Newly Unearthed Footage Shows Obama Confirming ‘Frank’ Is Frank Marshall Davis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kengor’s book documented that Davis:

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

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

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

But one can sense that the anger is still there.

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared at and is reprinted here with permission.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

The NAACP’s Fomenters Of Fear

Twitter/HuffPost BlackVoices

They just can’t help themselves — and their agenda-driven media enablers never, ever learn.

This week, the NAACP made national front-page headlines with a local press release demanding that the feds investigate the hanging death of a local man in Port Gibson, Miss. Derrick Johnson, president of the NAACP Mississippi State Conference, immediately invoked the specter of a “hate crime.” In response, the Obama Justice Department flooded the zone with a whopping 30 federal agents.

News outlets grabbed the bait. USA Today asked ominously, “Was it a lynching?” The discovery of ex-con Otis Byrd’s body swinging from a tree by a bed sheet “brought back unpleasant memories of America’s violent, racially charged past,” the paper’s video reporter asserted. Voice of America similarly intoned, “Mississippi hanging death raises lynching specter.” The Los Angeles Times leaped into the fray with, “Why this story haunts the nation.”

Whoa there, teeth-gnashing Nellies. Didn’t we just recently witness the implosion of an NAACP-incited non-hate crime with the same exact narrative? Why, yes. Yes, we did.

As I reported in January, the group was here in my adopted hometown of Colorado Springs hyping a so-called “bombing” at the city’s chapter office. Local, state, and federal NAACP leaders, amplified by political and media sympathizers, claimed the alleged hate crime “remind(ed) me of another period” (Georgia Democratic Rep. John Lewis); “undermines years of progress” (Texas Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee); “harkens to bad old days” (MSNBC); and “evokes memories of civil rights strife” (Time Magazine).

But the allegedly racist perpetrator of the “NAACP bombing” turned out to be a disgruntled client of a now-deceased tax accountant who once worked in the same office complex. The financially troubled suspect had unsuccessfully tried to contact the tax preparer for years to obtain past tax returns. But unbeknownst to the “bomber,” who set off a pathetic improvised explosive device on the opposite side of the NAACP office, the accountant had been sent to prison for bilking other clients — and had passed away several years ago.

Confirming what only a few of us in the media dared to theorize out loud, race had absolutely nothing to do with the wildly inflated and cynically exploited incident in Colorado Springs. Zip, zero, nada.

None of this appears to have chastened the journalists who reflexively empower the NAACP agitators who reflexively cry racism. Just weeks after the not-NAACP bombing, here they are stoking fears of a probably-not-racist-not-lynching. Despite law enforcement reports that Byrd’s hands were unbound, despite warnings from the local sheriff (who happens to be black) not to jump to conclusions, and despite the very real possibility that Byrd committed suicide, the papers and airwaves disseminated Blame Whitey and Blame Righty talking points without thinking twice.

The incident indeed “brought back memories” for me — memories of the embarrassing 1996 media malpractice of former USA Today reporter Gary Fields, who manufactured a purported epidemic of racist church-burnings in the South with 61 hysterical stories. A typical and familiar headline: “Arson at Black Church Echoes Bigotry of the Past.” The NAACP jumped onboard and demanded that then-Attorney General Janet Reno investigate. President Clinton fanned the flames; panels were formed; federal spending programs were passed. But a year later, Fields’ own paper was forced to admit that “analysis of the 64 fires since 1995 shows only four can be conclusively shown to be racially motivated.”

Several of the crimes had been committed by black suspects; a significant number of the black churches were in fact white churches; and the Chicken Littles had obscured numerous complex motives including mental illness, vandalism, and concealment of theft.

Same old, same old. Then, as now, for publicity and profit, the race hustlers stoke the very societal divisiveness they claim to abhor — and knee-jerk journalists suffering institutional amnesia aid and abet them.


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

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

The Great American Racial Divide

The concept of race is actually a man-made one.  Research tells us that race does not exist among humans in a biological sense, so it should not apply as a means of categorizing differences among humans who all belong to the same species. It does not exist among animal species, even though the laws of nature provide the instinct to separate prey from predator. We are  familiar with instances of ostracism in social species like lions, apes, or even meer cats–which I suppose constitute a form of discrimination typically based on factors such as age or weakness. We are likewise familiar with the notion of ‘breed,’ which is a descriptive term commonly used to distinguish different types of dogs or other animals which all belong to the same species. I suppose we could say there are different breeds of humans, but that is likewise divisive and provocative.

Just as species in the wild have hybridized as a result of cross-breeding, the human race has experienced a similar process over the millennia.  One byproduct of human migration, whether driven by a quest for improved living conditions or mere exploration, is the offspring who were born from the heterosexual unions between populations that previously may not have even known about the other.

As we continue to socially interact and become increasingly mobile, more and more people have propagated giving rise to ethnic combinations that render any effort to categorize them pointless save for genealogical curiosity. Yet, we are still driven toward distinguishing ourselves.  Perhaps that need stems from our inherent desire to categorize and organize in order to make sense or logic out of what seems so chaotic, vague, and overwhelming.  Or, perhaps there is something more at play here.

A divide, at least in the continental sense, delineates a geographic point where falling watershed splits itself into two opposing directions. America’s Great Divide (which roughly follows the Rocky Mountains) demarcates the point at which water generally to its west drains into the Pacific, while the eastern side ultimately ends up in the Atlantic.

There is another great divide in America that functions similarly to my analogy, with most black Americans on one side of the slope falling away from their fellow (white) citizens on the other side, many of whom are headed further away in the opposite direction.

I may be naive even as I enter my seventh decade in this world; but I remain perplexed by the growing divisiveness between the races, especially in light of the widespread acceptance and tolerance that the homosexual movement has attained. I am actually surprised we are still using “race” to refer to the diverse myriad of humans who populate our good earth. There is only one race on this planet – the human kind.  More about that later.

Back to my geographic analogy. A watershed divide exists by virtue of the location of the high mountainous peaks where precipitation is faced with a very limited directional opportunity for run off: it can go toward only one ocean, each of which is on the opposite coasts. Our country’s racial divide is only vaguely similar in its origin and direction.

We Americans are not bound by the laws of nature to follow others like water which follows a geological and gravitational flow. Americans who are drawn to the peaks of racism need to find a way off the mountain and disregard the temptation to choose a direction based on skin pigmentation or other identifiable physical features. Indeed, why climb these peaks at all when so much has been accomplished to create a level playing field that permits all Americans to go in any direction they choose. Despite all the legislative and social advances of the past century, some still seek to perpetuate the differences that divide us–whether intentionally or unwittingly.

I concede that there is much more behind the racial divide than its ingrained cultural origins. It is still reinforced and popularly publicized beyond any reasonable basis for doing so. From generation to generation, it passes down like some cherished family tradition when it should be neutralized and severed from our existence. That is generally what happens as a result of integration into the mainstream of society. It is possible to accomplish integration while maintaining an understated ethnic pride.

It is noteworthy that descendants of the mass European immigration of the 19th and early 20th century rarely call attention to their heritage except during celebratory gatherings and events. To my knowledge, only people of Negro origin continue to maintain a separate Congressional caucus or a national organization supposedly dedicated to advancing their own in society. There are black radio and television stations, black magazines, and periodicals and numerous other racially distinctive products, services, and institutions.  It is indeed an ironic double standard that has developed following a monumental movement designed to eradicate those very same segregational distinctions.

Despite familial and cultural reinforcement of racial patterns and behavior, we can probably agree that relations between blacks and whites in America are currently at their lowest point in many years. We might ask: how did this happen in the face of all of the struggles of the past decades to improve things? I submit that the simple delineation between black and white is indeed a significant part of the problem because we are all part of the human race first and foremost. Instead of referring to each other as Americans, plain and simply, we continue to identify as African American,  Mexican American, black, white, or Hispanic. We have even further delineated subcategories utilizing sexual preferences and gender identity issues, not to mention political persuasions on the left and right.

When I was a young boy growing up in the pre-civil rights era of the early 60’s in Orange County, California, I remember hearing the mother of my best playmate telling the story of a Negro woman who was at a nearby supermarket completing a questionnaire of some sort that requested her race. She replied “human,” which my friend’s mother seemed to mock as she told the story as some sort of sign of lacking intelligence. Even as a mere lad of 10, I thought my playmate’s mother was wrong. I thought the Negro lady’s response was quite clever, indeed wise,  if not entirely accurate.

Not so today. Shocking when you consider we are now fifty-plus years past that moment coupled with federal civil rights legislation, U.S. Supreme Court decisions, marches, rallies, and endless organizations and institutions allegedly dedicated to ending racial division. Instead of focusing on our common ground in order to foster genuine integration, we continue to pigeonhole and separate more and more alleged minorities, affording them special protection and unique names. Today, you might be an unemployed, African-American, lesbian single mother instead of just a mother of a child living in America in need of work. We used to be a melting pot of cultures, but we’ve become a seething stew of incongruous ingredients that rarely meld together into a delectable serving of unity and cooperation.

Along with a lessening of a culture and tradition of racism in America, it seems to me that relations among us were continuing to improve until the years ensuing after 2008. This can be substantiated by acknowledging how mainstream Americans have embraced black culture in the media, music, dress, and language. This has been especially prevalent among white youth along with television and movie media. The culmination of this perceived improvement, if not the near absence of broad, mainstream racism, stems from the 2008 election of a man referred to as the first black to occupy the office of President of United States, who was elected both times with a majority of his total vote nationwide coming from white voters.

I believe that the primary cause for the recent and rapid decline in the quality of race relations can be directly traced to the current executive administration of our nation. No other president in history has done more to stir up tensions, resentments, and separatist sentiments than this one. From his broad testament that he does not believe it is possible to transcend racism in America to his event-specific utterances following Hurricane Katrina, Ferguson, and the ongoing internal policies of the Justice Department regarding reverse discrimination cases, BHO has inflamed both sides of the racial divide.

Barack Hussien Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, is of course neither black nor white. He is a hybrid, if I may be so blunt. Instead of referring to himself as the first bi-racial president, he and his minions insist that his legacy will be that of the first black president. He purposely avoided a golden opportunity to unite Americans, especially blacks and whites, by failing to state that he represents a new America, a bi-racial and unified America. Instead he has chosen to associate himself with known black racists like the irreverent Jeremiah Wright and loose cannon Al Sharpton. Mr. Obama has seemingly done as much as he can to infuriate all Americans by turning up the pot of racial differences from a simmer to a boil over.

The affirmative action admission policies of certain governmental and educational institutions are key among so called reverse discrimination cases wherein favor is granted because of one’s race instead of disregarding it in the first place, i.e. racial neutrality  As described by Chief Justice John Roberts, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race, is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007). Simple as Justice Robert’s statement is, racial discrimination continues; but it is no longer limited to the so-called white majority.

One would think that with all the movements afoot, someone, somewhere would champion the cause for racial neutrality instead of promulgating a culture that reinforces and emphasizes racial differences. Gratefully, there is already a sociological term known as color blindness that hints at the need for this kind of neutrality. Nonetheless, there are still those who insist that this concept is a mere subterfuge to maintain white supremacy–not unlike the segregational notion of separate but equal.

The media would be a good place to start since they are so devoted to carefully noting when a black man is shot by a Caucasian, but so rarely do they specify the opposite circumstance or bother with any distinction when a black man murders another black man. Our present culture is so hellbent on equalizing opportunities for even the smallest minority among us; yet they disregard the opportunity to foster racial neutrality, which is the only possible road to eradicating racism. We have been taught to think like we are players on or fans of different athletic teams. We are rewarded and encouraged to maintain a fervent loyalty to our heritage while we fail to see that we are all supposed to be playing for one team. Even the phrase “people of color” is fraught with racial injustice by implying that someone who lacks color (white) is less than those who have it. Of course, the very notion of ”white’ is ridiculous given that only Albinos lack pigmentation of their skin, a condition that precipitates another whole class of discrimination.

In 1963, Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke of his children being judged by “the content of their character” rather than “the color of their skin.”  One can hardly hope for more neutrality regarding one’s race than that.

When I was an upperclassman in college in the early 70’s, I had a friend who shared the same (pre-law) major with me. Back then, I was a passionate supporter of liberal causes, especially of the racial kind. He and I shared the same opinions about black oppression, and we embraced what was then a new concept known as affirmative action.

My (former) friend happened to be black. One day, while we were enjoying a brief recess from our studies in the library, we were bantering about our common ground when I was overcome with an innate fondness and delight in making his acquaintance since the high school I attended before college was mostly white middle class. In a burst of what I thought was racial neutrality, I told him that I didn’t think of him as black or any different from myself.

To say that I was shocked and disappointed by his reaction to my proclamation is an understatement of significant proportion. His entire demeanor shifted from one of simpatico to confrontation when he told me that I had better think of him as black because that was who he was–and he had no interest in being known as anything but black. A black pride thing, I suppose. It made me wonder what kind of reaction I would have garnered had I racially slurred him instead. A lose–lose situation by any standard.

I never forgot what happened that day. It changed my (mistaken) perception of most black people forever because that was not the last time I would run across that kind of attitude in the years since. I have seen it recently with black friends of my high school-age son. I see it on television and hear it on the radio daily. It is rampant in high- and low-profile blacks across the nation. One need only befriend a black person on social media. Rarely will you see any non-black heroes, mentors, entertainers, or athletes designated as their favorites. Except in extreme cases of white supremacy, you will almost always see black celebrities favored by whites. The imbalance is obvious, unnecessary but understandable since black pride is still encouraged in lieu of racial neutrality or color blindness.

So long as any of us continue to teach our children subtle racial ques by pointing out the black man instead of the man wearing the red shirt, we will never achieve anything resembling racial neutrality or color blindness. If we encourage and allow race-based organizations, media, and institutions to continue to exist, we will always fall short of a race-neutral society. If we tolerate the double standard of reverse discrimination and accept racial epitaphs between blacks, we are part of the racial problem in America.

I surmise that achieving a lasting racial neutrality in this country is as likely to happen as a man-made effort to remove our continental divide. It can’t be done, and any effort to do so would be like trying to shovel sand off of a beach. So why did I write this? I’m just as frustrated as you.

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

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

Black Teen Allegedly Guns Down Unarmed White Man Begging ‘Don’t Shoot’…Liberal Outrage?

Images Credit: WCAU-TV

The “hands up, don’t shoot” narrative surrounding the Ferguson, Mo., police-involved shooting death of Michael Brown has been exposed as a false and misleading description of what actually happened.

As Western Journalism reported last week, even the Washington Post has exposed the “Four Pinocchios” falsehood about the chant that’s been repeated by so many angry protestors, liberal politicians, and agenda-driven race-baiting agitators.

Liberal Post columnist Jonathan Capehart, who is himself African-American, wrote a piece in which he expressed deep regret at having once supported the “hands up, don’t shoot” rallying cry embraced by race-activists such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Predictably, Capehart has been attacked by the Left for his truth-telling.

Given the passion with which Sharpton, Jackson, and others condemned what they saw as the racial component in Michael Brown’s death on a residential street in Ferguson, one can reasonably ask where the liberal outrage is over the senseless murder that just happened in Philadelphia.

According to the NBC station in the City of Brotherly Love, it was an apparent black-on-white crime. The suspects are three African-American teens. The victim was a 51-year-old husband and father who was walking his dog along a quiet street. And before he was gunned down in an apparent robbery, police say this man did, in fact, beg for his life, crying, “Please don’t shoot me, please don’t shoot me.”

So far, there have been no reported protests over the senseless death of James Patrick Stuhlman. No marches against black-on-white crime. No outraged Sharpton or Jackson. No Justice Department probe into a possible hate crime. Stuhlman died on the street with his dog at his side.

By clicking on the video above, you can watch the WCAU-TV news report on the murder of the man who, police say, was targeted because he appeared old and his dog looked weak.

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

Disgusting: You Won’t Believe Why Rapper Azealia Banks Hates America

Wikipedia/Manfred Werner

In an apparent, if convoluted, nod to her ethnic heritage, popular rap artist Azealia Banks recently led a Playboy interviewer on a journey of America-bashing that explained her jaded view of the nation. The 23-year-old performer’s remarks took a particularly disenfranchised tone when she was asked whether she wants to leave the U.S.

“Yes,” she exclaimed, launching into a laundry list of grievances she has about the nation.

“I hate everything about this country,” she asserted. “Like, I hate fat white Americans. All the people who are crunched into the middle of America, the real fat and meat of America, and these racist conservative white people who live on their farms.”

She went on to describe her vision of the country as “[t]hose little teenage girls who work at Kmart and have a racist grandma – that’s really America.”

Adding some context to her controversial statements, Banks explained that she feels a deep connection to her roots and therefore cannot abide American customs.

“When you rip a people from their land,” she alleged, “from their customs, from their culture – there’s still a piece of me that knows I’m not supposed to be speaking English, I’m not supposed to be worshipping Jesus Christ. All this s—t is unnatural to me.”

As TheBlaze pointed out, this is far from Banks’ first foray into the realm of controversial remarks. Following a grand jury’s decision not to indict the Ferguson, Mo., police officer who shot Michael Brown last year, Banks reacted on Twitter.

“I know it’s so f—ked up,” she wrote, “but these things just make me feel such a general hatred for all straight white men. It’s a burning anger.”

In your opinion… in Polls on LockerDome

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