Here’s The Guy Rudy Is Talking About: Frank Marshall Davis, Communist Party No. 47544

davisobama

Editor’s note: This article first appeared at The American Spectator.

Rudy Giuliani is being roundly criticized for several recent statements he has made about President Barack Obama, including the claim that Obama in his youth was influenced by a literal communist. I cannot address all of Giuliani’s remarks, but I can certainly speak to the influence of the communist he referred to. In short, Rudy was correct; and he even had Obama’s exact age (nine) right when he was first introduced to this person.

“From the time he was 9 years old, he was influenced by Frank Marshall Davis, who was a communist,” Giuliani said.

I can’t say for certain that Rudy Giuliani read my book, which is titled The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor; but he has those facts absolutely right. If I may, I’d like to add some crucial detail:

Frank Marshall Davis (1905-87) was a hardcore communist, an actual card-carrying member of Communist Party USA (CPUSA), who spent time with a young Barack Obama throughout the 1970s, right up until the moment Obama left Hawaii for Occidental College in 1979.

Davis joined the Communist Party in Chicago in the early 1940s. CPUSA members swore an oath to “ensure the triumph of Soviet power in the United States.” They were dedicated to what CPUSA leader William Z. Foster had openly called “Soviet America.” Notably, Davis joined CPUSA after the Hitler-Stalin Pact, a time when many American communists (especially Jewish communists) had bolted the Party in disgust that their Soviet Union had allied with Hitler.

As we know from Davis’ declassified 600-page FBI file (and other sources), his Party card number was 47544. He was very active. In 1946, he became the founding editor-in-chief of the Chicago Star, the Party-line newspaper for Chicago. There, Davis shared the op-ed page with the likes of Howard Fast, a “Stalin Prize” winner, and Senator Claude “Red” Pepper, who, at the time, sponsored the bill to nationalize healthcare in the United States.

Davis left the Star in 1948 for Hawaii, where he would write for the Party-line organ there, the Honolulu Record. His politics remained so radical that the FBI had him under continued surveillance. The federal government actually placed Davis on the Security Index, meaning that in the event of a war between the United States and USSR, Barack Obama’s mentor could be placed under immediate arrest.

Frank Marshall Davis’s targets were Democrats more than Republicans, given that it was Democrats like Harry Truman who held the White House and opposed Stalin’s Soviet expansion at the time. In December 1956, the Democrat-run Senate Judiciary Committee called Davis to Washington to testify on his activities. Davis pleaded the Fifth Amendment. No matter; the next year, the Democratic Senate published a report titled, “Scope of Soviet Activity in the United States,” where it listed Davis as “an identified member of the Communist Party.”

Frank Marshall Davis would eventually meet a young Barack Obama in 1970, introduced by Obama’s grandfather, Stanley Dunham, for the purpose of mentoring. The boy’s grandfather felt that the fatherless boy was in need of a black-male role model. For that, Dunham chose one of the most politically radical figures in all of Hawaii. He introduced the two in the fall of 1970. An eyewitness, a woman named Dawna Weatherly-Williams, who knew Davis so well that she called him “Daddy,” was present the first time Obama and Davis met. She described the relationship as very influential, with Davis impacting Obama on “social justice,” on “life,” on “what’s important,” on no less than “how to use” his “heart” and “mind.”

So deep was Davis’ influence that Obama, in his huge bestselling memoir, Dreams from My Father, would cite him repeatedly over thousands of words and in each and every section (all three parts) of his memoirs—though he referred to him only as “Frank.” “Frank” is mentioned 22 times by name, and far more times via pronouns and other forms of reference.

It is extremely telling that in the 2005 audio version of Dreams, released to help package Obama for the White House, “Frank” was completely purged from the memoir. As noted on the back cover, the audio version was personally “approved” by Obama himself.

How often did Obama and Frank Marshall Davis meet?

Only Obama himself knows and could answer that question. The Washington Post’s excellent writer David Maraniss, in his acclaimed biography of Obama, writes that “Obama later estimated that he saw Davis ‘ten to fifteen times’” during their years together in Hawaii. Maraniss didn’t provide his source, but he must have gotten it directly from Obama in an exclusive interview for his book. I haven’t seen that figure cited anywhere else.

For the record, 10 to 15 times is notable, especially given the nature and duration of these one-on-one meetings—often long late-night evenings together. (Some people cite mentors who they’ve barely met or not even met at all.) The two would drink and even got drunk together. In reality, I bet the number of Obama-Davis meetings is much greater, given that Obama would be expected to understate Davis’ influence. Consider the print and audio versions of “Dreams from My Father.”

Again, one person could easily clarify the whole thing in a sentence, if he were asked by our “journalists”: Barack Obama.

Now, the billion-dollar question: What’s the relevancy of all of this? Does this Davis stuff mean that Barack Obama is today a closet communist? No, of course it doesn’t. We all know that. It does, however, explain how and why and where Obama went so far to the left, and why he’s so far to the left to this day. In my book on Davis, I quote at length a student communist leader at Occidental College who knew Obama immediately after he left Davis and knew him as a communist. I’m confident from my research that the young Obama was once a communist, and that Davis was surely an influence in that regard. The unknown is precisely how much Davis influenced Obama, and—the true big question—when and where and how and why Obama ever rejected that communist past. To this day, Obama has never, despite two pre-presidential memoirs and thousands of interviews, told us about this radical background and why he supposedly left it. And the media refuses to ask, instead dumping on those like Rudy (and myself) who bother to ask.

As I’ve said repeatedly in my interviews on the Frank Marshall Davis book, Barack Obama could have crushed all wild speculation way back in 2008 by simply being candid about the communism in his background and explaining when he (allegedly) left it all behind. My primary biographical subject, Ronald Reagan, once had been a self-described “hemophiliac” liberal duped by communists. He told us all about it. George W. Bush told us about his alcohol struggles. Hillary Clinton has told us about her shift away from being a Goldwater girl.

So, where is Obama’s conversion narrative? Again, the media refuses to ask.

All of which brings me back to Rudy Giuliani and Barack Obama. There’s a super-quick way to clear up what Rudy is raising: Instead of interrogating Rudy, just once, finally, for the first time, ask Barack Obama about the communist, Frank Marshall Davis, who he spent time with throughout the 1970s. We’re still waiting for just one question.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

The Climate Con Goes On

Ryan Rodrick Beiler / Shutterstock.com  Ryan Rodrick Beiler / Shutterstock.com

Some 200 nations may sign a “modest” Kyoto II climate treaty, say December 2014 media reports from Lima, Peru. But will developing nations agree to stop using coal to generate electricity? No. Curtail economic growth? No. Cease emitting carbon dioxide? Maybe, but only a little, sometime in the future, when it is more convenient to do so, without binding commitments. Then why would they sign a treaty?

Primarily because they expect to get free energy technology transfers, and billions of dollars a year in climate “mitigation, adaptation, and reparation” money from Western nations that they blame (and which blame themselves) for the “dangerous climate change,” rising seas, and “extreme weather” that they claim are “unprecedented” and due to carbon dioxide emissions during the 150 years since the Industrial Revolution began. These FRCs (Formerly Rich Countries) have implemented low-carbon energy policies and penalties that have strangled their economies, dramatically increased energy prices, and killed millions of jobs. But now, poor developing countries demand that they also transfer $100 billion per year, for decades (with most of that probably going to their governing elites’ Swiss banks accounts).

Where is this likely taking us? President Obama has long promised to “fundamentally transform” the U.S. economy and ensure that electricity prices “necessarily skyrocket.” His edicts are doing precisely that. And now, Christiana Figueres, the UN’s chief climate change official, has declared that her unelected bureaucrats are undertaking “probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the [global] economic development model.” [emphasis added] Her incredible admission underscores what another high-ranking IPCC official said several years ago: “Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection. The next world climate summit is actually an economy summit, during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”

Why would any sane families or nations consign their fates to such insane, perverse arrangements? The arrangements are being imposed on them, through force, fabrication, and fraud.

Poor, middle, and working class families will get little but more layoffs, further reductions in living standards, and longer postponement of dreams. But meanwhile, Climate Chaos, Inc. (Big Green, Big Government, alarmist scientists, crony corporatist “green” energy companies, and allied universities and scientific groups) will become richer, gain more control over our lives and livelihoods, and rarely be held accountable for the damage they cause. Retracting their “dangerous manmade climate change” tautologies would endanger their money, power, and reputations.

That’s why their hypotheses, assertions, intentions, and computer models always trump reality. It’s why they are increasingly vicious and relentless in vilifying realist scientists like Willie Soon who challenge their “97% consensus” and “manmade climate catastrophe” mantras – and in demanding that the news media ignore experts and analyses that do not toe the Climate Chaos line. They denigrate realists as “climate deniers” (deliberately suggesting Holocaust denial) and “oil industry shills” (while hiding their own suspect ethics, data “adjustments,” and Big Green billion-dollar Russian and other funding sources).

Realists get precious little (or no) oil money and constantly underscore the role of climate change throughout Earth and human history. What we contest is the notion that climate and weather fluctuations today are manmade, unprecedented, and dangerous. Alarmists deny that Earth’s climate is often in flux, solar and other natural forces drive weather and climate, and atmospheric carbon dioxide plays only a minimal role. Real-world evidence demolishes virtually every alarmist claim.

The climate reality record is presented in a readable, thought-provoking new book, About Face: Why the world needs more CO2; The failed science of global warming, by late U.S. economist Arthur Hughes, Australian geologist Cliff Ollier, and Canadian meteorologist Madhav Khandekar. Sea level is rising at only 1.5 mm per year now (six inches per century), they note; and there is zero evidence that the rate is escalating or that coastal communities are at risk. Nor is “ocean acidification” a legitimate problem.

Alarmists use it to replace other disproven scares with a new panic. Earth’s oceans have never been acidic. They are mildly alkaline. Their enormous volumes of water cannot become acidic – that is, plummet from an 8.2 pH level 150 years ago and their current 8.1 pH into the acidic realm of 7.0 or lower, due to the tiny amount of atmospheric CO2 attributable to fossil fuel use, in less than five centuries, experts explain.

The tiny effect of rising CO2 levels on climate contrasts sharply with their enormous benefits to plant growth and agriculture. Not only is more CO2 “greening” deserts, forests, and grasslands; it is increasing grain and food yields worldwide, and helping people in developing nations live longer, healthier lives.

Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are not in danger of collapsing, the About Face authors demonstrate; in fact, they are growing. Similarly, contrary to another scare, extreme weather events are not increasing.

No Category 3-5 hurricane has struck the United States for a record nine years, and Earth’s temperature has not budged for 18 years. Claims that 2014 was “the hottest year on record” are based on airport and urban measurements that are higher than rural locations and are always “adjusted” upward, with year-to-year differences expressed in hundredths of a degree. Outside those areas, for most of the world – the 70% of Earth’s surface that is oceans and 85% of land area that is mountains, deserts, grasslands, tundra, and boreal or tropical rain forests – practically no data exist. So NASA and other alarmists falsely extrapolate from their manipulated urban data to fill in massive gaps for the other 95% of the Earth.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Northeast is suffering through record snows and its lowest winter temperatures in decades; and America’s East Coast air has been 25-30 degrees F below normal. England’s winter death rate is almost one-third higher than normal: nearly 29,000 deaths in a two-week period in January 2015, largely because people can no longer afford to heat their homes properly, due to UK climate policies.

What’s really going on? Our sun “has gone quiet again, during what is likely to be the weakest sunspot cycle in more than a century,” dating back to 1906, says Vencore weather analyst Paul Dorian.

Alarmists don’t want to talk about that – or about what is happening in Asia. BP’s Energy Outlook 2035 report forecasts that China’s oil, natural gas, and coal use will increase by some 50%–and its carbon dioxide emissions by 37% over the next 20 years. India’s energy production will soar 117% – with fossil fuels accounting for 87% of all demand in 2035. Its CO2 emissions will also skyrocket. So even if the USA and EU eliminated fossil fuels, atmospheric carbon dioxide would continue to climb.

Climate alarmists want the newspaper and television media to ignore this information and the “skeptics” who might present it. Bill Nye “the science guy” recently asked MSNBC to link all weather events to climate change. “Just say the words ‘climate change’ when you talk about this winter’s cold and snow,” he begged. A new study shows how widespread these repulsive practices have become.

Quoting one journalist, a George Mason University analysis found that U.S. media outlets “pretty much” agree that climate change “is real, it’s happening, and we’re responsible. That debate is over.” As a result, “critics are no longer being interviewed,” the study said. In the view of “mainstream” media outlets, seeking or presenting both sides on the climate issue is a “false balance.” At least one news organization now has an explicit editorial policy “discouraging reporters from quoting climate change deniers in environment or science coverage,” the Washington Examiner noted.

Media reputations are at stake. They’ve been in bed so long with the Climate Chaos complex that acknowledging the critical role of natural forces, the expertise of climate realists, the debate that still rages, or the Grand Canyon between climate crisis claims and real-world evidence would destroy what little credibility the media still has. It would also start the collapse of the Climate Chaos house of cards.

But the real stakes are much higher. They are the businesses, jobs, families, living standards, and liberties that will be increasingly threatened if President Obama, the EPA, Big Green, and the United Nations remain free to impose their climate and energy agenda. Responsible governors, state legislators, and members of Congress must get involved, block these actions, and roll back the destructive policies.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

A Few Words On Good And Evil…

shutterstock.com

We all have been subjected to examples of evil. Just look at your daily dose of news, from the international scene to the local deviants that are paraded before our eyes on a daily basis.   Where are the morals that at one time prevailed worldwide?

People do not open their eyes or use their minds; rather, people have once again done what is natural–and that is to conform to the lowest common denominator. And then we have the news clips of victims saying: “How could God allow this to happen?”

Let’s take a look at part of a letter that was sent to King George III in 1776. This phrase is something we should all know; yet most in America have no idea where it is from or the significance of the words.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…” This is from the Declaration of Independence, that letter to King George III that officially started the war for independence. One part of this is the word “Creator.” Our creator put us on this earth to determine our own destiny, to succeed or fail of our own volition. To help us and to create a fair playing field, our Creator gave us a set of rules. We know these as the 10 Commandments.

Those people who are evil see evil used by them as good– “the end justifies the means.” Those who see evil as evil and a detriment to the overall good of society reject any lawbreaking and try to remove those evildoers from the playing field.  Some seek to reform over a minor infraction, or they want to throw away the key for major damages of societal evolution.

To answer the question “How could God let this happen?”, we could go to Einstein’s rebuke of a professor using temperature. Cold does not exist; it is a lack of heat. We do not measure how cold something is; we measure how hot something is. It is not that God allowed it to happen; God has been uninvited from our schools, trains, and public places.  The basic laws of society have been banned. God has not allowed anything to happen. We as a world have ignored our Creator’s guidelines and are playing God. Looks like we are not very good at playing God, are we?

So what are the political implications of this world of excrement? Recently, CNN reporter Chris Cuomo stated that “our rights do not come from God.” That is the end game. Ultimately, he is saying that our rights do not exist unless some organization with lots of guns will give us rights–maybe. What the organization disapproves of will be outlawed, and what they sanction will be mandatory. Anyone who disagrees with the organization will be declared an enemy of the state and will be hunted down like a dog–and silenced in the most cost-effective way possible.

For a long time, the institutions of “higher” learning have taught that our constitution is nothing except a series of guidelines that really don’t need to be followed. Now, we are seeing the true nature of evil in action. If you have not seen “The Hunger Games”, take a look at the people in the districts and the people in the capital and make a comparison. We are living in “The Hunger Games” now. Who will volunteer to be a tribute?

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

BUSTED: Despite His ‘Refusal,’ Here’s How Two-Faced Obama Repeatedly Calls Terrorists ‘Islamic’

Image Credit: Fox News

I am puzzled. I don’t understand why so many people keep claiming that President Obama refuses to say that terrorists slaughtering their way through the Middle East are Islamic radicals.

By his own words — by his own description of a main terror threat in Iraq, Syria, and Libya — Obama has repeatedly and emphatically identified the bloody butchers as Islamic. In fact, the president makes a point of using a specific term for the terrorists that’s preferred by those in his administration — ISIL.

What does the acronym ISIL stand for? The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. It’s a group of radical, brutal, barbaric Islamists whose stated intent is to form a caliphate.

And while Obama pretends out of one side of his mouth not to call the terror fighters Islamic, out of the other side he clearly and consistently refers to them as ISIL — Islamic.

As he has done many times over the last few months, President Obama just this past week used the term ISIL — Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant — to describe the militants in the Middle East. While claiming he would not give those terrorists “legitimacy” by associating them with Islam, he did that very thing…time and again.

Daily Kos noted the president’s words at the workshop-and-seminar-driven White House Summit on “Violent Extremism”:

…we are here at this summit because of the urgent threat from groups like al Qaeda and ISIL….Al Qaeda and ISIL and groups like it are desperate for legitimacy.

In that same Daily Kos article, author Ian Reifowitz twisted himself into awkward contortions trying to defend Obama’s message confusion that some could argue reflects the president’s obvious lack of moral clarity as well as his ideological ambiguity when it comes to identifying a dangerous enemy of Western civilization.

“Can anyone reading or listening to these remarks truthfully claim that President Obama is denying a connection between ISIL and Islam, or that he doesn’t understand the nature of the conflict?” wrote Reiowitz. He then went on to say:

So is the president right to refuse to describe ISIL and al Qaida as Islamic or even Islamist—even though that’s what they are?

Is he right to reject the use of any form of the word Islamic or Muslim to characterize them? You betcha.

Again, I am puzzled. Is this Daily Kos apologist for Obama’s lack of logic and manifest crisis of identity when it comes to naming the enemy trying to say that the president is right in denying the truth? Sounds as though he is, indeed.

I guess that would make Barack Obama a “denier” — the dreaded label that so many liberals try to pin on conservatives when it comes to such issues as climate change and charges of racism in America.

When it comes to the left’s denial of facts, here again I must admit my puzzlement. The leading leftist voices in the administration — from Obama to Biden to Kerry to DHS Secretary Johnson — are constantly denying that what ISIL leaders say is really what they mean.

No matter how often or how forcefully Islamist militants declare they are inspired by and acting in accordance with the basic principles of Islam, the top non-Muslim administration officials — presumably, though, Islamic scholars of some note — say those terrorists don’t know what they’re talking about.

Naturally, Twitter users have weighed in with some noteworthy observations:
ISIL1

ISIL2

ISIL3

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

More Of Gruber’s Obamacare Lies Exposed For The World To See

Gruber

Thanks to some careful research by Matt Palumbo who writes for the Foundation for Economic Education, a series of lies and half-truths being promulgated by Obamacare mouthpiece Jonathan Gruber have been uncovered.

The first lie cited is the bogus analogy Gruber makes between a mandate forcing Americans to buy Obamacare and one forcing drivers to buy auto insurance. This completely pushes aside the fact that no one is required to drive a car and thus carry auto crash liability insurance. Asserting that the burden to carry Obamacare is no different than the mandate of auto liability insurance is a lie.

Another of Gruber’s false claims focuses on the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), which mandates hospitals to provide emergency medical treatment for anyone without regard for their ability to pay. He insists that the EMTALA causes an appreciable increase in the cost of medical care for everyone else, which is equally bogus.  The truth is that emergency room costs for both insured and uninsured Americans represent only about 2% of what is spent on healthcare.

Moreover, no evidence can be found that supports Gruber’s allegation that medical bills are the number one reason for individuals having to file for personal bankruptcy protection.  In fact, a Department of Justice study found that among those seeking bankruptcy protections, although 54% had no medical insurance, 90% reported debt under $5,000.00–which indicates a lack of medical insurance was not the primary cause for their bankruptcy.

One of the more disingenuous of Gruber’s claims is that 20,000 people a year die for want of medical insurance.

This claim was likely based on a 21 year old American Medical Association study that used suspect, estimated mortality rates.  A recent study done in Oregon revealed that mortality rates remained relatively constant without regard for whether those studied did or did not have health insurance.

Yet another of Gruber’s lies holds that the largest group of people without insurance is the “working poor.”  A study found that 17 million uninsured people had incomes exceeding $50,000, and another 8 million made more than $75,000. The uninsured are not the “working poor”; they are the middle class, upper middle class, and illegal aliens.

Gruber also said Obamacare would not increase our health insurance premiums; we could keep our current policy and keep our doctors.

All of this came from a sniveling little twerp who counseled Barack Obama to lie about Obamacare in order to fool people into accepting it.

Get your free PDF of Coach’s book “Crooks Thugs & Bigots: the lost, hidden and changed history of the Democrat Party.” If you don’t know the truth, all you’ll have are Democrat lies. Just ask: kcoachc@gmail.com

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom