructing Obama: The Life, Loves, and Letters of America's First Postmodern President.

As an eye witness to young Obama’s Marxist ideology, I was excited to see Cashill busting up the myths surrounding Obama and replacing them with a simpler, easier to believe story that is a much better fit with accessible, on-line evidence. Cashill’s results are politically significant because President Obama's charisma is dependent on the images Obama created about his early life in his first book, Dreams from My Father. Cashill’s new insights about the real Obama should be particularly relevant to the sort of swing voters who tell survey researchers that they do not care for Obama’s results even thought they still like Obama as a person. After reading Cashill’s book, I suspect these swing voters will be disappointed by the titanic gap between Obama’s all-American myth and the cold facts of his real life.


One of the coldest facts is that there are now nude photos on the Internet of a woman who looks exactly like Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham. This news was so unpleasant to me that I was nervous about checking up on Cashill’s report by searching for these photos through Google. (To my relief, the samples I found are clear enough to show the girl’s face, but cropped tight enough that I did not feel I violated any laws.) Along with Cashill, I see these photos as evidence of a much larger pattern of unfortunate mistakes made by the young Ms. Dunham. These photos are politically significant because they offer a convenient segue into a larger discussion of an unwholesome side of the young Obama story - the odd, deviant, dysfunctional world of Frank Marshall Davis. Davis, as readers may know, was a member of the Communist party and also handy in the craft of producing pornographic literature and photography.

Cashill reframes the Obama story by pointing out that Frank Marshall Davis and his friend Paul Robeson were Stalinist Communists, a political label which is shocking to most Americans and yet useful to me in understanding the roots of the Marxist ideology and earnest revolutionary fervor I observed in the young Barack Obama while he was a sophomore at Occidental College in 1980-1981.

Cashill adds to the sheer seediness of the world surrounding little Obama plenty of new evidence that infant Obama had no conscious contact with his birth father. This unpleasant reality is an abrupt challenge to Obama’s claim, in Dreams, that his father left him and his mother behind in Hawaii after two years of dutiful fatherhood. Here, Cashill leverages the outstanding reporting done by one of our nation’s most intelligent and charming citizen journalists - Michael Patrick Leahy. Leahy interviewed a few of Stanley Anne Dunham’s childhood friends and reported the results in his book, What Does Barack Obama Believe? Leahy’s research shows Anne Dunham took infant Obama with her to Seattle, Washington in the summer of 1961 and did not return with her baby to Hawaii until Obama, Sr. was long gone from the island. Leahy, in my view, has been doing the hard work I assumed New York Times reporters should have been doing including interviewing members of the extended Dunham family, sharing freely available information from the Internet, and combing over public records to determine the precise details of Barack Obama's birth and early childhood.

Even as somebody who met young Obama in the early 1980s, I'm was still startled by Cashill’s most controversial argument – the theory that Bill Ayers was the ghost author of Dreams from My Father. Cashill’s thesis was supported, of course, by the independent reporting of a liberal author, Christopher Andersen. Andersen unwisely confirmed Ayers’ participation in creating Dreams in an otherwise flattering book called Barack and Michelle: Portrait of An American Marriage (2010). The weight of Cashill’s argument, however, rests on his careful textual analysis of the striking similarities between the language used in Dreams and the language used in Ayers’ own writing. Here, I’m most convinced by Cashill’s description of how Obama correctly applies nautical images to his life story. The accuracy of the nautical language in Dreams strikes me as much more consistent with Ayer’s experience as a merchant marine than with Obama’s experience as a community organizer.

I would like to add more details that support the idea that Ayers was a major player in drafting Dreams from My Father. The young Barack Obama I knew, for example, displayed absolutely no hostility to white people. He appeared to be culturally and emotionally white. The young Barack Obama I knew was not particularly close to the African-American students at Oxy either, but was - instead - deeply involved in the lives and political activities of the most radical foreign and Muslim students. The young Barack Obama I knew would have been excited to meet Bill Ayers, would have been comfortable with Ayers’ anti-American hostility, and would have been more than capable of persuading the jaded ex-terrorist that he was a sincere believer in the necessity of a socialist transformation of the U.S.

My only difference with Cashill is that I’m not impressed with the quality of Dreams from My Father.

This is true even after Cashill’s book single-handedly improved my taste as a consumer of contemporary literature. My reading of Dreams did not leave me with any useful paradigm shifts, any evidence of encyclopedic knowledge or any immediately relevant information. I think it is more accurate to assert that President Clinton’s book, My Life, articulates the insights and raw memory capacity of a true genius. In comparison to My Life, I found Dreams dull and boring - except for the parts tangentially related to my own intellectual development or linked to my nearly insignificant participation in what Obama reports were the pivotal, life-changing moments of his sophomore year at Occidental College.

Aside from this relatively minor disagreement regarding the quality of Dreams, I whole-heartedly agree with Cashill’s take on the challenge of confronting Obama’s charismatic power: The alarming sense that media elites greet one’s modest, factual, painfully obvious news tips with an astonishing lack of appropriate attention. I have come to believe there is something broken in American journalism. I would think a healthy, well-functioning democracy would include mainstream media outlets that would snap open the delightful fortune cookies Cashill has set out for them. For now, my confidence for winning our future rests in the outspoken courage of Jack Cashill, a writer who is willing to go to extreme lengths – short of leaving his home surrounded by leaves - to make sure that his fellow citizens learn the truth about President Obama.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist. He applies his skills as a grant writing consultant in the Southern Calfornia area. His website is at the following link: http://drdrewguaranteedgrants.com/about-us/

45 comments:

  1. "Cashill reframes the Obama story by pointing out that Frank Marshall Davis and his friend Paul Robeson were Stalinist Communists"?

    In what alternate reality was Davis a "Stalinist"? Davis criticized Stalin in writingand and rejected the "horror of socialism" in favor of free enterprise, as reflected in comments to Paul Kengor's National Review article at http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/248877/obama%E2%80%99s-communist-mentor-paul-kengor?page=1

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think you are misreading the Kengor article. If you read the whole thing you'll see that Davis was a pro-Soviet Communist at the same time Stalin was ruling the USSR. In Cashill's book, we learn that Davis's friend, Paul Robeson, won the 1952 Stalin Peace Prize. It is frightening to think that one of the people Frank Marshall Davis mentored was young Barack Obama.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Aloha Kaleokualoha! I don't think you are up to speed on the latest information regarding your father, Frank Marshall Davis. :-)

    The FBI traced his interest in the US Communist party to as early as 1931. See, http://keywiki.org/index.php/Frank_Marshall_Davis

    What is alarming to me, of course, is that your father also had strong ties to Vernon Jarrett. Vernon Jarrett is the the father-in-law of Valerie Jarrett, senior advisor to Obama in the White House.

    As you may know, the FBI identified your dad as member of the Communist Party's Dorie Miller Club in Chicago with the card number 47544. Meanwhile, your mother, Helen Canfield Davis, was a member of the Paul Robeson Club of the Communist Party of Chicago. Her Communist Party card number was 62109 back in 1947. Stalin, of course, died in 1953.

    I think swing voters are going to be angry when the true story of Obama's Marxist socialist roots leak out into the mainstream media.

    ReplyDelete
  4. FYI: I just received this e-mail from Jack Cashill, the author of Deconstructing Obama. I'm sharing it with you with his permission:
    John Drew is right. The Communist Party USA was a wholly owned subsidiary of Stalin's Soviet Union. Post-war the USA was designated "main enemy" by Stalin. An active Communist could no more credibly be anti-Stalin than an active Nazi could be anti-Hitler. Davis almost surely went to Hawaii at the Party's bidding to provide supporting propaganda for the ILWU strike called by out-of-the-closet Stalinist Harry Bridges. Paul Robeson's actions in the post-war years were a disgrace. Read Tim Tzouliadis's The Forsaken: An American Tragedy in Stalin's Russia for details. Davis was a talented guy, and one can understand his alienation, but it is hard to excuse his capital c Communism and impossible to deny it. Jack Cashill http://www.cashill.com

    ReplyDelete
  5. Davis was hardly an "active communist." The fact that he explicitly criticized Stalin precludes any specious guilt-by-association. Secondly, the fact that he explicitly rejected the "horror of socialism" is prima facie evidence against any claims that he advocated collectivism. His associations are irrelevant when guilt-by-association is refuted by primary source evidence.

    You may wish to read "The New Red Negro," cited by Cliff Kincaid, which outlines the DIVERGENCE OF OPINION in the CPUSA, or even http://kaleokualoha2878577.newsvine.com/_news/2011/01/23/5904811-frank-marshall-davis-and-jim-crow

    As The New Red Negro makes clear, there was no monolithic Stalinist doctrine within the CPUSA:

    (1) "This is not to say that the impact of the Communist Left on African-American writers in the 1930's and 1940's flowed from absolute unity of ideology and practical application of that ideology. As mentioned before, the CPUSA itself, despite the claims of both the party leadership and its most ardent detractors, contained various, often conflicting tendencies. This conflict appeared within top leadership, where Earl Browder and William Z. Foster and their supporters were frequently at odds. They also surfaced in the regional leadership of important districts that were occasionally, and in the case of southern California frequently, in opposition to the national leadership. Finally, at the rank-and-file level, when leadership debates broke out into the open (as they did in 1929, 1956-1946, and 1956), the were replayed in almost every CPUSA unit, often serving as the vehicle for the expression of a wide range of "unorthodox" political beliefs (ranging from social democratic to anarcho-syndicalist."

    (2) "A huge proportion of African-American poets (and writers and intellectuals generally) remained engaged with the Communist Left and cultural institutions from at least the early 1930's until at least the early 1950's. With the partial exception of the period from the German invasion of the Soviet Union to the end of the Second World War, the CPUSA placed the issue of race and the fight against Jim Crow near the center of all its work."

    The bottom line is that communist ties were common for African-American poets and civil right activists during that period. Such ties did not mean that they internalized Marxist values, much less Stalinist values, even if they were aware of the distinction. To them, the CPUSA provided safe harbor from the ravages of Jim Crow America.

    For those who question whether anyone would join the CPUSA without internalizing collectivist values, examples abound in more recent developments. Russians and Chinese joined their respective Communist parties because membership was important to professional advancement. Mikhail Gorbachev rejected these values in dismantling the Soviet Union. Leaders of the PRC's capitalist boom are nevertheless pro forma Party members. According to CNBC's "The People's Republic of Profit," the PRC now has over 100 billionaires - second only to the United States. Some Communist Party members are VERY successful capitalists! China's ruling Communist Party once condemned entrepreneurs and private business people as capitalist exploiters, but now welcomes them since late reformist leader Deng Xiaoping began landmark economic reforms in the 1970s. One third of the people on the 1,000-name rich list are estimated to be Party members, according to the report [4]. Do you consider these rich CCP members to be "communists" or "capitalists"? Depending on your definitions, these categories are not mutually exclusive.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dictionary.com defines "Stalinist" as "an advocate or supporter of Stalin or Stalinism," rather than anything remotely similar to being a member of a group "subordinate" to Stalin. Davis neither advocated nor supported Stalin or Stalinism, just as many Roman Catholics may not support the policies of the Pope or even Church doctrine.

    By virtue of membership, certain values may normally be safely presumed unless refuted by empirical evidence. In this case primary source evidence refutes such presumptions, just as Martin Luther's primary source evidence refuted any claims that he was a papist (although he was undoubtedly a member of the Catholic Church).

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

    Cashill's claim that Davis is "probably" Obama's father places him squarely on the lunatic fringe. If his concept of probability theory is that poor, then his other conclusions are equally suspect.

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

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mark: I'm just overwhelmed by your stubbornness regarding your father's ideological beliefs. :-)

    I don't think any reasonable person could not define your father as an "an advocate or supporter of Stalin or Stalinism" since he has been proven to be a member of the Communist party when it was controlled by Stalin. As an ex-Marxist myself, it never occurred to me to cross the line and also sign-up as a Communist.

    The quote you rely on "horror of socialism" is taken out of context. As an ex-Marxist, I may be in a better position to explain this phrase. Your father writes:

    "As for free enterprise, it doesn'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."

    What your father is referring to is "false consciousness." This is the idea that socialism is a good thing and that capitalists have "manufactured" an ideology that turns the goodness of socialism into a perceived "horror." Frank Marshall Davis's meaning is completely obvious to anyone who reads his comments in the context of Marxist ideology.

    As you may know, I tried my hardest to get out the word that the young Barack Obama I knew was an ardent Marxist-Leninist. The mainstream media did not want to hear my story. The subsequent evidence, including your father's membership in the Stalin era Communisty party, demonstrates that I've been telling the truth and that it is not unreasonable to be profounding concerned about President Obama's past, a past which is inaccurately reported in Dreams from My Father.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Let's examine them in context:

    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:

    “As for free enterprise, it doesn’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.”

    “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’s the Big Boys Who, through their contacts with official Washington, walk off with the fat contracts.”

    Digging deeply into your professorial bag of tricks, my friend, do these paragraphs indicate that Davis supported FREE ENTERPRISE by SMALL BUSINESS or not?

    Of course, I have excellent first hand information on the reality of his support for small business, and the FACT that he never even tried to "indoctrinate" ME in Marxist theory, as the Conservative Disinformation Network claims he did to Obama, with absolutely zero evidence.

    Please note that I have little problem accepting empirical evidence, especially in the form of a letter from my father that revealed he joined the CPUSA during WWII. I do, however, intend to refute specific MISrepresentation of him as epitomized by four fraudulent AIM accounts of the 1949 Honolulu NAACP incident (see http://kaleokualoha2878577.newsvine.com/_news/2011/01/09/5801313-misrepresentation-of-the-1949-honolulu-naacp-incident-19-jan-2011).

    I welcome this opportunity to separate fact from fiction. My latest analysis of the disinformation campaign is at http://kaleokualoha2878577.newsvine.com/_news/2011/01/22/5896467-disinformation-against-the-obama-davis-relationship

    In this discussion, I hope we can focus on specific points of contention rather than straw men.

    Regards.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Again, as an ex-Marxist, I can say that what your father was arguing was that free enterprise was unrealistic and that we needed to move into the direction of government control of the means of production. He is simply articulating the Communist ideology of the Communist party. As far as I can tell, you have no expertise in Marxist philosophy, so perhaps this is why you are missing what is so obvious to the rest of us.

    I can tell from reading these comments that your father was a totally committed Marxist socialist. I recommend that you read up on Marxist theory - as I have in college and graduate school - and you will immediately see your father's true ideological beliefs shining through. I know I did not take my status as a Marxist revolutionary lightly. I don't think you're late father took his status as a Communist during the Cold War lightly either...

    I feel sorry for you that you were raised in an unstable environment with odd values. You may be in denial about how difficult your childhood was on your thinking and view of reality. If your thesis regarding your father was correct, then he would have never have picked the sort of career he ended up following as a professional journalist or as a labor organizer. Instead, he would have opened up a shop and sold hardware.

    ReplyDelete
  10. As far as I can tell, Mark Davis is referring to an article by his father - titled “Free Enterprise or Socialism” - dated January 26, 1950. Mark Davis likes citing it because it contains a seemingly conservative phrase "horror of socialism" from his father, a phrase which was also cited by Paul Kengor's in a recent National Review On-Line article.

    See, http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/248877/obama%E2%80%99s-communist-mentor-paul-kengor?page=1

    Kengor, as you might expect, draws a completely different conclusion and sees Frank Marshall Davis as pro-Soviet and anti-American.

    The bottom line is that Frank Marshall Davis never "rejected" the horror of socialism. Instead he said that the U.S. had "manufactured" a horror of socialism. (Two very different ideas.) I think Mark Davis is just throwing up dust...silly dust. I'm guessing his approach has worked in the past with mainstream journalists, academics and reporters or he wouldn't be trying it on me at my personal, political blogsite.

    My guess is that this is the best the left can do to muddy up the waters regarding what young Obama learned from Frank Marshall Davis. The young Obama I met through Occidental College connections in the 1980s would have been quite comfortable - and quite up-to-speed - with a Marxist-Leninist perspective as taught by a member of the Communist Party USA.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It is more than my opinion:

    Although “I'm hardly interested in proving my research to Kincaid or any of those whose work is a travesty to scholarship," University of Kansas Professor Edgar Tidwell, whom AIM's Cliff Kincaid cites as "an expert on the life and writings of Davis," dismisses misrepresentation of Davis's influence in one simple paragraph:

    "Although my research indicates that Davis joined the CPUSA as a "closet member" during World 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."

    University of Kansas Professor Edgar Tidwell, wrote 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

    NOTE: These have mostly become mainstream standards by the 21st century. Frank Marshall Davis was not out of line. He was just ahead of his time!

    I have posted primary source evidence that he supported free enterprise by small businesses, and there is primary source evidence that he criticized stalin in writing. Do YOU have any primary source evidence to the contrary?

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

    ReplyDelete
  12. Please! I've already "debunked" your evidence regarding free enterprise by showing how you misunderstand Kengor's article and misinterpret your father's own quote regarding "manufacturing a horror of socialism."

    Tidwell is NOT a reliable authority. For example, he missed the fact that your dad's FBI report was able to trace his Communist Party activity to the early 1930s.

    Moreover, I searched the Internet and I can find no evidence of your father ever denouncing Stalin. Meanwhile, we know for a fact that your father was closely tied to the famous Stalin apologist Paul Robeson, a fellow who looked the other way even as his African-American friends were murdered by Stalin in the USSR.

    Let's be real... Your father wrote a porn novel, Sex Rebel, featuring the rape of a 13 year-old girl.

    He hardly sounds like a "normal" American to me. He was not ahead of his time. He was a drug using sexual deviant who was a danger to the children and youth that hung around him - including young Obama and young Obama's mother.

    All the primary source data needed to demonstrate your father's anti-American, pro-Soviet, pro-Stalin point of view is available in his FBI reports and shared with us by Paul Kengor.

    The fact that the young Obama I met in 1980 was thoroughly committed to Marxist revolution naturally raises the question of where he learned these ideas. All the evidence in Dreams indicates that your father was a powerful role-model for young Obama. If you have any credible evidence of your father denouncing Stalin, then I think right now is the time to produce it.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Tidwell is NOT a reliable authority. For example, he missed the fact that your dad's FBI report was able to trace his Communist Party activity to the early 1930s.

    Tidwell is accepted by AIM's Cliff Kincaid as an expert. If you pick and choose evidence in this manner, you are stacking the evidence in the manner of ex-D.A. Mike Nifong. You can accept or reject Tidwell's testimony, but to "Nifong" it is as unscrupulous as Mike Nifong himself.

    "Moreover, I searched the Internet and I can find no evidence of your father ever denouncing Stalin."

    Here you go!!!

    "Frank Marshall Davis wrote poetry attacking Stalin by name, which appeared in his collections "I Am The American Negro" (1937) and "47th Street Poems" (1948)" (see page 48 of "The New Red Negro" [27]. See http://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#v=onepage&q=%22the%20new%20red%20negro%22%20communist%20davis&f=false

    You are still avoiding this question, which is distinct from the "horror of socialism" issue.
    Once again: Do THESE paragraphs indicate that Davis supported FREE ENTERPRISE by SMALL BUSINESS or not:

    “As for free enterprise, it doesn’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.”

    “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’s the Big Boys Who, through their contacts with official Washington, walk off with the fat contracts.”

    Please focus on THESE paragraphs, not red herrings.

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

    ReplyDelete
  14. Further: Why are you spreading the nasty rumour that Frank Marshall Davis was a "deviant"? Are you trying to railroad Davis with the trumped-up evidence that his porn novel included "perverted" sex, or do you have any actual empirical evidence, such as court records or confirmatory statements from Davis himself? ?

    A novel is fiction, and is fraudulent evidence for such accusations! Do you also consider the authors of porn memoir-novels "Lolita" and "Fanny Hill" to be "deviants," or just Davis?

    Someone else put this into perspective:

    I think it’s important to say this often and in full — The Enquirer has no evidence that Frank Marshall Davis was a “sex pervert.” They absolutely don’t have evidence that he raped anyone, child or no. The entirety of their claimed “proof” is that Davis admitted to authoring a pulp novel in which these acts are committed, and that the novel in question was promoted and written as a shocking tell-all memoir about some anonymous black rebel.

    In case you’re not familiar with the genre, pulp/exploitation novels were almost invariably “based on a true story,” “autobiographical,” etc. This both helped them sell better and supposedly shielded them from some legal attacks. In addition, quite a few authors in that era made a living writing pulp anonymously. It was the equivalent of today’s acres of ghostwritten romance/Tom Clancy novels.

    The Enquirer’s claim has no credibility — not because it’s the Enquirer, but simply because their assertion that “Sex Rebel: Black” is documentary evidence is invalid.
    -------------http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/12703.html/comment-page-2#comment-1105334

    ReplyDelete
  15. A couple of pointns:

    1. Tidwell is NOT a reliable authority and he should not be portrayed as such if he misses a fact as BIG and as SIGNIFICANT as your father's 1930s era participation in the Communist Party USA. Simply asserting someone else values Tidwell is not sufficient to make up for such a large error of fact.

    2. The link you provided doesn't work. It just leads to more gibberish. If your father denounced Stalin, as you claim, I think it would be a simple matter for you to provide me with the exact poem and the exact stanzas used to support your argument. Lacking this evidence, I think it is highly implausible that your father denounced Stalin. This is your second opportunity to prove me wrong... I've looked through your other website posts and I've never seen you suggest that your father denounced Stalin before.

    3. Your father doesn't provide any evidence of why he thinks - as you want to suggest - that free enterprise is superior to Soviet style Communism. You are obviously misreading this quote and you have a bad habit of citing it out of context.

    4. Sexual deviants write book that feature the rape of 13 year old girls. This is what your father did. It doesn't matter whether he raped any 13 year old girls himself. He is still a sexual deviant. Sadly, there doesn't seem to be anything in his character or moral development which would prevent him from raping a 13 year-old girl. In fact, much of what we know about your father's character is consistent with the thesis that he participated in exactly the sort of activities described in his book. I definitely consider those who write about the rape of 13 year-old girls sexual deviants since they are creating literature that appeals to pedophiles. In a just world, people like your father should be jailed for this sort of behavior.

    I think it is a real stretch to suggest he is as valuable to our nation as MLK. Please... Your father made this country worse, not better. He worked for one of the Communist Party USA's Central Committee members at the height of the Cold War.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Here's the real story, Mark Davis. According to Paul Kengor, the author of Dupes, your father - Frank Marshall Davis - praised Stalin. Kengor says: "Not only was Soviet Russia not anti-religious, maintained Davis, but Joe Stalin had spared the planet of Hitler’s “anti-Christian paganism.” Christians ought to thank Stalin."

    See this interview at http://thewestislamandsharia.blogspot.com/2010/12/dr-paul-kengor-big-dupes-at-big-peace_26.html

    Your father also apparently wrote a poem called “March on Stalin’s Red Army March On” This hardly sounds like he was denouncing Stalin at all. When I think about all the Christians murdered by Stalin, your father's support of him is deeply chilling and frightening...

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Tidwell is NOT a reliable authority and he should not be portrayed as such if he misses a fact as BIG and as SIGNIFICANT as your father's 1930s era participation in the Communist Party USA."

    Precisely WHAT "participation in the Communist Party USA" are you referring to? He did not join until WWII.

    Are you referring to publishing in CPUSA journals, like Richard Wright, Langston Hughes, and other black writers did? Perhaps you are referring to front organizations which - by definition - do not reveal their sponsors? Something else?

    Do you have ANY record of him advocating socialism, communism, Marxism, or collectivism? I think NOT!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Googling this term produces at least 30 different links where I posted "Frank Marshall Davis wrote poetry attacking Stalin."

    Evidently you did not look at THESE websites in your search to determine whether or not I posted that Davis denounced Stalin. Again, pasting this link takes you to page 48 of "The New Red Negro":

    http://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#v=onepage&q=%22the%20new%20red%20negro%22%20communist%20davis&f=false

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hi Mark: As far as I can tell, your dad praised Stalin and was involved in the Communist party much earlier than you suppose according to his FBI file. Nevertheless, I've got some specific questions for you. Would you mind contacting me by e-mail at johndrew25@msn.com or by phone at 949-643-8058? I've got some specific questions about you, your dad's ideology, and the nature of the relationship between him and young Obama. I'd like to get the story exactly right and I'd like to ask for your help in doing this. Regards, John

    ReplyDelete
  20. I believe this is a great forum for airing out these issues. I would like to continue this discussion in public, and hope that you will avoid personal insults such as "pathetic" as we continue.

    YOU WROTE "Your father doesn't provide any evidence of why he thinks - as you want to suggest - that free enterprise is superior to Soviet style Communism."

    RESPONSE: Such evidence would only be necessary if his contemporaries were under the false impression that he favored Soviet-style communism, and he needed to correct that false impression. He NEVER advocated communism, so he would not need to correct any such false impression. He explicitly supported free enterprise by small businesses, and never explicitly supported collectivism.

    BTW: Using quotations marks to indicate false impressions has been a rhetorical device for a long time. Davis used quotation marks in this manner extensively in his "Frank-ly Speaking" columns. If he considered the "horror of socialism" to be a false impression (or "false consciousness"), he would have undoubtedly used quotation marks here as he did elsewhere, because this is his writing style.

    STANDING QUESTIONS:

    - Were you able to review that quote from "The New Red Negro" that reveals that he criticized Stalin by name? Once again, I was able to summon the quote by pasting the link.

    - Precisely WHAT "participation in the Communist Party USA" are you referring to? He did not join until WWII.

    - Do you have ANY record of him advocating socialism, communism, Marxism, or collectivism?

    While I have some insight into my father's ideology, I have no information on his relationship with Obama other than "Dreams." I am absolutely convinced, however, that he never tried to teach socialism to Obama, because he never tried to teach socialism to his own children!!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hi Mark: That last link worked much better. I was able to see the quote you have been posting about. Thanks! All I can say is that I'd still like to see the actual poems and verses. What ever FMD said negatively about Stalin - if he did -I think it needs to be balanced with the positive praises he made regarding Stalin.

    Mark, I do have some burning questions that I'd love to hear back from you on no matter if they confirm or disconfirm my thesis.

    First, for example, do you have anything to add regarding FMD's relationship with young Obama? I'm wondering how often did they meet and talk? Weekly? Monthly? I'd like to get this right. If you don't have anything to add, that's okay too.

    Second, to me, the fascinating question would be whether FMD was in touch with young Obama at the same time I knew Obama at Occidental College - in 1980/1981. For example, do you have anything to suggest that FMD and young Obama were communicating while Obama was at Occidental and/or Columbia? For example, did they exchange letters? Did young Obama visit FMD when he was visiting home during the holidays? For example, if FMD and young Obama were close, I would think you might have gotten a letter, call maybe a visit from Obama after he learned of your father's death in 1987. I'm wondering if Obama was at your father's funeral, for example.

    Third, I think you maybe one of the few people in the nation that can clarify if, and when, FMD stopped believing in Communism. (I know I had that experience in regards to Marxism in the early 1980s.)

    I'm convinced he was a Communist and a Stalinist in the 1940s and 1950s. This is due to his FBI files, his positive comments on Stalin and his connection to Harry Bridges - the CPUSA Central Committee member.

    Nevertheless, I think you might be able to make the case that your father left Communist Party and dropped its ideology later in his life? If so, this might fit your contention that he never tried to influence you to believe in Communism. The question would be the timing. When would he have changed his views and become a non-Communist: By the 1970s when he know young Obama? By the 1980s when I met young Obama? Or by the time of FMD's death in 1987?

    All in all, I think this is a fascinating set of questions and I would be curious to hear your honest and straightforward response. Sorry for this long post. I'm really excited to see if you have some insight which will answer these compelling questions. Regards, John

    ReplyDelete
  22. More on Cashill: I posted earlier that Cashill's claim that Davis is "probably" Obama's father places him squarely on the lunatic fringe. Cashill's comment that the "Pop" of the poem is Davis, who is "plying" the underage Obama with alcohol and "quite possibly sex" is even worse.

    Because the writer was saving a mirror under his chair, the most logical location would have been the writer's home, not Davis's apartment. The "quite possibly sex" smear is without any historical basis.

    Cashill misrepresents speculation as fact, which makes his research dishonest. Suggesting that they engaged in pedophilic homosexuality, without any empirical evidence, reveals Cashill's lack of integrity and depravity.

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

    ReplyDelete
  23. You asked when Davis "stopped believing" in Communism. His writing indicates that he NEVER advocated or even believed in communism. He always supported free enterprise by small businesses, but used his CPUSA connections for a number of reasons. In the 1930's he wrote AGAINST communist solutions for the United States.

    Once again: I have no information on his contact with Obama after Obama left for college. "Dreams" indicates 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.

    ReplyDelete
  24. BTW: Your Kengor quote "Christians ought to thank Stalin" was not Davis's quote. Kengor has a history of misrepresenting Davis. In his June 2008 column (http://aim.org/guest-column/return-of-the-dupes-and-the-anti-anti-communists), Kengor fraudulently misrepresents the Congressional testimony of Honolulu NAACP board member Edward Berman. Kengor falsely claimed that Berman testified that the NAACP's Roy Wilkins criticized Davis, when Berman's transcript proves that Berman made no such testimony. In reality, the NAACP shut down the Honolulu NAACP due to misconduct of its BOARD members! (See http://kaleokualoha2878577.newsvine.com/_news/2011/01/09/5801313-misrepresentation-of-the-1949-honolulu-naacp-incident-19-jan-2011).

    In his latest book Dupes, Kengor fraudulently claims "Soon after Frank Marshall Davis appeared in Hawaii, members of the local branch of the NAACP grew weary of him,” historian Paul Kengor writes in Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century. “Some NAACP members called him ‘Comrade Davis’ and were irritated at how he ‘sneaked’ into their meetings ‘with the avowed purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line.’” (http://www.academia.org/academics-ignore-obama-mentor/). This comment also grossly misrepresents Berman's testimony (Exhibit 4A of http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/hawaii-obama.pdf)

    I encourage everyone to compare the original source material with Kengor’s misrepresentation of that same source in each case. Proof of misrepresentation is irrefutable. His extensive use of footnotes may just be protective coloring that cannot withstand rigorous scrutiny. When there is a pattern of misrepresentation, then simple statistical analysis should reveal the probability of random occurrence versus intelligent design.

    "Falsehoods not only disagree with truths, but usually quarrel among themselves."
    - Daniel Webster, American, Statesman Quotes

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hi Mark:

    Wow! I really appreciate your feedback and scholarly detail you add to your posts. Thank you! I particularly like the links you provide to original sources. A couples of points:

    1. Regarding Cashill: All in all, Cashill strikes me as an honest, careful author. I don't think Cashill's story is implausible. As I understand it, your dad was okay with bisexuality and wrote a book featuring sex with a 13 year-old girl. It is difficult for me to understand what, if any, moral or religious objections FMD would have had that would have kept him from having sex with young Obama - if young Obama was a willing participant.

    (FYI: I never saw young Obama with a girl - or a girlfriend - on the few times I met him face-to-face. The first time I met Obama, I thought he was a gay man.)

    I've read "Pop" and the whole, unpleasant, smelling-of-stains theme strikes me as disturbing, sexually suggestive language. Also, Obama called his own grandfather "Gramps" not "Pops." Obama's grandfather's mother committed suicide when he was still a child and too young to be a poet as suggested by the poem "Pops." I think you would have to agree that your father's fantasy life, as portrayed in Sex Rebel, is consistent with what you would see in the fantasy life of a practicing pedofile. I certainly don't think young/little Obama was safe in your father's presence.

    2. FMD's Communist Beliefs: I think you will have a hard time explaining why, when given an opportunity, your dad took the 5th on the question of whether or not he was a Communist in 1956. If he disagreed with the tenets of Communism, then it looks to me like he blew a big opportunity to make his non-Communist status perfectly clear to investigators and to future generations - including you and me. The on-line documents you have brought to my attention make it pretty clear that your father was an advocate of Communism and a supporter of Stalin. One of his poems, in fact, praises Stalin's army. FMD seems positively brimming with upbeat comments about the Stalin era USSR. I don't understand how you can, with a clear conscience, maintain otherwise.

    3. Regarding Paul Kengor: Again, Paul Kengor appears to be a careful and thoughtful scholar with no particular bias for or against your father. I read the passages that you object to and it is obvious that Kengor is simply citing Herb Romerstein's research and not making his own original statement. Accordingly, I think you might have a case that Romerstein "fraudulently misrepresents" Berman - but Kengor is simply reporting - in good faith - on what Romerstein wrote about Berman.

    As for me, I'm merely a subject matter expert on Obama-era Occidental College leftist culture. The young Obama I met was devoted to socialism and quite interested in Marxist revolution and the writing of Frantz Fanon.

    I'm guessing that what you are doing here is recycling the same information you criticized in the 2008 campaign - this is why you can load it in so quickly...

    I would caution you that the literature on young Obama and your father has advanced considerably in the last few years. To get up to speed on the radical associations and ideology of Barack Obama, you really need to read Stanley Kurtz's Radical-In-Chief and Jack Cashill's Deconstructing Obama. My own, firsthand report on Obama's radicalism while he was a sophomore at Occidental College is now available at American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/meeting_young_obama.html

    ReplyDelete
  26. Because my last post may have fallen through the cracks, here we go (again?) with unfinished business. As I posted on March 14, I hope we can focus on specific points of contention rather than straw men:

    1. YOU WROTE: As I understand it, your dad was okay with bisexuality and wrote a book featuring sex with a 13 year-old girl."

    RESPONSE: What EXACTLY do you mean by "OK with bisexuality"? Do you mean that he engaged in it, or that he was nonjudgmental regarding homosexual activity? There are entirely different positions. Further, does that fact that a fictitious character may have been bisexual mean that the author is bisexual? Please!

    Does the fact that a fictitious character committed murder mean that the author is a murderer? Does the fact that fictitious characters Moll Flanders and Fanny Hill were whores mean that authors Daniel Defoe and John Cleland were whores? I think NOT!

    2. YOU WROTE: "It is difficult for me to understand what, if any, moral or religious objections FMD would have had that would have kept him from having sex with young Obama."

    RESPONSE: How about being neither bisexual nor a pedophile? The only logical reason this would be difficult to understand is if you prejudged him as a bisexual pedophile, which suggests that YOU prejudged him in this manner. (If there is another logical reason, please advise.)

    Your "difficulty" in understanding is compelling evidence of prejudice. I believe that this prejudice could come from only one source: "Sex Rebel: Black." This indicates that you literally attribute the semi-autobiographical story of Bob Greene to Frank Marshall Davis, just as others might literally attribute the semi-autobiographical story of Mark Twain TO Samuel Clemens.

    3. YOU WROTE: "I think you would have to agree that your father's fantasy life, as portrayed in Sex Rebel, is consistent with what you would see in the fantasy life of a practicing pedofile."

    RESPONSE: I am not very familiar with the fantasy life of a pedophile. You evidently know more about the subject than I. But calling Davis a pedophile based on his novel makes no more sense than calling David Letterman a pedophile based on his joke. Both accusations were widespread in the right-wing blogosphere, and reflect the pinnacle of intellectual dishonesty. Both misrepresent the core values of artists by spreading falsehoods that gullible readers accept as truth, and who then spread further in good faith.

    Such misrepresentation exploits mainstream unawareness of literary styles such as the semi-autobiographical novel (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobiographical_novel or http://www.artandpopularculture.com/Autobiographical_novel), memoir-novel (see http://www.answers.com/topic/memoir-novel-1 or http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O54-memoirnovel.html) and the first-person narrative (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-person_narrative or http://www.artandpopularculture.com/First-person_narrative), by claiming that the artist actually experienced fictional events when it serves their disinformation purposes. Deliberate misrepresentation is the foundation of disinformation campaigns, such as the campaign against Barack Obama and Davis.

    This disinformation campaign fits the pattern epitomized by "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," in which targets are smeared through deliberate misrepresentation. In both cases master propagandists falsely claimed that works of fiction were authentic accounts of their targets, in order to provoke further attacks. Both cases depended upon gullible members of the general population, who were predisposed to believing such disinformation, and who could be counted upon to spread such smears even further. In the absence of credible evidence, both cases fail miserably under close scrutiny. As cesspools of slander, innuendo, and trumped-up charges, such unsubstantiated accusations reflect the perverse nature of their accusers more than their targets.

    ReplyDelete
  27. [PART II)

    4. YOU WROTE: "Tidwell is NOT a reliable authority and he should not be portrayed as such if he misses a fact as BIG and as SIGNIFICANT as your father's 1930s era participation in the Communist Party USA."

    RESPONSE: Precisely WHAT "participation in the Communist Party USA" are you referring to? He did not join until WWII.

    5. YOU WROTE: "I think you will have a hard time explaining why, when given an opportunity, your dad took the 5th on the question of whether or not he was a Communist in 1956."

    RESPONSE: It's easy to explain. I believe he took the 5th because he did not want to admit his membership in the CPUSA, which is not a point of contention in our discussion. He never did admit his membership in public. The only primary source evidence is Professor Tidwell's letter from Davis to a friend.


    6. YOU WROTE: "If he disagreed with the tenets of Communism, then it looks to me like he blew a big opportunity to make his non-Communist status perfectly clear to investigators and to future generations - including you and me."

    RESPONSE: I don't believe that he was asked any about the tenets of Communism, only if he was a member of the CPUSA. At adversarial proceedings, it is usually unwise to argue with interrogators.


    7. YOU WROTE: "I read the passages that you object to and it is obvious that Kengor is simply citing Herb Romerstein's research and not making his own original statement. Accordingly, I think you might have a case that Romerstein "fraudulently misrepresents" Berman - but Kengor is simply reporting - in good faith - on what Romerstein wrote about Berman.

    RESPONSE: Incorrect. http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/hawaii-obama.pdf contains Romerstein's report, with Berman's actual testimony as Exhibit 4A. I have reviewed the entire document, and it does NOT support Kengor's claim that Wilkins criticized Davis. Would you care to place a bet on it? I CHALLENGE you to quote support for Kengor's claim!


    8. YOU WROTE: ". . . your dad praised Stalin."

    RESPONSE: Please provide your most compelling primary source evidence to support this claim. Exact quotes, please! You quote from Paul Kengor was nothing more than that: a quote from Kengor.


    9. YOU WROTE: The on-line documents you have brought to my attention make it pretty clear that your father was an advocate of Communism and a supporter of Stalin. One of his poems, in fact, praises Stalin's army. FMD seems positively brimming with upbeat comments about the Stalin era USSR. I don't understand how you can, with a clear conscience, maintain otherwise.

    RESPONSE: I have challenged you before, and I challenge you again, to quote ANY primary source evidence that he "advocated" communism. He supported our ally, the Soviet Union, and praised the Red Army, as did the POTUS and other allies. Such support for an ally is normal during wartime. Were all of those who praised the Soviet Union WRONG in your opinion, or just Davis?

    Praising Russia is not the same as praising Stalin, just as praising the United States is not the same as praising Obama (agree?). I have challenged you to provide ANY primary source evidence that he praised Stalin (not the Soviet Union). I have provided evidence that he attacked Stalin by name.

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

    ReplyDelete
  28. (PART III)

    10. I cannot understand how you could consider any CPUSA member to be a "Stalinist" by virtue of their membership, regardless of whether or not they supported (or were even aware of) "the theory and form of government associated with Stalin: a variant of Marxism-Leninism characterized by totalitarianism, rigid bureaucracy, and loyalty to the state" (- dictionary.com).

    When Stalin took control, were all CPUSA members automatically "Stalinist" regardless of whether or not they agreed with his policies? When Kruschev took over, did all Party members automatically become "Kruschevists" regardless of support for Stalin's or Kruschev's variants? Was Kruschev a "Stalinist" the day before Stalin died, but not one the next day?

    If so, then BELIEF in Stalin's variant (or any variant) must be irrelevant. If so, then all members are automatically considered supporters of the dominant variant, with no significant diversity of opinion. I believe the history of both China and the Russia in the past twenty years belie any such position.

    11. At the next level of abstraction, totally detached from Frank Marshall Davis, perhaps we should examine the process of presuming that group members adhere to group doctrine. This is a fair presumption if and only if the presumption may be refuted by evidence pertaining to persons of interest.

    One could argue that only the most devoted members fully internalize group doctrine, especially when the doctrine appears to contradict itself, thereby provoking multiple interpretations. Compare fundamentalist Muslims to American Roman Catholics, many of whom pay only lip service to Vatican doctrine. Compare Mao's henchmen to billionaire CPC members, who may not even pay lip service to Marxist doctrine.
    Presuming that group members have group attributes is the "fallacy of division." From Wikipedia: "A fallacy of division occurs when one reasons logically that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts." "It is committed by inferences from the fact that a whole has a property to the conclusion that a part of the whole also has that property. Like the fallacy of composition, this is only a fallacy for some properties; for others, it is a legitimate form of inference" (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/division/).
    According to the fallacy files (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/division.html), some properties distribute from the whole to each of its parts ("dissective" properties such as invisibility), whereas others do NOT distribute from the whole to each of its parts (such as visibility). Presuming that group members have group attributes is valid if the attributes are dissective, but the presumption is invalidated by the fallacy of division when the attributes are NOT dissective. If attributes are not dissective, the presumption is invalid and fallacious. Doctrine is NOT dissective, and therefore presuming that all group members accept group doctrine suffers from the fallacy of division.

    12. Please excuse me if I remain unimpressed with your creative interpretation of my father's words. Please forgive me if I tend to stick with STANDARD definitions of terms such as "Stalinist," instead of adopting your self-serving definitions that seem to suffer from the fallacy of division. Like my father, I also tend to stick with the STANDARD usage of quotation marks to indicate disagreement with misunderstandings, misconceptions, delusions, and other false impressions, especially when used sarcastically (e.g., "horror of socialism"). Since I don't have your academic background and any concomitant insight into hidden meanings, let's agree to disagree on this point.



    Thanks for your consideration.


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

    ReplyDelete
  29. Hi Mark:

    1. I mean simply that your father was okay fantasizing about this topic and okay with fantasizing about the rape of a 13 year-old girl. I don't think it is a stretch to suggestion that most people - including your father - follow through on their sexual fantasies. This is why it is crucial to identify those who hold on to deviant fantasies - particularly those who fantasize about the rape of children. I've taught courses on child abuse and neglect at Cornell University, University of Oregon and Williams College. I think your father's fantasies in Sex Rebel: Black made him a poor choice as a "friend" for young Obama.

    2. I'm simply pointing out that nothing in your father's published work indicates that he would have any mental hesitation about having gay sex with a minor. Indeed, his fantasy life suggests he would be eager to identify children to be used for this purpose.

    3. Your father displayed a deviant fantasy life in Sex Rebel: Black. It is common knowledge that pedofiles collect photographs and pornography about child victims. The fact that your father created this sort of literature would be alarming to anyone who has studied (or taught on) the topic sexual abuse of children. (Again, I can understand your uncomfortable feelings on this matter. If we were discussing my father's published fantasy life, then I would hope that I would be as honest as I am in discussing your father's situation.)

    4. Your father's FBI file indicated connections to the Communist party beginning in the early 1930s. Not formal membership, of course, but interest and participation in Communist party activities.

    5. Please...here I have less sympathy for you and your feelings. If your dad was the wholesome champion of small business men, as you claim, I think he would have welcomed a public opportunity to deny his interest in the Communist party. As you may know, the FBI identified your dad as member of the Communist Party's Dorie Miller Club in Chicago with the card number 47544. Meanwhile, your mother, Helen Canfield Davis, was a member of the Paul Robeson Club of the Communist Party of Chicago. Her Communist Party card number was 62109 back in 1947. Stalin, of course, died in 1953.

    6. See, number 5, above.

    7. Please go back and read Kengor's article carefully. You will see I'm right in terms of his dependence on the other author's statement. In my experience, Paul Kengor is a good guy. You should do an interview with him. I think he could help you develop an accurate, honest take on you father's life with would be helpful to future generations.

    8. Your father's praise for all things Stalin seems to be pretty overwhelming. See, http://www.newswithviews.com/Kincaid/cliff216.htm As a political scientist, I think you are wrong when it comes to totalitarian regimes. In those cases promoting the country is promoting the leader and the leading ideology.

    9. Your father's joy and satisfaction with the USSR is pretty obvious. I don't think he displays in his comments any of the SUBTILTIES you mention.

    10. As a political scientist, I don't think you fully understand the nature of leader to Communist party ties and loyalties in a totalitarian system. Although it is convenient for you to map over your common sense American view of political parties this is inappropriate. These parties were much more tied to their leaders and more demanding of fidelity and consistency than you suppose.


    12.You don't need any special education to follow me, simply the mature understanding of the basic tenets of Communism as the appear in FMD's writings. Still, I'd be curious. Do you have any information on why and when your mother divorced FMD. This detail might have a big impact on the overall story. Good night and good luck!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Dear Mark Davis: Wow! Paul Kengor himself, the author of Dupes and God and Ronald Reagan, has been reading your posts here. You are attracting a ton of scholarly attention.

    Dr. Kengor has some specific questions and comments for you. He writes:

    This is a chance for me to set the record straight on Frank Marshall Davis and his relationship with Obama (and more). I don’t want to misrepresent or overstate things. I try to be an honest scholar, a Christian scholar even. I really, really do. That means an honest pursuit of truth. I sincerely pray for that.

    I need to get this correct because I continue to write on this subject and I get asked about it constantly, especially in radio interviews. So, if I’m wrong, or mischaracterizing something, this is a chance for Mark Davis to straighten me out.

    Basically, my three main questions are this:

    1) Was Davis a “mentor” to Obama? I’ve said that. I’ve said that because the evidence seems to suggest it, based on Obama’s own memoirs and also on the words of several biographers and sources who knew Davis and Obama and were interviewed in profiles by reputable news organizations like the AP. Was Davis “THE mentor” to Obama, or merely “A mentor?” If not a mentor, how close, precisely, was the relationship? How often did they meet and talk? Weekly? Monthly? I want to get this right.

    2) Were Davis and Obama in contact after Obama left Hawaii for Occidental and Columbia? By letter? During visits home by Obama? If they were close, I’d expect so. I’d expect a letter or call or visit from Obama upon news of Frank’s death, if not attending the man’s funeral.

    3) Did Frank Marshall Davis remain a communist? There’s absolutely no question he was a communist in the 1940s and 1950s. No question. His writings alone (aside from the FBI files) are utterly unmistakable. He was possibly/probably a communist in the 1930s as well, even if not a formal party member—though I can’t prove that. That said, did Frank leave the party/ideology later? If so, when? By the 1970s? By the 1980s? By the time of his death in 1987? When he knew Obama in the latter 1970s? If Mark Davis told me that his dad was no longer a communist by the 1970s, that would be easy for me to believe and accept. Gee, my book, “Dupes,” is dedicated to two anti-communist Cold Warriors who were once communists! Even Ronald Reagan was once a duped liberal—duped, that is, by Hollywood communists. People change. John Drew changed. I’ve certainly changed. I believe I recall Mark Davis telling you (on your blog) that his father never tried to convince him to be a communist. (Do I have that right?) If so, that’s telling. That’s important information.

    Those are my three basic questions. Life is complex. I deal with all sorts of nuance in my books. (See “Dupes.”) I can handle that. I want to get this right.

    If Mark Davis responds to me, he could then tell people that he answered my questions and tried to set me straight. If I ignore his answers, then I’m the one at fault.

    Feel free to forward this, to Tidwell, to Davis.

    ReplyDelete
  31. 1. If by "fantasize" you mean "imagine," then I challenge you to substantiate your claim that " most people - including your father - follow through on their sexual fantasies." Do you believe that most authors who write crime novels follow through on their criminal fantasies? Do you have any evidence that Gramps knew about this book, or even his CPUSA connection?

    2. There is nothing in MOST writers' published works that indicates they "would have any mental hesitation about having gay sex with a minor." There is nothing in most authors published works that indicates they would have any mental hesitation about committing murder. Writers do not normally publish disclaimers (literal or virtual) outlining crimes they would not commit. Have YOU published a list of crimes that you would not commit? Why should the lack of a disclaimer indicate culpability for Davis but not for you?

    3. Your father displayed a deviant fantasy life in Sex Rebel: Black.

    RESPONSE: Did Nabokov display a "deviant fantasy life" in "Lolita"? Do you believe that virtually all porn authors "display a deviant fantasy life" in their writing or just Davis? Does everyone who imagines ANY sexual activity other than missionary position marital coitus "display a deviant fantasy life"? Or have YOU defined "deviant" for everyone else?

    4. Your father's FBI file indicated connections to the Communist party beginning in the early 1930s. Not formal membership, of course, but interest and participation in Communist party activities.

    RESPONSE: You have not answered the question. Precisely WHAT "participation" are you referring to? If you malign Professor Tidwell for this omission, it behooves you to substantiate your claim.

    5. Please...here I have less sympathy for you and your feelings. If your dad was the wholesome champion of small business men, as you claim, I think he would have welcomed a public opportunity to deny his interest in the Communist party

    RESPONSE:

    Straw man alert! I never claimed my "dad was the wholesome champion of small business men," only that he supported small business.

    Red Herring alert: I do not believe that he was ever asked about his "interest in the communist party." Of course he was "interested" in the CPUSA, as this was the NORM among African-American writers of that era.

    7. Although he may be a "good guy," the issue is the accuracy of his claims regarding my father. I have read the article very carefully. Here is a Kengor quote, purportedly from the Romerstein report: "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."

    Romerstein did NOT make these remarks in his report. I CHALLENGED you to find this in his report, yet you have failed to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  32. (PART II)
    8. Your father's praise for all things Stalin seems to be pretty overwhelming. See, http://www.newswithviews.com/Kincaid/cliff216.htm As a political scientist, I think you are wrong when it comes to totalitarian regimes. In those cases promoting the country is promoting the leader and the leading ideology.

    RESPONSE: I asked you for primary source evidence that he "praised" Stalin (not "all things Stalin," which is considerably more ambiguous), yet you have failed to provide any.

    9. "Joy and satisfaction with the USSR" is not the point of contention. I challenged you to produce primary source evidence that he advocated COMMUNISM! Here, too, your evidence is lacking.

    10. I suspect you may be using the "fallacy of equivocation" when defining "Stalinist," which is why I want to explore the boundaries of YOUR definition. I asked for specific answers to specific questions, yet you evaded the questions.

    Once again: When Stalin took control, were all CPUSA members automatically "Stalinist" regardless of whether or not they agreed with his policies? When Kruschev took over, did all Party members automatically become "Kruschevists" regardless of support for Stalin's or Kruschev's variants? Was Kruschev a "Stalinist" the day before Stalin died, but not one the next day?

    12. Do you have any information on why and when your mother divorced FMD?

    RESPONSE: I believe they divorced in 1969 due to irreconcilable differences.

    NOTE: Perhaps you can encourage Dr. Kengor to point you to the EXACT page in Romerstein's report that substantiates his claim regarding Roy Wilkins criticizing Davis. It's clear to me that this criticism against Davis came from Berman instead of Wilkins, and was falsely attributed to Roy Wilkins.

    It's also clear to me that there is NO primary source evidence that Davis praised Stalin or advocated communism, nor is there any evidence that Obama or his family know of my father's CPUSA background, much less that he "mentored" Obama in communism.

    Countless conservative researchers have access to virtually all of his writing, yet have produced no evidence to support these fraudulent memes in over three years. It's clear to me that critics misrepresent speculation as fact.

    "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)

    ReplyDelete
  33. Part I: Dr. Drew Responses to Mark Davis' Arguments

    1. Your Father's Bob Greene alias is a Danger Sign: There's a big difference between your father's writing and the writing of the other authors you mention. In particular, your father's bisexual, pedopile fantasies were not published under his own name.

    Technically speaking, the anonymous nature of his published pedophile rape fantasies means there is more weight - not less - to the argument that those published fantasies were a true reflection of his sincere sexual interests, and - more likely than not - reports on his actual behavior.

    2. Frank Marshall Davis's Conscience: I don't see anything in your father's published fantasy life - or public career - that indicates he would hesitate to have sex with an underage male or female, if he could do so without fear of exposure or penalty. Indeed, the evidence is that such deviant behavior would be consistent with his published fantasy life. This is why little/young Obama was in danger when he was drinking, alone with your father. Alcohol use around minors, by the way, is a common theme in the lives of pedofile predators...as is the collection of child porn. Your father, alarmingly, was the author of child porn. His book even reflects the sort of sentimental, romantic notions regarding their victims that is typical of pedofiles. It's really alarming readinig for someone with my background in studying child abuse and neglect.

    3. Your Father's Book Features the Rape of a 13 Year Old Girl: I think you are underestimating the extremist, dangerous aspects of your father's published fantasies. Telling a story about the rape of a 13-year-old girl is not normal or acceptable behavior as you seem to suggest. Not now, not then...

    4. For More Details on FMD's FBI File: See, http://www.usasurvival.org/marshall.fbi.files.html FBI File #1, for example, indicates your father saw socialism as the best alternative for the U.S. according to an informant. This information is pretty damning for the credibility of your argument in my view.

    5. Taking the 5th: Please, Mark. You trust and admire Tidwell, right? Even Tidwell uncovered evidence - in writing - of your father's sympathy for Marxism...the same sympathy I saw in the extremist young Obama. As Kengor write:

    In the introduction to a 2002 volume of Davis’s writing (Tidwell) edited, Black Moods: Collected Poems, Tidwell produced a letter by Davis to a Kansas friend he was recruiting to CPUSA. Davis wrote: “I’ve never discussed this with you and don’t know whether you share the typical American uninformed concepts of Marxism or not, but I am risking such a reaction by saying that I have recently joined the Communist party.”

    You are also not dealing with the clear evidence that your father was unwilling to answer the simple question of whether or not he was a Stalin-era Communist. We know, for a fact, that he was... Your father was so bad that he would side with the Nazis - instead of the U.S. and England - as long as Stalin was in league with the Nazis.

    6. N/A

    7. Minor Point, At Best: Even if you are 100% right, this seems like a minor and trivial point. It is obvious from the lengthy FBI files on your father that he was on the wrong side of the Cold War and was mistaken about the supposed advantages of a Communist or socialist economic system. The FBI files are consistent with what I would expect from an "Obama mentor" based on my own face-to-face conversations with the young Obama regarding his extremist Marxist revolutionary perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Part II: More of Dr. Drew Responses to Mark Davis' Arguments

    8. Trivial Point, At Best: Even if you are right that your father never praised Stalin by name, he nevertheless supported nearly everything Stalin's regime ever did. I just don't see how you can, intellectually, make a significant argument on a minor point when it is perfectly obvious that Stalin and Stalin's regime were the same thing. That's sort of the textbook definition of totalitarianism, isn't it? According to Kengor, however, your father did praise Stalin by name - ironically - as a defender of Christianity.

    9. Again, Even Tidwell is On My Side, Not Yours: See, Tidwell's comments on your father's letter regarding Marxism, as indicated in #5 above.

    10. Stalinism: As a political scientist, I think you are making a mistake by assuming that the Communist Party - USA functioned like a normal, independent political party. That's not how Communism worked. There is a big difference between being a supporter of the Communist party under Stalin versus under Kruschev. Sadly, your father's friend, Paul Robeson, looked the other way even as Stalin murdered millions of people. Your father, as best I can tell, defended the Communist party line even as adherents were being murdered over it. Stalin, by the way, did not act alone. It is impossible to murder millions of people simply because of the whim of one individual. Stalin's crimes against humanity occurred, in large measure, because Stalin had so many supporters in the USSR and around the globe.

    11. N/A

    12. Divorce: I hate to bring up what must be painful memories. But in the interest of history, I think it is worth asking you regarding your father's divorce from your mother in 1969. Was this divorce caused, in any way, by the publication of Sex Rebel: Black in 1968? I'm sure you heard arguments around the dinner table. Were any of those arguments centered around Frank Marshall Davis's deviant sexual interests - including bisexuality or sex with children?

    All in all, I'm honored to be part of this historic debate with you. I think it is extremely important for unbiased observers to know the truth about Frank Marshall Davis. I'm certainly learning from this discussion and I greatly appreciate your participation.

    ReplyDelete
  35. On March 17 I asked: "Precisely WHAT "participation in the Communist Party USA" are you referring to? He did not join until WWII. Are you referring to publishing in CPUSA journals, like Richard Wright, Langston Hughes, and other black writers did? Perhaps you are referring to front organizations which - by definition - do not reveal their sponsors? Something else?"

    On March 23 I posted: "You have not answered the question. Precisely WHAT "participation" are you referring to? If you malign Professor Tidwell for this omission, it behooves you to substantiate your claim."

    On March 23 Dr. Drew posted: "Your father's FBI file indicated connections to the Communist party beginning in the early 1930s. Not formal membership, of course, but interest and participation in Communist party activities." For More Details on FMD's FBI File: See, http://www.usasurvival.org/marshall.fbi.files.html FBI File #1, for example, indicates your father saw socialism as the best alternative for the U.S. according to an informant. This information is pretty damning for the credibility of your argument in my view."

    QUESTION FOR DR. DREW: Is THIS the "BIG and 'SIGNIFICANT" fact concerning Davis's 1930s "participation in the CPUSA"? Hearsay testimony from an unnamed informant? Sorry, but I have not yet seen ANY evidence of a "large error of fact" that invalidates Professor Tidwell's testimony. Please advise!

    ReplyDelete
  36. BTW: Do you consider "Lolita" to be the story of the rape of a 12-year-old? In "Sex Rebel," Davis's Bob Greene (not unlike Nabokov's Humbert Humbert) hesitates at a pubescent girl's sexual invitation, but foolishly relents. Like "Lolita," this faux foreword is written by a PhD impersonator who details the psychological significance of the memoir. Like Nabokov, Davis wanted to write under a pseudonym to shield his reputation, but felt compelled to reveal his authorship.

    As a result, however, Davis has been posthumously accused of pedophilia, while "Lolita" is "considered by many to be one of the finest novels written in the 20th century." In 1998, it was named the fourth greatest English language novels of the 20th century by the Modern Library," despite also being initially dismissed as pornography, according to Wikipedia.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Thank you for your recent comments. First, I think your well is running dry, Mark. The FBI file looks very convincing to me. The informant was reporting your father's own words regarding his activities in the Communist party in the early 1930s. Tidwell has a long history of being an apologist for your father who underestimates your father's sincere commitment to Marxism, Stalin and socialism.

    Even Tidwell has published evidence, in you father's own words, of Davis's comfort with Marxism and his membership in the Communist party because of its ties to Marxism...not for racial reasons.

    Finally, I don't think an intelligent parent would leave a young boy or a young girl alone - or allow them to drink alone - with Vladimir Nabokov either. Nabokov, at least, published under his own name and went out of his way to denounce the behavior portrayed in his book. As far as I know, your father did neither.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Sorry, but you still have not answered this question (among others):

    Does this "informant" testimony constitute the "BIG and 'SIGNIFICANT" fact concerning Davis's 1930s "participation in the CPUSA" or not? "Yes" or "no"?

    Perhaps there is another BIG and SIGNIFICANT fact concerning his 1930s "participation" in the CPUSA. The "informant" testimony hardly meets your description, as it does not mention "participation in the CPUSA" at all. You continue to evade my questions, although I have been answering yours. Perhaps I should keep a log of your evasive behavior. As noted elsewhere:

    "Jumping to conclusions seems to be quite common in the fantasyland of the right-wing blogosphere. When asked to substantiate their conclusions, we may encounter bluster, red herrings, and ad hominem attacks more often than rational, focused answers. Military Intelligence students are quickly disabused of such behavior, and learn the value of supporting every conclusion they proffer. Researchers at the Rand Corporation and other highly regarded research institutions often come from such rigorous backgrounds, where conclusions are based on empirical evidence, rather than wishful thinking.

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

    - http://kaleokualoha2878577.newsvine.com/_news/2011/01/09/5801331-disinformation-from-right-wing-fantasyland

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

    ReplyDelete
  39. I don't think you understand what a big deal it is to most of us that your father was interested in the Communist party at a time when Stalin is murdering hundreds of thousands of people. I think Tidwell made a big mistake. Your father is the one who told the FBI informant that he became interested in the Communist Party USA as early as 1931.

    ReplyDelete
  40. On March 14, I asked that we focus on specific points of contention rather than straw men. Yet, for some reason, you seem to focus on these straw men. Although you consider it to be a "big deal," Davis's INTEREST in socialism is not a point of contention. His PARTICIPATION in the CPUSA is the point of contention, because it seems to be the linchpin of your rejection of Professor Tidwell's expertise.

    You also seem to be changing the basis for your claim. First, you posted that an informant reported that Davis "saw socialism as the best alternative for the U.S." Then you posted that "he told the FBI informant that he became interested in the Communist Party USA as early as 1931." Did the informant claim Davis:

    1. Was he interested in socialism?
    2. Saw socialism as the best alternative?
    3. Was interested in the CPUSA?
    4. Participated in the CPUSA?
    5. Some combination thereof?

    BTW: I've read the entire FBI file (at http://www.usasurvival.org/marshall.fbi.files.html), but cannot find any such informant. Perhaps it is another faulty reference, like Dr. Kengor used when "quoting" the NAACP's Roy Wilkins. Because YOUR rejection of Tidwell's expertise is based on this informant, please provide the EXACT page link in the FBI file where this informant is quoted.

    You disqualified Tidwell's opinion because he allegedly missed my father's 1930s PARTICIPATION in the Communist Party USA. I asked what PARTICIPATION would invalidate Tidwell's opinion. You responded that an informant allegedly revealed Davis's INTEREST in socialism, but have yet to reveal any 1930's PARTICIPATION in the Communist Party USA. Once again: What PARTICIPATION?

    This is a binary question, but you are still evading it: Is it your contention that Tidwell "missing" hearsay evidence from an anonymous source, contained in a classified FBI report rather than open-source material, actually constitutes an "error of fact" that disqualifies his expert opinion? From a scholarly perspective, how does omitting anonymous hearsay evidence in a CLASSIFIED report constitute a "big mistake" in any academic research?

    Because such disqualification seems to rest on this one "omission," and because your assessment of Tidwell is in stark contrast to AIM's characterization of Tidwell as an EXPERT in the life and writings of Davis, this so-called "error of fact" seems to be the major factor separating your assessment of Tidwell from AIM's.

    I am harping on this point because one common technique in disinformation campaigns is using false evidence from false defectors (e.g., "Curveball's" mobile weapons labs) to incriminate their targets. Disinformation campaigns are built on multiple falsehoods, like a house of cards, which tend to crumble when their deceptive foundations are uncovered. Some (like Dick Cheney) may insist that their original conclusions are true, even when their evidence disintegrates, as happened with the Iraqi WMD stockpile myth. Those with somewhat more integrity, like Bill O'Rielly, have the integrity to admit their mistakes.

    There are still a number of other unanswered questions in this discussion, but I am concentrating on your "error of fact" reason for disqualifying Professor Tidwell. Unless this "error of fact" is actually an excuse (rather than a reason) for disqualifying Tidwell, please revise your assessment accordingly.

    "Falsehoods not only disagree with truths, but usually quarrel among themselves."
    - Daniel Webster, American, Statesman Quotes


    BTW: My research indicates that Stalin's atrocities were NOT common knowledge before WWII. Stalin was Time's "Man of the Year" in 1939 and 1942. American leftists seemed to believe Soviet propaganda of the period. Do you have any references that indicate public knowledge of Stalin's atrocities

    ReplyDelete
  41. Cursory research indicates that most Americans were oblivious to Stalin's atrocities, just as they were to Nazi atrocities, due to the failure of journalism and the success of police state propaganda machines. The Ukraine famine atrocity is just one example:

    [QUOTE]
    "How did a holocaust of these dimensions remain unknown in the West? First, the Soviets suppressed all information regarding the famine. Russia's state-controlled press was prohibited from discussing it, and for ordinary citizens, just mentioning the famine carried a penalty of three to five years' imprisonment.

    Although some Western observers did report the magnitude of the Ukrainians' plight, such comments were extremely rare. During the famine, the Soviets prohibited foreign journalists from visiting Ukraine. But just as significant was the cooperation of influential Western writers sympathetic to communism. The Fabian Socialist George Bernard Shaw, after receiving a tour carefully orchestrated by the Soviets, proclaimed in 1932: "I did not see a single under-nourished person in Russia, young or old."

    But by far the worst offender was Walter Duranty, New York Times' Moscow bureau chief from 1922 to 1936. Duranty enjoyed personal access to Stalin, called him "the greatest living statesman," and even praised the dictator's notorious show trials. To call Duranty a Soviet sympathizer greatly understates his role. Journalist Joseph Alsop termed Duranty a "KGB agent," and Malcolm Muggeridge called him "the greatest liar of any journalist I have met in 50 years of journalism."

    Duranty's published denials of Ukraine's Holodomor were perhaps the vilest acts of his career. In November 1932, he brazenly told his New York Times readers, "There is no famine or actual starvation nor is there likely to be." He denounced as "liars" the few brave writers who reported the famine, which he called "malignant propaganda." When accumulating reports made the massive deaths hard to dispute, Duranty switched tactics from outright denial to downplay. He wrote in the Times in March 1933: "There is no actual starvation or deaths from starvation but there is widespread mortality from deaths due to malnutrition."

    Incredibly, Duranty was awarded a Pulitzer Prize in 1932 for "dispassionate, interpretive reporting of the news from Russia."
    [END QUOTE (http://www.thenewamerican.com/history/european/761)]

    Is this an accurate reflection of American misrepresentation of Russian atrocities? Was Duranty typical of Western journalism in Russia during this period? Was the Soviet Union whitewashed in mainstream media?

    If so, then a positive false impression (or "false consciousness"?) of Soviet reality was understandably widespread in America.
    If so, then how (in good conscience) can you criticize someone in hindsight for failing to consider information that was unknown at the time even through due diligence?

    It's like faulting Japan for failing to adequately protect coastal plains against massive concurrent quake and tsunami threats (IMHO).


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

    ReplyDelete
  42. Hi Mark:

    As far as I can tell, these were two different informants. The one that caught my eye was the person quoted in HN 100-5082. I think this informant blows your thesis out of the water because it shows your father following the Marxist ideology of "dictatorship of the proletariat." Your father, like young Obama, was clearly a Marxist.

    For the FBI report that quoted your father as saying he had interest in the Communisty Party since 1931, see the FBI file report dated 11-13-50.

    The larger issue is not whether the general public knew Stalin was a ruthless murderer, but what did your father and his friend Paul Robeson know about Stalin's mass murder extremism.

    Since your father was highly connected to the Communist Party - USA it is unreasonable to suggest he did not know about Stalin's violence. For a startling, difficult to read, example, of how your father's friend, Paul Robeson, handled his knowledge of Stalin's violence, see http://www.conservapedia.com/Paul_Robeson

    I think the more you study up on your father's ties to the Stalin era Communist party, the more repulsed you will be with your father's extremely dangerous political views - particularly his failure to cut himself off from the Communist Party USA as it stood side-by-side with the murderous Stalin.

    It is well known, for example, that your father hung tight with the Communist Party USA as it supported the Hitler-Stalin Pact. It is chilling to think that your father was essentially a supporter of Adolph Hitler. See, http://www.conservapedia.com/Frank_Marshall_Davis

    ReplyDelete
  43. Do I understand your position correctly: Do you ASSUME he was aware of Stalin's atrocities because Robeson was his friend? Police states are VERY efficient in controlling unfavorable information. Police states are VERY efficient in controlling unfavorable information, especially atrocity data (e.g., Katyn massacre), on a need-to-know basis.

    How EXACTLY did he "hang tight" with the CPUSA? How EXACTLY did he fail "to cut himself off from the Communist Party USA as it stood side-by-side with the murderous Stalin"? Although he was "deeply troubled" by the pact, he wasn't even a member during that period!

    STILL STONEWALLING? Is it your contention that Tidwell "missing" hearsay evidence from an anonymous source, contained in a classified FBI report rather than open-source material, actually constitutes an "error of fact" that disqualifies his expert opinion? "YES" or "NO" with explanation, please! From a scholarly perspective, how does omitting anonymous hearsay evidence in a CLASSIFIED report constitute a "big mistake" in any academic research?

    I believe you have recognized that your disqualification rationale is invalid in this case, but you cannot bring yourself to admit it. Please confirm or recant, as appropriate!


    "Falsehoods not only disagree with truths, but usually quarrel among themselves."
    - Daniel Webster, American, Statesman Quotes

    ReplyDelete
  44. I think you are missing the forest for the trees right now. Your argument seems to be missing the big picture. Stalin died in 1953. You father was interested in the Communist party beginning in 1931 and was officially a member of the Communist party long before Stalin's death.

    If your father's famous friend, Paul Robeson, knew about - and helped cover up - Stalin's atrocities, then I don't think it is unreasonable to assume Frank Marshall Davis was also totally aware of Stalin's murderous ways - at least by 1953.

    As I understand it. Never once did your father complain about Stalin's behavior as a mass murderer. In fact, your father praised Stalin's views on Christianity and praised the Red Army.

    I've never heard you father apologized for supporting Hilter during the Hitler-Stalin pact. Your father sounds like a very scary, very dangerous person to me.

    I think Tidwell made a big mistake by not using all the information available in your father's FBI file. I think Tidwell made a mistake when he underestimated the significance of your father's long standing interest in the Communist Party USA, a party which lives in infamy because of the way it ended up supporting both Hitler and Stalin - two of the worse mass murderers of the last century.

    Unfortunately, your father's devotion to Marxism and the Communist Party USA, as revealed by Tidwell in a letter from your father to a friend, helps us understand why your father was so closely tied to some of the most dangerous and extremist ideologues of the last century.

    Your father's ideology - and distaste for Christianity - meant that he did not have the moral compass needed to stand up and fight child pornography or the considerable evil of either the Nazi or Communisty parties. It is frightening for me to realize that the president of the United States would choose, as his mentor, a fellow who was on the wrong side of both our fight against Hitler in WWII and our fight against the USSR during The Cold War.

    I think it is a real stretch for you to suggest that your father was a normal, wholesome, average American who should be honored at the same level as Martin Luther King. In my view, your father's decision to pubish his fantasies about child rape sort of disqualify him from MLK status. I'm also thinking your father is unworthy of MLK status because of his decisions to side with some of our most cruel enemies during some of the great conflicts of the past.

    ReplyDelete
  45. f the great conflicts of the past.

    ReplyDelete