History Reveals Progressives as Dupes!

[PoliticalChic]

What a fucking hack you are PC.

He provides far more facts than you do.

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

nothing but the sound of crickets...

I hope nothing (serious) happened to her!

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

You have yet to uncover any 'glaring lies.'

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

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

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

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

Takes a little energy out of the debate.

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

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

Toad???

I'll give you 'toad'!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—He did not win the award for being the outstanding student in the political science department at Delaware, and he graduated with one degree, not three. He had a “C” average and graduated 506th in a class of 688.
At the time, he told a reporter, “I exaggerate when I’m angry.”

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



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

 

[Kaleokualoha]

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

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

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

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

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

And his support for Bridges is suspect, no?

 

[Kaleokualoha]

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

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

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

And his support for Bridges is suspect, no?

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

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

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

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

And his support for Bridges is suspect, no?

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

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

Are you claiming that they had no relationship?

Some? How much?

And, are you aware of the other rumors?

 

[Kaleokualoha]

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

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

(1) integration of armed forces

(2) integration of AFL and CIO

(3) fair wages and other benefits for workers

(4) general dismantling of all laws supporting racial segregation

(5) end to laws supporting anti-Semitism

(6) end to atomic warfare

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

(8) support for Fair Employment Practices Act

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

(10) end to restrictive covenants in real estate

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

Professor Tidwell also commented:

"Although my research indicates that Davis joined the CPUSA as a "closet member" during Word War II, there is no evidence that he was a Stalinist, or even a Party member before WWII. Further, to those attempting to make the specious stand for the concrete, there is no evidence that he instructed Barack Obama in communist ideology. Frank Marshall Davis did NOT believe in overthrowing the USA. He was committed to what the nation professed to be. For him, communism was primarily an intellectual vehicle to achieve a political end-a possible tool for gaining the constitutional freedoms of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for ALL Americans."

 

[Kaleokualoha]

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

The outlandish stories about Barack Hussein Obama are simply false: he wasn’t born outside the United States (the tabloid “proof” has been debunked as a crude forgery); he has never been a Muslim (he was raised by an atheist and became a practicing Christian in his 20s); his policies are not “socialist” (he explicitly rejected advice to nationalize the banks and wants the government out of General Motors and Chrysler as quickly as possible); he is not a “warmonger” (he promised in 2008 to withdraw from Iraq and escalate in Afghanistan and has done so); he is neither a coddler of terrorists (he has already ordered the killing of more “high value” Qaeda targets in 18 months than his predecessor did in eight years), nor a coddler of Wall Street (his financial-reform package, while watered down, was the most vigorous since the New Deal), nor an enemy of American business (he and the Chamber of Commerce favor tax credits for small business that were stymied by the GOP to deprive him of a victory). And that’s just the short list of lies.
[END QUOTE (newsweek.com/2010/08/28/alter-how-obama-can-fight-the-lies.html) NOTE: Add "www" to above semi-link]]

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

The outlandish stories about Barack Hussein Obama are simply false: he wasn’t born outside the United States (the tabloid “proof” has been debunked as a crude forgery); he has never been a Muslim (he was raised by an atheist and became a practicing Christian in his 20s); his policies are not “socialist” (he explicitly rejected advice to nationalize the banks and wants the government out of General Motors and Chrysler as quickly as possible); he is not a “warmonger” (he promised in 2008 to withdraw from Iraq and escalate in Afghanistan and has done so); he is neither a coddler of terrorists (he has already ordered the killing of more “high value” Qaeda targets in 18 months than his predecessor did in eight years), nor a coddler of Wall Street (his financial-reform package, while watered down, was the most vigorous since the New Deal), nor an enemy of American business (he and the Chamber of Commerce favor tax credits for small business that were stymied by the GOP to deprive him of a victory). And that’s just the short list of lies.
[END QUOTE (newsweek.com/2010/08/28/alter-how-obama-can-fight-the-lies.html) NOTE: Add "www" to above semi-link]]

The rumors to which I referred had to do with the President's parentage. I do not champion them, and have no intention of discussing same.

I asked to see the extent of your research; clearly you are more interested in Davis himself.
I'll leave it there.

 

[Kaleokualoha]

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

DISINFORMATION 105:

HONOLULU NAACP PILIKIA (TROUBLE) IN 1949

Just as an effective cover story requires consistency, so too does an effective disinformation campaign. Trying to convince people that your target is an atheist Muslim probably won’t work, nor would trying to convince them that he is a gay womanizer. According to conventional wisdom, certain traits are mutually exclusive. Internal consistency is the key to creating a credible illusion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


BACKGROUND:

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

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

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

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

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

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

b. He was at one of the election meetings at which Davis “suddenly appeared on the scene to propagandize the membership about our “racial problems” in Hawaii. He had just sneaked in here on a boat, and presto, was an “expert” on racial problems in Hawaii. Comrade Davis was supported by others who recently “sneaked” into the organization with the avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line.

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

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

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

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

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


SALIENT FEATURES OF BACKGROUND:

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

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

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

a. Berman was at an election meeting at which Davis “suddenly appeared on the scene to propagandize the membership about our “racial problems” in Hawaii.” “He had just sneaked in here on a boat, and presto, was an “expert” on racial problems in Hawaii.”

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

4. As proof of Berman’s bias, please note that he claimed Davis “had just sneaked here on a boat.”

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

FACTS:

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

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

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


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

FACTS:

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

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

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

d. Berman mentioned Davis at only one meeting, not “meetings,”

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

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


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

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

Fabricated Version #4: In his report “AP Lies About Obama’s Red Mentor,” Kincaid give a fourth version: “AP doesn’t note the evidence that Davis and his comrades tried to take over the NAACP in order to transform its Honolulu branch into a front for the Stalinist line.” In this account Davis tried to take over the NAACP itself!

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



References (Add "www" to each url):

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

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

DISINFORMATION 105:

HONOLULU NAACP PILIKIA (TROUBLE) IN 1949

Just as an effective cover story requires consistency, so too does an effective disinformation campaign. Trying to convince people that your target is an atheist Muslim probably won’t work, nor would trying to convince them that he is a gay womanizer. According to conventional wisdom, certain traits are mutually exclusive. Internal consistency is the key to creating a credible illusion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


BACKGROUND:

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

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

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

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

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

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

b. He was at one of the election meetings at which Davis “suddenly appeared on the scene to propagandize the membership about our “racial problems” in Hawaii. He had just sneaked in here on a boat, and presto, was an “expert” on racial problems in Hawaii. Comrade Davis was supported by others who recently “sneaked” into the organization with the avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line.

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

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

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

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

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


SALIENT FEATURES OF BACKGROUND:

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

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

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

a. Berman was at an election meeting at which Davis “suddenly appeared on the scene to propagandize the membership about our “racial problems” in Hawaii.” “He had just sneaked in here on a boat, and presto, was an “expert” on racial problems in Hawaii.”

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

4. As proof of Berman’s bias, please note that he claimed Davis “had just sneaked here on a boat.”

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

FACTS:

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

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

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


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

FACTS:

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

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

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

d. Berman mentioned Davis at only one meeting, not “meetings,”

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

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


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

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

Fabricated Version #4: In his report “AP Lies About Obama’s Red Mentor,” Kincaid give a fourth version: “AP doesn’t note the evidence that Davis and his comrades tried to take over the NAACP in order to transform its Honolulu branch into a front for the Stalinist line.” In this account Davis tried to take over the NAACP itself!

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



References (Add "www" to each url):

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

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

 

[Kaleokualoha]

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

 

[Kaleokualoha]

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

 

[Revere]

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

 

[Ravi]

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

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

accusing him of being a Communist would be...

what?

...an extremely brilliant parody?

Considering the source, unfortunately, no...

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

At least it keeps you off the street corner.

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

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

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

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[L.K.Eder]

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

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

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

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

Welcome to AnnCoulter.com

2.Liberals are from mars, Conservatives are from Earth


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

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

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

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

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

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