D'Souza Revisionism, Already

Are you ready for some revising? Even rightists can't dance around facts forever; one of them just noticed (besides everything the Pres. typed in his book that D'Souza couldn't be bothered to quote, because it would refute his Unified Bullshit Theory of Mystical Anti-Colonialist Influence) that President Obama really hadn't been around his Luo tribesman father during his formative yrs., so a more plausible malign influence should be found, & surprise, surprise, the demon's been right there all along!

I'm not going to dissect D'Souza's argument. [Oh, we knew that! D.D.'s argument is so fragile we doubt if he'd breathe on it. — M.B.] But I would like to add some important information: If Obama is indeed motivated by anti-colonialism, the source may be Frank Marshall Davis as much as, if not more than, Obama's father.

You know where this is going if you're the sort who's amused enough by these people to be reading this, so we won't bother ourself w/ Googling Frank Marshall Davis for you. And if Jeremiah Wright & the Weather Underground are more familiar to you than Davis is, it's only because he didn't leave us w/ as many documented outrages ("God Damn America!!") as the other Obama-molders. Typist Kengor, however, dug deep into the Communist files, because, more surprises, he's pimping* a new book himself.

I come to this via a different route from D'Souza. My new book -- released the same day as D'Souza's, coincidentally -- examined the communist movement in the 20th century, and specifically how communists duped progressives and liberals. I determined, definitively, that Frank Marshall Davis was not a duped liberal but a duping communist. I show this at length, quoting Davis's weekly columns from the CPUSA organ, the Honolulu Record, and reprinting pages from Congressional investigations and from Davis's declassified FBI file, including a document that lists his Communist Party number: 47544.

And Kengor rests his case. Talk about having a guy's number! Heh indeedy!

Oddly enough, there is classical leftist revisionism in Kengor's McCarthyite (No, reactionaries, that is not a compliment. It's an insult, if insulting if still permitted.) screed. It's quickly dismissed as evil anti-Americanism, natch, but Frank Marshall Davis raises an interesting point or two about colonialism.

Consider a May 19, 1949 column, "How Our Democracy Looks To Oppressed Peoples," where Davis excoriated the Marshall Plan. Yes, the Marshall Plan.

"For a nation that calls itself the champion of democracy, our stupendous stupidity is equaled only by our mountainous ego," Davis complained. "Our actions at home and abroad are making American democracy synonymous with oppression." He added: "I have watched with growing shame for my America as our leaders have used our golden riches to re-enslave the yellow and brown and black peoples of the world."

Davis characterized the Marshall Plan as a "device" to maintain "white imperialism." This nefarious "oppression of non-white peoples everywhere" was purchased via Secretary of State George Marshall's "billions of U.S. dollars … to bolster the tottering empires of England, France, Belgium, Holland and the other western exploiters of teeming millions of humans."

In another column a few weeks later, on August 18, Davis stepped up the communist attack on "the double-talking Truman administration with its program for World War III." "The Truman doctrine in Greece and Turkey and then the Marshall Plan," were, claimed Davis, "based upon the continuation of colonial slavery by the ruling classes of Western Europe."

In his next column, Davis protested: "I shall not help England and France keep millions of my colored brothers in Africa and Asia in colonial slavery. Yet that is what our dividend diplomats ask of you and me when they demand our support of the bi-partisan Marshall plan."

We can't disagree w/ that. And the horror doesn't stop. Brace yourselves (Our emphasis. COMMIES!):

Yet, there's a more sinister element, as suggested by a July 1935 document held in Comintern Archives in Moscow. That document ordered American comrades (like Davis, who, at that point, lived in Chicago), to go to Hawaii to agitate against Hawaii becoming part of the United States. The Soviets wanted the territory as a base of operations. What would be the party line? The document ordered American communists to claim there was a "growing discontent of the masses of the population in the Hawaiian Islands," resulting from "the regime of colonial oppression and the exploitation of American imperialism with its policy of militarisation of the Hawaiian Islands."

So in 1935 Hawai'i was not a Territory of these United Snakes, but a division of the Dole Corporation? Next we'll be told that until statehood was granted, the islands were just floating out there, unanchored, & menaced by sharks & giant octopi.

That was precisely Davis's position when he relocated to Hawaii, whether by orders, by personal beliefs, or both. And it isn't unreasonable to expect he might have shared such thinking with a bright teenager named Barack Obama. Bear in mind, Obama admitted to learning from Davis, including college advice -- his very next step. Obama describes his first days at college as hanging out with "Marxist professors," attending "socialist conferences," and "discuss[ing] neocolonialism."

Rather than heralding the American exceptionalism that sought freedom for the people of the USSR and Eastern Europe, Davis would have passed to Obama a very different narrative about America's place in the world, beginning with its alleged imperial-colonial sins.

This was the wrong side of history, but it was the side of Frank Marshall Davis. The remaining question is to what extent this affected Obama, then and still today.

Should those whose idea of history is to stand athwart it yelling "Commie!" at the top of their lungs ever be taken seriously when they decide which side of history is "right?" We think not. But that is quite a question Mr. History poses. 30-plus yrs. ago some guy maybe repeated to Obama something he'd typed 20-plus yrs. before that? Since nobody, nowhere knows nothin', no how, 'bout Obama, except what they think he's thinking, based on any wild delusion (but seldom on anything he's actually said & done) there's just no way that remaining question could be answered, is there?

At least not until the President's Executive Order on Hawai'i is issued. Then we'll know whether he's handing it over to the Hawai'ians, selling it back to Dole, or just turning it into Airstrip One & running all the drone attacks in Pakistan & Afghanistan from Pearl Harbor.

*Referred to a man as pimping something! Can we expect an avalanche of mens rights weasels complaining?