Advertisements
Home

Other Tyrants Who Have Used Children As Props

1 Comment

This is from Alex Jones’ InfoWars.

I have added one tyrant that Alex forgot.

That tyrant is Germany’s Heinrich Himmler.

Himmler used blond haired blue eyed children as the were great Aryans.

Himmler sent thousands to their death but would cry seeing a blond haired child.

 

 Obama’s shameless exploitation of children as set pieces is hardly new or original. In fact, tyrants and dictators have used kids as props down through the ages.

Here are a few more recent examples:

The Soviet Union’s Joseph Stalin

China’s Mao Zedong

Germany’s Adolf Hitler

Germany’s Heinrich Himmler

 

 

Cuba’s Fidel Castro

North Korea’s Kim Il-sung

Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez

Dictator Obama Exploiting the Children for Executive Action on Gun Control

Obama Exploits Children for Executive Action Press Conference on Gun Control

Advertisements

Can You Imagine King George III Telling Our Nation’s Founders They Couldn’t Have Muskets?

Leave a comment

This is from Clash Daily.

King Obama wants to do what King George could not disarm Americans.

Screen Shot 2013-01-06 at 4.38.17 PM

Don’t you love how the Left and their step-n-fetch media mavens are trying to make law-abiding gun owners the bad guys? You don’t? Yeah, me neither.

From Hollywood’s heavily armed guarded elite to the radical, anti-gun commie rag Journal News, peaceful and upright average Joes are being isolated and concentrated on as the bane of America’s existence just because we righteously and lawfully keep and bear arms.

Hollywood has even cobbled together a little tsk-tsk black and white video demanding our government do something about gun violence. That would be the very gun violence they have glamorized on the big screen for the last few decades. Hello.

I believe the total head count of the people slaughtered on film from all the participants from the “Demand a Plan” anti-gun clip comes out to a whopping 100,000 on screen murders.

Yes, Hollywood, please lecture us about gun violence wrecking our culture. Life imitates art, morons, and your films probably spawned half of the killers’ bloody dreams for the last two decades. Lecture us? Please. Physician, heal thyself.

Check it out: When upright, law-abiding Americans want your opinion on guns we’ll give it to you, Hollyweird. Now, go back to Spago and suck on some edamame beans, you duplicitous little dandies.

Oh, and by the way, if you truly want to stem the tide of violent deaths, you should have made a video about the danger of hammers and clubs, as the FBI reports they kill more people every year than rifles do. Dorks.

You know what else is funny? The multitudinous politicians and pundits—mostly progressives—telling us what type of guns we should and should not own. “Oh, we shouldn’t have semi-automatic weapons with thumb holes and extended mags,” they say. “You should only have hunting guns,” they opine.

First off, if you think for a second that Leftists are cool with hunting and Americans owning any type of firearms then you are definitely a few fries short of a Happy Meal.

These tree-humpers would have banned hunting and hunting guns yesterday if they had the wherewithal to do it. Secondly, the right to keep and bear arms was never about putting the bam to Bambi; it was always about the right to self-defense, especially against oppressive governments. Ah-hem.

Therefore, when a progressive tells you what kind of gun you should and shouldn’t own, you should yawn and go out and buy what they just said you shouldn’t have, like millions of other Americans have.

Finally, can you imagine if King George told our original rebels that they shouldn’t own a musket? The Brown Bess, the Charleville and the Kentucky long rifle were the military/police weapons of the day, ladies and gents. “Yes, by George, you colonists shouldn’t have a musket. Who needs a musket? You can hunt with a bow and arrow or a slingshot or a snare. No one needs a dangerous musket. We have the muskets, and we’ll protect you … maybe.”

Our founding rebels with a cause would have said (did say), “Yeah, thanks, but no thanks, Georgie Boy. We’ll leave our self-defense to ourselves. Now bugger off, you snaggle toothed oppressor, and don’t make me use this.”

Oh, one last thing: Here’s a little history lesson regarding gun-grabbing and the carnage that ensued:

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th century because of gun control: 56 million.

You won’t see this data on the U.S. evening news or hear politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note, Americans.

Check out our latest video: The State is My Shepherd, I Shall Not Want.

 

Read more: http://clashdaily.com/2013/01/can-you-imagine-king-george-iii-telling-our-nations-founders-they-couldnt-have-muskets/#ixzz2HodVIWBx
Get more Clash on ClashDaily.comFacebookTwitter, and YouTube.

 

War’s Paradoxes: From Pearl Harbor to the Russian Front to the 38th Parallel

Leave a comment

This is from PJ Media.

 

From time to time, I take a break from opinion writing here at Works and Days and turn to history — on this occasion, I am prompted by the 71st anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Here are a few of the most common questions that I have encountered while teaching the wars of the 20th century over the last twenty years.

I. Pearl Harbor — December 7, 1941

Q. Why did the Japanese so foolishly attack Pearl Harbor?

A. The Japanese did not see it as foolish at all. What in retrospect seems suicidal did not necessarily seem so at the time. In hindsight, the wiser Japanese course would have been to absorb the orphaned colonial Far Eastern possessions of France, the Netherlands, and Great Britain that were largely defenseless after June 1941. By carefully avoiding the Philippines and Pearl Harbor, the Japanese might have inherited the European colonial empire in the Pacific without starting a war with the United States. And had the Japanese and Germans coordinated strategy, the two might have attacked Russia simultaneously in June 1941 without prompting a wider war with the United States, or in the case of Japan, an immediate conflict necessarily with Great Britain.

But in the Japanese view, the Soviets had proved stubborn opponents in a series of border wars, and it was felt wiser to achieve a secure rear in Manchuria to divert attention to the west (the Russians, in fact, honored their non-aggression pact with the Japanese until late 1945) — especially given the fact that the Wehrmacht in December 1941 seemed likely to knock the Soviet Union out of the war in a few weeks or by early 1942.

In the Japanese mind, the moment was everything: it was high time to get in on the easy pickings in the Pacific before Germany ended the war altogether.

While the United States had belatedly begun rearming in the late 1930s, the Japanese were still convinced that in a naval war, their ships, planes, and personnel were at least as modern and plentiful, if not more numerous and qualitatively better than what was available to the United States. The growing isolationism of the United States that had been championed by the likes of icons like Walt Disney and Charles Lindbergh, the persistent Depression, and the fact that the United States had not intervened in Europe but instead watched Britain get battered for some 26 months from September 1939 to December 1941 suggested to many in the Japanese military command that the United States might either negotiate or respond only halfheartedly after Pearl Harbor. Especially after the envisioned loss of the American carrier fleet.

Japanese intelligence about American productive potential was about as limited as German knowledge of the Soviet Union. In Tokyo’s view, if Japanese naval forces took out the American Pacific carriers at Pearl Harbor, there was simply no way for America, at least in the immediate future, to contradict any of their Pacific agendas. Nor on December 7 could the Japanese even imagine that Germany might lose the war on the eastern front; more likely, Hitler seemed about to take Moscow, ending the continental ground conflict in Eurasia, and allowing him at last to finish off Great Britain. Britain’s fall, then, would mean that everything from India to Burma would soon be orphaned in the Pacific, and Japan would only have to deal with a vastly crippled and solitary United States. In short, for the Japanese, December 1941 seemed a good time to attack the United States — a provocation that would either likely be negotiated or end in a military defeat for the U.S.

II. The Russian Front — June 22, 1941

Q. Why did the Germans attack the Soviet Union so recklessly at a time when they had all but won the war?

A. Once more, what seems foolhardy to us may not have seemed so to Nazi Germany. True, the Germans each month were receiving generously priced Soviet products, many on credit; but Hitler (wrongly) felt that he could nevertheless steal food, fuel, and raw materials from the east more cheaply than buying them. And while the Germans were paranoid about opening a two-front war — like the one that had plagued them between late 1914 and 1917 — Hitler argued that the western front was all but somnolent. British strategic bombing in 1941, remember, was still mostly erratic and ineffective.

In any case, Hitler was more paranoid about a British embargo and blockade that might cut off fuel and food in the manner of 1918; with the acquisition of the great natural reserves of the Soviet Union, especially its Caucasian oil, the Nazis believed that they would become immune from the effects of a maritime blockade.

In addition, the war was never intended to be entirely rational in the purely strategic sense; instead, it was seen also as a National Socialist ideological crusade in which the complete destruction or enslavement of Europe’s supposed Untermenschen was impossible without access to the huge populations of Jews and Slavs in Russia. To Hitler, Marxism was a Jewish perversity and Operation Barbarossa meant that he could kill two birds with one stone. The perverse notion that a Germany with 30% more territory and a population of 80 million — similar to its population today — still could not live without “Lebensraum” apparently appealed to many German elites who had visions of eastern estates and baronies, worked by serfs, with vacation trips on super-autobahns to the Crimean beaches — at least if all that cost only a month of war.

With the conquest of the Balkans by June 1941, the ground war in Europe was all but over. Great Britain was alone and isolated, and had scarcely survived the Battle of Britain. There was no reason to believe that the United States would enter the war; if America had not declared war to aid Britain, it most certainly would not do so to save the communist Soviet Union.

Moreover, the German army had proved almost superhuman in its invasion of Poland and Western Europe; even the messy conflicts in the Balkans, Crete, and the recent deployments to North Africa had not slowed the Wehrmacht’s progress. Hitler, just to be sure, took no chances and assembled the largest invasion force the world had yet seen, over three million Germans and 500,000 allies. Operation Barbarossa was truly a multilateral effort, with contingents from most of Eastern Europe, Spain, and Italy joining the German effort. By mid-1941 there was nothing comparable, at least in adequate numbers, in the east to the ME-109, the Panzer Mark IV, or the .88 mm flak/anti-tank gun. Such technological superiority blinded Hitler to the reality that there were few modern roads in Russia, and most of the invasion would still be powered by horses, with inadequate air, train, and truck transport.

Still, in contrast to Germany’s string of successes, the Soviet Union’s recent military record was dismal. Stalin had liquidated many of the officer class (although not as large a percentage as was once thought). The Red Army had not performed well in carving up Poland in September 1939 and appeared almost incompetent in the early stages of the Soviet invasion of Finland in late 1939 (Hitler foolishly did not distinguish between the Red Army when fighting on home soil and when it was deployed abroad). Such impressions confirmed Hitler’s racialist views that the Russians were backward and incapable of waging modern mechanized war — an inferiority supposedly only enhanced by bankrupt Leninism. Given poor German intelligence about the quality and production of Russian artillery, tank (cf. the new T-34 that was about to go into full production), and aircraft, the Germans assumed that Russia would fall rather easily — relying on a comparative World War I calculus. France had held out for four years, while Russia had fallen in about three; thus, the next time around in 1940, France’s fall in about seven weeks suggested a Russian collapse in about four.

Japan, at war in the east with Russia during 1938-1939, had felt betrayed when its Axis partner had signed without warning the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, effectively ensuring the Soviets could focus on one front against the Japanese. A defeated Japan repaid the treachery in kind, by signing a similar neutrality pact with Russia in April 1941. That bargain assured Stalin, in turn, that the Soviets would have only a one-front war should Hitler break his agreements — a fact that might have saved Moscow as reinforcements from the east poured in.

In short, had Hitler maintained his pact with Stalin and focused instead on North Africa and the Persian Gulf oil fields, perhaps in conjunction with the Japanese advancing toward India and Suez, Great Britain would have probably lost the war. But by invading Russia, and declaring war on the United States on December 11 (when Army Group Center seemed on the verge of taking Moscow, when Japan seemingly had destroyed the Pacific fleet and had ensured both Britain and America a two-front war, and when U-boat commanders assured the Nazi high command that with free rein to attack the East Coast of the United States they could destroy the shipping lanes of the convoy system between North America and Great Britain), Hitler chose about the only two courses of action that could have lost him the war.

III. A Divided Korea?

Q. Why did the United States stop after spring 1951 at the 38th Parallel, thereby ensuring a subsequent sixty-year Cold War and resulting in chronic worries about a North Korea armed with nuclear weapons and poised to invade its neighbor to the south?

A. Americans were haunted by the nightmare of November 1950 to February 1951. After the brilliant Inchon invasion, and MacArthur’s inspired rapid advance to the Yalu River and the Chinese border, the sudden entrance of an initial quarter-million Chinese Red Army troops, with hundreds of thousands to follow, had sent the Americans reeling hundreds of miles to the south (in the longest retreat in American military history), back across the 38th Parallel, with Seoul soon being lost to the communists yet again. Matthew Ridgway had arrived in December 1950 to try to save the war, and had done just that by April 1951, when he was replaced as senior ground commander by Gen. Van Fleet and in turn took over the theater command from the relieved MacArthur. But the Americans had been permanently traumatized by the Chinese entry and the North Korean recovery after the all-but-declared American victory of October 1950.

Ridgway, after the UN forces’ amazing recovery in early 1951, was in no mood to go much farther across the 38th Parallel. From his study of MacArthur’s debacle in Fall 1950, he knew well that the peninsula in the north became more rugged and expansive and would swallow thousands of troops as they neared the Chinese and Russian borders, and had to be supplied from hundreds of miles to the rear. Such a second advance through North Korea was felt, accurately or not, to risk a regional nuclear war with the Soviet Union, to draw in hundreds of thousands more Chinese Red Army troops, and to ensure another year or two of war at a time when the American public was thoroughly tired of this new concept of a “police action” and an “accordion war.” And while critics railed at silly political restraints on U.S. airpower that might have destroyed Chinese or Russian staging areas across the border, they did not appreciate that such attacks might also have prompted similar enemy attention on U.S. supply centers in Japan.

Moreover, the UN coalition had been created under quasi-coercive premises in Fall 1950. The war was seen as about over, and allied deployment might well amount to only garrison duty. European participation in Korea was also predicated on ensuring an American commitment to keeping the Soviets out of Western Europe. But by the time UN troops arrived in Korea, the Chinese were invading and slaughtering the coalition in the retreat to the south. Most European participants simply wanted a truce at any cost and an end to the war.

Further, the U.S. had been drawn into a depressing propaganda war. We were responsible for rebirthing Japan, Italy, and Germany as pro-Western democracies, while Russian and Chinese communists posed as the true allies of the war’s victims that were continuing their war against fascism, against a capitalist American Empire that had joined the old Axis. In the case of Korea, Americans took over constabulary duties from Japanese militarists and supported South Korean authoritarians, while Soviet and Chinese-backed hardened communists in the North posed as agrarian reformers — or so the global leftist narrative went. For many Americans, the thought of fighting a nearly endless civil war was less desirable than an armistice and an end to the hostilities, even though after three years of fighting and 36,000 American dead (and over a million Koreans lost), the borders remained almost unchanged.

Was that stalemate wise, given the later trajectory of North Korea to the present insanity? Perhaps not — but the American effort nonetheless jumpstarted the South, which eventually evolved into a nation with consensual government and the world free-market powerhouse of today.

Lessons?

As historians we must remember not to evaluate what happened solely on the basis of what we now know in hindsight, but rather weigh the information available to the warring parties of the time — albeit with ample attention paid to their own shortcomings and prejudices.

Moreover, most blunders in war follow from the fruits of perceived success (e.g., Germany after victories in the West, Japan after sensing the colonial powers were all through in the Pacific, MacArthur after Inchon, the Chinese after successfully crossing into Korea, and perhaps even the United States in Iraq after the quick victory over the Taliban and the three-week disposal of Saddam Hussein’s regime), when the winning side rarely evaluates its ongoing success in terms of tactical means and strategic ends, the changing tides of war, and the advantages that will soon begin to accrue to the defenders. Few dared challenge the purported genius Hitler in 1941, or the supposedly all-knowing Isoroku Yamamoto in late 1941, or the brilliant MacArthur after Inchon.

Finally, no one can quite predict what will happen when the shooting starts, as even the past can be a deceptive guide. Hitler believed that the Czar’s Russians, who did not fight as stubbornly as the French in World War I, would collapse like the French did in June 1940. When the Chinese crossed the 38th Parallel, they did not anticipate that their communist supermen were subject to the same facts — long, vulnerable supply lines, bad weather, and an enemy with easier logistics — that had plagued the Americans on the way to the Yalu. And while Hitler may have had grounds to doubt the initial effectiveness of the U.S. Army, its sudden mobilization, and its inadequate equipment, he had no appreciation of lethal American fighter-bombers or a growing strategic bombing arm, no appreciation of the brilliance of American generals at the corps and division level, and no appreciation of what Henry Kaiser and Charles Sorensen were up to back in the United States.

 

China lands first jet on aircraft carrier

Leave a comment

This is from CNN.

 

The Chicoms are ramping up their military.

While back in America Obama is gutting our military.

Even the Russians are buliding up their military.

 

China announced Sunday that it had landed a fighter jet on the deck of an aircraft carrier for the first time.

 

(CNN) — China announced Sunday that it had landed a fighter jet on the deck of an aircraft carrier for the first time, but it may be years before the ship is fully operational.

China’s “first generation multi-purpose carrier-borne fighter jet,” known as the J-15, successfully completed its first landing on the Liaoning, an aircraft carrier China built using an abandoned Soviet hull, according to China’s official news agency Xinhua.

The J-15’s capabilities are comparable to the Russian Su-33 jet and the U.S. F-18, Xinhua reported. The Chinese-designed jet can “carry multi-type anti-ship, air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles, as well as precision-guided bombs, the report said.

The U.S. military, in its latest annual assessment of China’s military capability, predicted “it will still take several additional years for China to achieve a minimal level of combat capability for its aircraft carriers.”

The Liaoning will be able to carry 30 J-15 fighter planes and will have a crew of 2,000, according to a People’s Daily Online report published when it completed its first sea trials in August 2011.

China bought the shell of the carrier, then called the Varyag, from Ukraine in 1998. Its construction was begun under the Soviet military before the breakup of the Soviet Union.

The Pentagon report said another carrier, one made from components made in China, may already be under construction and ready to sail in 2015.

“China likely will build multiple aircraft carriers and associated support ships over the next decade,” the U.S. assessment said.

The United States, Britain and Japan launched the first aircraft carriers nearly a century ago. The U.S. Navy, with 11, is the only fleet that currently operates more than one.

 

25 Examples Of What America Would Be Like If Everyone Was A Liberal

Leave a comment

This is from Town Hall.

We are headed this way now.

 

1) America’s credit rating would get so low that it would force President Dennis Kucinich to petition the UN for donations to pay for Social Security, Medicare, and his newly implemented 350 weeks of unemployment plan.

2) There wouldn’t be a Pledge of Allegiance said in schools, no one would sing the Star Spangled Banner before any sporting event, and no one would celebrate the 4th of July.

3) Gas would cost $9 a gallon. Liberals would consider this a plus because it would cause more people to get tax credits to buy government subsidized $40,000 electric cars.

4) Seven year olds would be able to vote. Free candy and endorsements from cartoon characters would become a staple of campaigning.

5) The corporate tax rate would be 15 percent higher, most American workers would be unionized and tax rates would soar. As a result, our economy would be stagnant and our unemployment rate would permanently be in the 10-20% range.

6) Prison sentences would be short, crime would be rampant, and the police would be so undermanned and tied down with regulations that they wouldn’t even bother to lock people up for committing crimes like burglary..

7) There would be price controls on electricity, gasoline, and most household goods. Of course, there would also be regular shortages of electricity, gasoline, and most household goods.

8) Children would be taught to be androgynous, gender-confused weirdos in school rather than risk exposing them to “gender stereotypes.”

9) Conservatism would be considered hate speech that could draw a massive fine or even jail time for repeat offenders.

10) The good news is that housing would be free. The bad news is that it would mostly be in ugly cement buildings with drug addicts, former homeless people, the severely mentally ill, and career criminals peppered all through the complex for the sake of “diversity.”

11) Wearing a cross, mentioning the Bible, or advocating Christian beliefs anywhere outside of a church would be illegal because it might “offend people.”

12) Meat, 32 ounce sodas, and trans fats would be illegal. Crack, meth, and heroin would be legal.

13) America’s military would be so weak we’d have to rely on Mexico and Canada to defend us from potential threats.

14) The Israelis would be driven into the sea, Taiwan would be swallowed by China, and Russia would begin to gobble up the countries that broke free after the Soviet Union fell.

15) Not only would partial birth abortions be legal, but a mother would be allowed to kill her child forthree months after he’s born without penalty.

16) Stopping sex offenders from teaching school or adopting children would be considered discriminatory.

17) Activists would be able to sue on behalf of individual plants and animals in court.

18) The government would control health care top-to-bottom. It would take six months to get an operation, which would be considered a feature, not a bug because a lot of old people would die in the interim and save the government money.

19) Only government employees would be able to legally own guns.

20) Income inequality would be nearly eradicated after all the rich Americans and big corporations fled the country rather than pay confiscatory tax rates.

21) Wal-Mart would only be allowed to hire union employees and completely coincidentally, their prices would double.

22) We’d have open borders and so many illegal aliens in the southern United States that California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas would end up being ceded back to Mexico.

23) There would be a free, in-house abortion clinic in every junior high in America.

24) President Kucinich’s new idea to help deal with the soaring jobless rate? Paying workers the new minimum wage, $80,000 a year, to dig holes and fill them back up.

25) The federal government would spend 134 billion dollars replacing the current Presidents on Mount Rushmore with Gloria Steinem, Harvey Milk, Cesar Chavez, and Margaret Sanger.

 

 

DISGRACE: BARACK OBAMA BROKE PROMISE TO HONOR COLD WAR VETERANS

1 Comment

This is from Breitbarts Big Government.

 

Why does this revelation about Obama not surprise me?

Like all liberals Obama despises the military.

So Obama breaking his promise to honor the Cold Warriors is no shock.

 

President Barack Obama once promised, as a U.S. Senator, to honor veterans of the Cold War, who have never received official recognition and are therefore prevented from full participation in many Veterans Day celebrations. But he never fulfilled that promise–neither in the Senate nor the White House–leaving Cold War veterans in the cold.

This weekend, the Wall Street Journal documented the promise, made in 2006 to Frank Almquist, an Illinois constituent who had served in the Army in the 1980s. A medal for Cold War veterans seemed “appropriate,” Obama wrote, and wrote that he hoped “this impasse can be broken soon.” He never took up the task.

The U.S. has thus far failed to honor those who served in the long struggle against communism, which began almost as soon as the Second World War had ended. Though communist regimes–especially Stalin’s Soviet Union and Mao’s China, and satellites such as Pol Pot’s Cambodia–committed more murders than the Nazis, few Americans are aware of the absolute moral evil that communism represents, or the sacrifices made to stop it.

The fact that the U.S. government has never formally recognized Cold War veterans has meant they have been excluded from veterans’ groups such as the American Legion, which only includes veterans from periods of “hot” wars, regardless of where or how the veterans served. The U-2 pilots who provided essential intelligence; the soldiers who kept watch in Berlin; the sailors who were silent sentinels aboard submarines, tracking Soviet movements, ready to strike–all have gone unheralded, and largely uncelebrated, even on Veterans Day.

It is possible that the reluctance to honor Cold War veterans springs from a political motive. Many on the left opposed the tough line taken against communism by Presidents from Truman to Reagan; many still think of communism as a legitimate alternative economic model that was never given a real chance at success due to western opposition and political failures in implementation. An entire generation of American youth has been educated in the years since the Cold War ended without much idea of how it was fought, by whom, or why.

The official position of the Obama administration is that the Cold war “was not actually a war,” in the words of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs Elizabeth King. For all his happy talk at about assisting veterans, President Barack Obama has left thousands of the nation’s heroes on the sidelines.

They won the longest and most important war of our nation’s history, freeing millions from totalitarianism. But the nation they served has yet to commend them–and the president has, disgracefully, failed to honor his promise.

 

 

 

Missile gets makeover on 50th anniversary of Cuban crisis

Leave a comment

This is from Yahoo News.

Americans are sadly forgetting our history.

I  remember seeing these missile batteries when we moved to Florida.

I remember the duck and cover drills at school.

As I look back now I know it would not have mattered ducking and covering.

 

Miami area high school students at the George T. Baker Aviation school prepare to attach ailerons to a 41-foot surface-to-air Nike Hercules missile as they restore it at the school in Miami, Florida October 10, 2012. REUTERS/Joe Skipper

MIAMI (Reuters) – In October 1962, as fears of mushroom clouds and radioactive fallout gripped the United States in the midst of theCuban missile crisis, a battery of anti-ballistic missiles near Miamistood as the nation’s first line of defense against nuclear attack.

Half a century later the missile base is still there, in the middle of the marshy Everglades, but the missiles are long gone.

Now, to mark the 50th anniversary of the Cuban missile crisis, students at a Miami aviation school are restoring one of the originalNike Hercules missiles once tipped with a nuclear warhead and aimed at Cuba.

The United States and Cuba remain ideological foes to this day, and Florida is home to tens of thousands of Cubans who fled the island after Fidel Castro’s 1959 revolution, but tensions have cooled down considerably as memories fade.

The students realize the decommissioned missile was once part of a historic event but confess to knowing little about one of the momentous episodes of the Cold War.

“I just know it was part of the Cuban missile crisis, but I haven’t researched it,” said Abraham Hidalgo, 17, one of the students at George T. Baker Aviation School.

The 41-foot (12.5-meter), surface-to-air Nike Hercules missile was previously stored in a U.S. army depot in Alabama, covered in dust and spider webs. A flatbed truck hauled it down Interstate-95 to the school next to Miami International Airport.

For the last two months, students have been working to restore the 5-ton missile to near-original condition; sanding wings, replacing sheet metal and repainting the U.S. Army markings. Its final destination is Everglades National Park, where it will be installed at an abandoned Nike missile base.

The 13-day missile crisis began on October 16, 1962, when then-President John F. Kennedy first learned the Soviet Union was installing missiles in Cuba, barely 90 miles off the Florida coast.

After secret negotiations between Kennedy and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, the United Statesagreed not to invade Cuba if the Soviet Union withdrew its missiles from the island.

‘HEARD SOMETHING ABOUT CHE’

“The irony is a lot of these kids are Cuban,” said George T. Baker principal Sean Gallagan. “And if this missile was used as it was intended a lot of these kids wouldn’t be here.”

Samuel Robles, 16, said he didn’t know a lot about the incident but “heard something about Che Guevara on the History Channel,” referring to the Argentine-born revolutionary icon who fought in the 1959 revolution.

Military use of the Everglades site ended in 1979 and the facility, known as HM69 Nike Missile Base, was turned over to the National Park Service, which offers visitor tours in the winter months.

Because the site lies within a national park, the base is almost unchanged since its closure, including the three missile “barns,” a missile assembly building, barracks and a guard dog kennel.

The refurbished Nike Hercules is due to be housed in one of the barns and will be officially unveiled on October 20.

During the Cold War the United States was dotted with Nike sites – named after the Greek goddess of victory – strategically located near cities as part of a national air defense system.

Most have disappeared or been converted into other public uses, including an immigration detention facility in Florida, a golf course in Illinois and an elementary school in Kansas.

Commemoration events marking the anniversary are scheduled around the country, including an exhibition at the National Archives in Washington D.C. titled “To the Brink: JFK and the Cuban Missile Crisis,” featuring secretly recorded White House tapes of Kennedy and his advisers as they sought to avert a nuclear war.

One of the reasons these anniversaries are important is that “they serve as a flashpoint” for people who don’t remember or weren’t alive, said Graham Allison, director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University.

A handful of events are taking place across Miami – an exile home to many of the Cubans who fled communist rule on the island – including a panel discussion at the local history museum and the University of Miami.

“I think there was more fear and frenzy here than anywhere because we were so close to it,” said Paul George, a professor at Miami Dade College and historian at the HistoryMiami museum.

But the “Kennedy years for students are kind of a dim thing … I teach history and I see it every day,” he added.

 

Memos suggest US hid evidence of Soviet massacre during WWII

Leave a comment

This is from Fox News World.

This make’s me wonder what else did Emperor Franklin The First hide?

Did he hide the fact he know more about the Pearl Harbor attack?

Did Roosevelt know the date of the attack as suggested in the past?

Sadly we will never know the answer to that question.

katyn.jpg

In this Oct. 11, 1951 file photo, Lt. Col. Donald B. Stewart, left, locates the site of a mass grave near Smolensk, Russia, to Rep. Ray Madden, D-Ind., during a special House Committee hearing in Washington. Stewart and Lt. Col. John H. Van Vliet Jr., were among a group of British and American prisoners forced by the Germans to see a horrifying site, a mass grave where murdered Polish officers were buried, near Smolensk. (AP/File)

WARSAW, Poland –  The American POWs sent secret coded messages to Washington with news of a Soviet atrocity: In 1943 they saw rows of corpses in an advanced state of decay in the Katyn forest, on the western edge of Russia, proof that the killers could not have been the Nazis who had only recently occupied the area.

The testimony about the infamous massacre of Polish officers might have lessened the tragic fate that befell Poland under the Soviets, some scholars believe. Instead, it mysteriously vanished into the heart of American power. The long-held suspicion is that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt didn’t want to anger Josef Stalin, an ally whom the Americans were counting on to defeat Germany and Japan during World War II.

Documents released Monday and seen in advance by The Associated Press lend weight to the belief that suppression within the highest levels of the U.S. government helped cover up Soviet guilt in the killing of some 22,000 Polish officers and other prisoners in the Katyn forest and other locations in 1940.

The evidence is among about 1,000 pages of newly declassified documents that the United States National Archives is releasing Monday and putting online. Historians who saw the material days before the official release describe it as important and shared some highlights with the AP. The most dramatic revelation so far is the evidence of the secret codes sent by the two American POWs — something historians were unaware of and which adds to evidence that the Roosevelt administration knew of the Soviet atrocity relatively early on.

The declassified documents also show the United States maintaining that it couldn’t conclusively determine guilt until a Russian admission in 1990 — a statement that looks improbable given the huge body of evidence of Soviet guilt that had already emerged decades earlier. Historians say the new material helps to flesh out the story of what the U.S. knew and when.

The Soviet secret police killed the 22,000 Poles with shots to the back of the head. Their aim was to eliminate a military and intellectual elite that would have put up stiff resistance to Soviet control. The men were among Poland’s most accomplished — officers and reserve officers who in their civilian lives worked as doctors, lawyers, teachers, or as other professionals. Their loss has proven an enduring wound to the Polish nation.

In the early years after the war, outrage by some American officials over the concealment inspired the creation of a special U.S. Congressional committee to investigate Katyn.

In a final report released in 1952, the committee declared there was no doubt of Soviet guilt, and called the massacre “one of the most barbarous international crimes in world history.” It found that Roosevelt’s administration suppressed public knowledge of the crime, but said it was out of military necessity. It also recommended the government bring charges against the Soviets at an international tribunal — something never acted upon.

Despite the committee’s strong conclusions, the White House maintained its silence on Katyn for decades, showing an unwillingness to focus on an issue that would have added to political tensions with the Soviets during the Cold War.

___

It was May 1943 in the Katyn forest, a part of Russia the Germans had seized from the Soviets in 1941. A group of American and British POWs were taken against their will by their German captors to witness a horrifying scene at a clearing surrounded by pine trees: mass graves tightly packed with thousands of partly mummified corpses in well-tailored Polish officers uniforms.

The Americans — Capt. Donald B. Stewart and Lt. Col. John H. Van Vliet Jr. — hated the Nazis and didn’t want to believe the Germans. They had seen German cruelty up close, and the Soviets, after all, were their ally. The Germans were hoping to use the POWs for propaganda, and to drive a wedge between the Soviet Union and its Western Allies.

But returning to their POW camps, the Americans carried a conviction that they had just witnessed overwhelming proof of Soviet guilt. The corpses’ advanced state of decay told them the killings took place much earlier in the war, when the Soviets still controlled the area. They also saw Polish letters, diaries, identification tags, news clippings and other objects — none dated later than spring of 1940 — pulled from the graves. The evidence that did the most to convince them was the good state of the men’s boots and clothing: That told them the men had not lived long after being captured.

Stewart testified before the 1951 Congressional committee about what he saw, and Van Vliet wrote reports on Katyn in 1945 and 1950, the first of which mysteriously disappeared. But the newly declassified documents show that both sent secret encoded messages while still in captivity to army intelligence with their opinion of Soviet culpability. It’s an important revelation because it shows the Roosevelt administration was getting information early on from credible U.S. sources of Soviet guilt — yet still ignored it for the sake of the alliance with Stalin.

One shows head of Army intelligence, Gen. Clayton Bissell, confirming that some months after the 1943 visit to Katyn by the U.S. officers, a coded request by MIS-X, a unit of military intelligence, was sent to Van Vliet requesting him “to state his opinion of Katyn.” Bissell’s note said that “it is also understood Col. Van Vliet & Capt. Stewart replied.”

MIS-X was devoted to helping POWs held behind German lines escape; it also used the prisoners to gather intelligence.

A statement from Stewart dated 1950 confirms he received and sent coded messages to Washington during the war, including one on Katyn: “Content of my report was aprx (approximately): German claims regarding Katyn substantially correct in opinion of Van Vliet and myself.”

The newly uncovered documents also show Stewart was ordered in 1950 — soon before the Congressional committee began its work — never to speak about a secret message on Katyn.

Krystyna Piorkowska, author of the recently published book “English-Speaking Witnesses to Katyn: Recent Research,” discovered the documents related to the coded messages more than a week ago. She was one of several researchers who saw the material ahead of the public release.

She had already determined in her research that Van Vliet and Stewart were “code users” who had gotten messages out about other matters. But this is the first discovery of them communicating about Katyn, she said.

Another Katyn expert aware of the documents, Allen Paul, author of “Katyn: Stalin’s Massacre and the Triumph of Truth,” told the AP the find is “potentially explosive.” He said the material does not appear in the record of the Congressional hearings in 1951-52, and appears to have also been suppressed.

He argues that the U.S. cover-up delayed a full understanding in the United States of the true nature of Stalinism — an understanding that came only later, after the Soviets exploded an atomic bomb in 1949 and after Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe were already behind the Iron Curtain.

“The Poles had known long before the war ended what Stalin’s true intentions were,” Paul said. “The West’s refusal to hear them out on the Katyn issue was a crushing blow that made their fate worse.”

The historical record carries other evidence Roosevelt knew in 1943 of Soviet guilt. One of the most important messages that landed on FDR’s desk was an extensive and detailed report British Prime Minister Winston Churchill sent him. Written by the British ambassador to the Polish government-in-exile in London, Owen O’Malley, it pointed to Soviet guilt at Katyn.

“There is now available a good deal of negative evidence,” O’Malley wrote, “the cumulative effect of which is to throw serious doubt on Russian disclaimers of responsibility for the massacre.”

It wasn’t until the waning days of Soviet hegemony over Eastern Europe that reformist leader Mikhail Gorbachev publicly admitted to Soviet guilt at Katyn, a key step in Polish-Russian reconciliation.

The silence by the U.S. government has been a source of deep frustration for many Polish-Americans. One is Franciszek Herzog, 81, a Connecticut man whose father and uncle died in the massacre. After Gorbachev’s 1990 admission, he was hoping for more openness from the U.S. as well and made three attempts to obtain an apology from President George H.W. Bush.

“It will not resurrect the men,” he wrote to Bush. “But will give moral satisfaction to the widows and orphans of the victims.”

A reply he got in 1992, from the State Department, did not satisfy him. His correspondence with the government is also among the newly released documents and was obtained early by the AP from the George Bush Presidential Library.

The letter, dated Aug. 12, 1992, and signed by Thomas Gerth, then deputy director of the Office of Eastern European Affairs, shows the government stating that it lacked irrefutable evidence until Gorbachev’s admission:

“The U.S. government never accepted the Soviet Government’s claim that it was not responsible for the massacre. However, at the time of the Congressional hearings in 1951-1952, the U.S. did not possess the facts that could clearly refute the Soviets’ allegations that these crimes were committed by the Third Reich. These facts, as you know, were not revealed until 1990, when the Russians officially apologized to Poland.”

Herzog expressed frustration at that reply.

“There’s a big difference between not knowing and not wanting to know,” Herzog said. “I believe the U.S. government didn’t want to know because it was inconvenient to them.”

Neil Armstrong, 1st man on the moon, dies

Leave a comment

 

This is from Yahoo News.

I was fifteen when Neil Armstrong stepped on the moon.

I have never been prouder to be an American.

We need to have that pride once more.

We need to go back to the moon.

We lost a great American.

FILE - In undated photo provided by NASA shows Neil Armstrong. The family of Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon, says he has died at age 82. A statement from the family says he died following complications resulting from cardiovascular procedures. It doesn't say where he died. Armstrong commanded the Apollo 11 spacecraft that landed on the moon July 20, 1969. He radioed back to Earth the historic news of "one giant leap for mankind." Armstrong and fellow astronaut Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin spent nearly three hours walking on the moon, collecting samples, conducting experiments and taking photographs. In all, 12 Americans walked on the moon from 1969 to 1972. (AP Photo/NASA)

CINCINNATI (AP) — Neil Armstrong was a quiet self-described nerdy engineer who became a global hero when as a steely-nerved pilot he made “one giant leap for mankind” with a small step on to the moon. The modest man who had people on Earth entranced and awed from almost a quarter million miles away has died. He was 82.

Armstrong died following complications resulting from cardiovascular procedures, a statement Saturday from his family said. It didn’t say where he died.

Armstrong commanded the Apollo 11 spacecraft that landed on the moon July 20, 1969, capping the most daring of the 20th century’s scientific expeditions. His first words after setting foot on the surface are etched in history books and the memories of those who heard them in a live broadcast.

“That’s one small step for (a) man, one giant leap for mankind,” Armstrong said.

In those first few moments on the moon, during the climax of heated space race with the then-Soviet Union, Armstrong stopped in what he called “a tender moment” and left a patch commemorate NASA astronauts and Soviet cosmonauts who had died in action.

“It was special and memorable but it was only instantaneous because there was work to do,” Armstrong told an Australian television interviewer this year.

Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin spent nearly three hours walking on the lunar surface, collecting samples, conducting experiments and taking photographs.

“The sights were simply magnificent, beyond any visual experience that I had ever been exposed to,” Armstrong once said.

The moonwalk marked America’s victory in the Cold War space race that began Oct. 4, 1957, with the launch of the Soviet Union’s Sputnik 1, a 184-pound satellite that sent shock waves around the world.

Although he had been a Navy fighter pilot, a test pilot for NASA’s forerunner and an astronaut, Armstrong never allowed himself to be caught up in the celebrity and glamor of the space program.

“I am, and ever will be, a white socks, pocket protector, nerdy engineer,” he said in February 2000 in one of his rare public appearances. “And I take a substantial amount of pride in the accomplishments of my profession.”

A man who kept away from cameras, Armstrong went public in 2010 with his concerns about President Barack Obama’s space policy that shifted attention away from a return to the moon and emphasized private companies developing spaceships. He testified before Congress and in an email to The Associated Press, Armstrong said he had “substantial reservations,” and along with more than two dozen Apollo-era veterans, he signed a letter calling the plan a “misguided proposal that forces NASA out of human space operations for the foreseeable future.”

Armstrong’s modesty and self-effacing manner never faded.

When he appeared in Dayton in 2003 to help celebrate the 100th anniversary of powered flight, he bounded onto a stage before 10,000 people packed into a baseball stadium. But he spoke for only a few seconds, did not mention the moon, and quickly ducked out of the spotlight.

He later joined former astronaut and Sen. John Glenn to lay wreaths on the graves of Wilbur and Orville Wright. Glenn introduced Armstrong and noted it was 34 years to the day that Armstrong had walked on the moon.

“Thank you, John. Thirty-four years?” Armstrong quipped, as if he hadn’t given it a thought.

At another joint appearance, the two embraced and Glenn commented: “To this day, he’s the one person on Earth, I’m truly, truly envious of.”

Armstrong’s moonwalk capped a series of accomplishments that included piloting the X-15 rocket plane and making the first space docking during the Gemini 8 mission, which included a successful emergency splashdown.

In the years afterward, Armstrong retreated to the quiet of the classroom and his southwest Ohio farm. Aldrin said in his book “Men from Earth” that Armstrong was one of the quietest, most private men he had ever met.

In the Australian interview, Armstrong acknowledged that “now and then I miss the excitement about being in the cockpit of an airplane and doing new things.”

At the time of the flight’s 40th anniversary, Armstrong again was low-key, telling a gathering that the space race was “the ultimate peaceful competition: USA versus U.S.S.R. It did allow both sides to take the high road with the objectives of science and learning and exploration.”

Glenn, who went through jungle training in Panama with Armstrong as part of the astronaut program, described him as “exceptionally brilliant” with technical matters but “rather retiring, doesn’t like to be thrust into the limelight much.”

Derek Elliott, curator of the Smithsonian Institution’s U.S. Air and Space Museum from 1982 to 1992, said the moonwalk probably marked the high point of space exploration.

The manned lunar landing was a boon to the prestige of the United States, which had been locked in a space race with the former Soviet Union, and re-established U.S. pre-eminence in science and technology, Elliott said.

“The fact that we were able to see it and be a part of it means that we are in our own way witnesses to history,” he said.

The 1969 landing met an audacious deadline that President Kennedy had set in May 1961, shortly after Alan Shepard became the first American in space with a 15-minute suborbital flight. (Soviet cosmonaut Yuri A. Gagarin had orbited the Earth and beaten the U.S. into space the previous month.)

“I believe this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before the decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to Earth,” Kennedy had said. “No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important to the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish.”

The end-of-decade goal was met with more than five months to spare. “Houston: Tranquility Base here,” Armstrong radioed after the spacecraft settled onto the moon. “The Eagle has landed.”

“Roger, Tranquility,” the Houston staffer radioed back. “We copy you on the ground. You’ve got a bunch of guys about to turn blue. We’re breathing again. Thanks a lot.”

The third astronaut on the mission, Michael Collins, circled the moon in the mother ship Columbia 60 miles overhead while Armstrong and Aldrin went to the moon’s surface.

In all, 12 American astronauts walked on the moon between 1969 and the last moon mission in 1972.

For Americans, reaching the moon provided uplift and respite from the Vietnam War, from strife in the Middle East, from the startling news just a few days earlier that a young woman had drowned in a car driven off a wooden bridge on Chappaquiddick Island by Sen. Edward Kennedy. The landing occurred as organizers were gearing up for Woodstock, the legendary three-day rock festival on a farm in the Catskills of New York.

Armstrong was born Aug. 5, 1930, on a farm near Wapakoneta in western Ohio. He took his first airplane ride at age 6 and developed a fascination with aviation that prompted him to build model airplanes and conduct experiments in a homemade wind tunnel.

As a boy, he worked at a pharmacy and took flying lessons. He was licensed to fly at 16, before he got his driver’s license.

Armstrong enrolled in Purdue University to study aeronautical engineering but was called to duty with the U.S. Navy in 1949 and flew 78 combat missions in Korea.

After the war, Armstrong finished his degree from Purdue and later earned a master’s degree in aerospace engineering from the University of Southern California. He became a test pilot with what evolved into the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, flying more than 200 kinds of aircraft from gliders to jets.

Armstrong was accepted into NASA’s second astronaut class in 1962 — the first, including Glenn, was chosen in 1959 — and commanded the Gemini 8 mission in 1966. After the first space docking, he brought the capsule back in an emergency landing in the Pacific Ocean when a wildly firing thruster kicked it out of orbit.

Armstrong was backup commander for the historic Apollo 8 mission at Christmastime in 1968. In that flight, Commander Frank Borman, and Jim Lovell and Bill Anders circled the moon 10 times, and paving the way for the lunar landing seven months later.

Aldrin said he and Armstrong were not prone to free exchanges of sentiment.

“But there was that moment on the moon, a brief moment, in which we sort of looked at each other and slapped each other on the shoulder … and said, ‘We made it. Good show,’ or something like that,” Aldrin said.

An estimated 600 million people — a fifth of the world’s population — watched and listened to the landing, the largest audience for any single event in history.

Parents huddled with their children in front of the family television, mesmerized by what they were witnessing. Farmers abandoned their nightly milking duties, and motorists pulled off the highway and checked into motels just to see the moonwalk.

Television-less campers in California ran to their cars to catch the word on the radio. Boy Scouts at a camp in Michigan watched on a generator-powered television supplied by a parent.

Afterward, people walked out of their homes and gazed at the moon, in awe of what they had just seen. Others peeked through telescopes in hopes of spotting the astronauts.

In Wapakoneta, media and souvenir frenzy was swirling around the home of Armstrong’s parents.

“You couldn’t see the house for the news media,” recalled John Zwez, former manager of the Neil Armstrong Air and Space Museum. “People were pulling grass out of their front yard.”

Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins were given ticker tape parades in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles and later made a 22-nation world tour. A homecoming in Wapakoneta drew 50,000 people to the city of 9,000.

In 1970, Armstrong was appointed deputy associate administrator for aeronautics at NASA but left the following year to teach aerospace engineering at the University of Cincinnati.

He remained there until 1979 and during that time bought a 310-acre farm near Lebanon, where he raised cattle and corn. He stayed out of public view, accepting few requests for interviews or speeches.

“He didn’t give interviews, but he wasn’t a strange person or hard to talk to,” said Ron Huston, a colleague at the University of Cincinnati. “He just didn’t like being a novelty.”

Those who knew him said he enjoyed golfing with friends, was active in the local YMCA and frequently ate lunch at the same restaurant in Lebanon.

In 2000, when he agreed to announce the top 20 engineering achievements of the 20th century as voted by the National Academy of Engineering, Armstrong said there was one disappointment relating to his moonwalk.

“I can honestly say — and it’s a big surprise to me — that I have never had a dream about being on the moon,” he said.

From 1982 to 1992, Armstrong was chairman of Charlottesville, Va.-based Computing Technologies for Aviation Inc., a company that supplies computer information management systems for business aircraft.

He then became chairman of AIL Systems Inc., an electronic systems company in Deer Park, N.Y.

Armstrong married Carol Knight in 1999, and the couple lived in Indian Hill, a Cincinnati suburb. He had two adult sons from a previous marriage.

At the Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles on Saturday, visitors held a minute of silence in memory of Armstrong.

 

Paul Ryan’s Influences? How About Obama’s Marxist Mentor?

25 Comments

 

This is from The Blaze.

This is how the game is played Conservative mentors matter.

But the racist,Marxist mentors of Obama does not matter.

It is maddening but this is the way the press works.

The media is breathlessly telling us all about Paul Ryan’s past—doggedly digging into who and what he read, who influenced his concepts of the free market and government, the source for his beliefs on everything from natural rights to social justice.

Gee, if only we had this kind of vetting of Barack Obama.

In no time, the media will be asking about mentors that influenced Ryan. Of course, that’s a totally natural question. We always ask these things of people who get this close to the White House. That is, with the exception of Barack Obama.

Why is Obama an exception? The answer is because Obama’s mentor was a man named Frank Marshall Davis, a literal card-carrying member of Communist Party USA—card number 47544.

I know Davis well, having written a book on him, titled The Communist. Davis was an African-American man born in Kansas before moving to Chicago and Hawaii. He joined the Communist Party during World War II. When the war was over, he became founding editor of the Chicago Star. After that, he moved to Hawaii and wrote for another Party publication, the Honolulu Record.

In these columns, Davis wrote pro-Soviet propaganda, with his chief targets being the Democrats in the White House opposing Stalin. He trashed Harry Truman and the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan—not to mention Winston Churchill. Davis advocated all sorts of things that remind us of President Obama’s policies today, from pushing taxpayer-funding of universal healthcare to subsidizing “public works projects” that Davis insisted would keep America out of another Great Depression. Davis used constant class rhetoric, bashing Wall Street, the wealthy, corporate executives, and profits. His Chicago Star blasted GOP tax cuts that “spare the rich” and “benefit millionaires” and “hurt the poor.”

When I hear Obama and David Axelrod’s newest class-based attacks on Paul Ryan, it immediately reminds me of Davis.

Davis’s communist agitation was so blatant that Senate Democrats called him to Washington to testify in December 1956. Most remarkable, Davis’s 600-page FBI file reveals that he was repeatedly retained on the federal government’s Security Index, meaning that if war broke out between the United States and Soviet Union, he could be placed under immediate arrest.

What kind of an influence did Davis have on Obama? Liberal journalists hounding Paul Ryan might want to take note: One Hawaiian source, Dawna Weatherly-Williams, so close to Davis that she called him “Daddy,” and was present the moment Davis and a nine-year-old Obama first met in 1970—the start of a decade-long relationship—says Davis “influenced Barack … about social justice, about finding out more about life, about what’s important, about how to use your heart and mind.”

Another source, Dr. Kathryn Takara, Davis’s biographer and friend of 15 years, so close that she talked to Davis the day he died, says Davis instilled in Obama his very belief in “change.” That “change” became the one-word mantra for the entire Obama 2008 campaign and political movement.

Another Hawaiian source, Ron Jacobs, states that Davis told Obama about writers like Langston Hughes and W.E.B. DuBois, prominent black communists. Davis had their books, and knew Hughes personally. They served in communist fronts and causes.

In Dreams from My Father, Obama acknowledged Frank Marshall Davis, “his books,” and his “hard-earned knowledge behind the hooded eyes.” In fact, Obama referred to “Frank” dozens of times. He is mentioned in every section of Obama’s bestselling 1995 memoir, not just in Hawaii but as Obama leaves for the wider world: Europe, Africa, Chicago. The moment when Obama at last arrived in Chicago to find himself politically and professionally—just as Frank Marshall Davis had done 50 years earlier—he thinks of “Frank,” literally imagining him there.

And yet, not once in the entire memoir did Obama disclose Davis’s full name—no doubt because Obama realized the political sensitivity of acknowledging such a radical mentor.

Tellingly, when Obama released an abridged audio version of Dreams from My Father in 2005, every single reference to “Frank” was purged. The old communist suddenly found himself on the emergent presidential candidate’s blacklist—and with Obama’s approval. The back cover of the Obama-narrated audio book states: “This abridgement has been approved by the author.”

Does the mainstream media have any interest in this?

I’ve had not a single inquiry from the mainstream media. Nothing from the New York Times and Washington Post, the latter of which did a scandalous expose of Mitt Romney’s alleged bullying during his high-school years. Well, what about Obama’s high-school years? Obama was influenced by a man so radical that he was listed on the Security Index!

To the contrary, at this time four years ago, the Post published a 10,000-word feature on Obama’s Hawaii years. It didn’t contain a single mention of Frank Marshall Davis. Not one.

My book reached number one in non-fiction at Amazon and Barnes & Noble.com. It made the top 10 on the New York Times bestseller list. And still, the press is completely ignoring Frank Marshall Davis. That ignoring will continue, as that same press wildly digs into the past of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.

Paul Kengor is a professor of political science at Grove City College, executive director of The Center for Vision & Values, and author of The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, the Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor.

 

Older Entries Newer Entries

%d bloggers like this: