Frank Marshall Davis
Obama Confirms Relationship with CPUSA Member
Comments | Print friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
With the release of a 40-page “Unfit for Publication” report attacking Jerome Corsi’s new book, The Obama Nation, it should be obvious that the media-backed presidential candidate, Barack Obama, is terrified of having his carefully concealed communist and foreign connections exposed to public view.
However, the Obama campaign’s attack on Corsi’s book and Corsi personally acknowledges on pages 9 and 10 of its report that the mysterious “Frank” in Obama’s 1995 book, Dreams From My Father, is in fact the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) member Frank Marshall Davis. This identification by AIM and others hasn’t been disputed by the media, which has desperately tried to ignore the Obama-Davis relationship, but the Obama campaign has not responded to it until now.
The admission that Obama’s mentor was Frank Marshall Davis, an identified CPUSA member, can only add to growing public concern about Obama’s relationship with a Communist pawn of Moscow who was the subject of security investigations by the FBI and various congressional committees which examined Soviet activities in the U.S.
According to these official documents, cited first by AIM and also by Corsi in his book, Davis was a secret CPUSA member who became a member of an underground communist apparatus in Hawaii. As late as the 1970s, Davis was involved with a CPUSA front organization, the American Committee for Protection of Foreign Born, dedicated to keeping foreign communists such as labor leader Harry Bridges from being deported from the U.S. Davis, a friend of Bridges, a secret CPUSA member, became Obama’s mentor during the years 1975-1979.
But the Obama report makes no admission that Davis was a communist and doesn’t dispute anything Corsi documents about Davis’s membership in the Communist Party. Instead, the report picks and chooses from Obama’s book in order to try to put some distance between Obama and Davis. The report attempts to play down instances in which Obama soaks up Davis’s anti-American thoughts and pro-communist “poetry.”
But if the relationship were so innocent, why didn’t Obama identify Frank by his full name in his book and denounce his communist and anti-American views? Why doesn’t he denounce those views now?
At this point, it is clear that Corsi is to Obama what the National Enquirer is to admitted adulterer and liar John Edwards. The Enquirer exposed Edwards secret life when the rest of the media were refusing to investigate the candidate and making fun of the Enquirer.
It is noteworthy that the Obama campaign’s “Unfit for Publication” report begins with citing negative “reviews” of the Corsi book from various publications, including the New York Times, Washington Post, and Time magazine. The media are angry and jealous because Corsi did the heavy lifting that the media refuse to do.
While Obama’s communist and foreign connections are of serious and ongoing concern, Corsi’s treatment of Obama’s admitted drug use has emerged as a special raw nerve for the Obama campaign and his media acolytes. They realize that many Americans, whose families have been decimated and destroyed by illegal drugs, may recoil at the thought of having an admitted user of marijuana and cocaine occupy the oval office.
The Attack Begins
Acting on information provided by a left-wing group known as Media Matters, which functions as an unofficial arm of the Democratic Party, the New York Times attacked Corsi for charging that Obama has “yet to answer” whether he ever dealt drugs and when he stopped, if indeed he ever did. The Times protested that Obama has answered that charge, at least the part about quitting marijuana and cocaine, by saying that he hasn’t used drugs since he was 20 years old.
So why did Corsi raise the subject when it supposedly has been put to rest? It’s because, as an experienced investigative reporter, he knows that a few perfunctory denials, which could be expected from someone running for office, do not constitute any form of proof or convincing answer that he in fact ever did quit drugs. As Corsi has suggested in defending his book’s account of Obama’s admitted drug use, self-reporting by drug users about when they quit is notoriously unreliable. Every drug addict claims to have quit at one time or another. That’s what drug testing is all about.
Joyce Nalepka, president of Drug-Free Kids: America’s Challenge, points out that recovering cocaine addicts say that the high from cocaine is so intense that you never stop wanting it. She points to the case of former Washington, D.C. Mayor Marion Barry, who was caught twice using cocaine. Barry was caught in one case as a result of a police sting and another because of court-ordered drug testing.
Don’t you believe Obama when he says he quit drugs? “No,” replied Nalepka. “And I didn’t believe Mayor Barry either.”
The Soros Connection
However, she does believe that, if Obama is elected, his backers in the drug legalization movement funded by billionaire George Soros will press for legalization of marijuana, cocaine and other dangerous drugs. Soros is a big backer of Obama and has contributed financially to his campaign.
During the Reagan Administration, Nalepka served as the president of the anti-drug group that Nancy Reagan served as honorary chair. She warns that Obama has “voted for at least two pro-legalization [of marijuana] bills” and that drug legalization advocates are spreading the word that Obama will not support federal enforcement of federal marijuana arrests. She said a questionnaire, which includes the question, “Do you support keeping drug possession, dealing and trafficking a crime?,” has not been answered by the Obama campaign. John McCain, on the other hand, vows to “uphold the law,” she says.
When she made several calls trying to find out what happened to the questionnaire, an Obama staff member said that the appropriate official would call “within the hour.” But that was “weeks ago,” Nalepka says.
Even if Obama took and passed a drug test, Nalepka says she would never vote for him, explaining, “It appalls me at the thought that people would be naïve enough to vote for someone who admits drug use.” She says this view stems from 30 years of “watching parents wail and cry and talk about the hell their families went through” because of marijuana, cocaine and other drugs.
“I would never vote for an elected official who was ever a drug user,” she tells AIM. “We have to get this country back to being an honorable nation with honorable people running it.”
But the views of Nalepka and others in the campaign against illegal drugs have been ignored by media anxious to accept Obama’s word that he has quit dangerous mind-altering drugs.
Nalepka is concerned that progress that has been made is at risk. “We worked long and hard to close those drug paraphernalia shops in the 1980s and long and hard again to get student drug testing in the schools so we could get drugs out of the schools,” she said. “And we’re going to allow someone to come in to the White House of the United States of America who was a drug user?”
Corsi’s account of Obama’s drug use is apparently one of many “lies” that an official Obama campaign spokesman has alleged to be in the book. The Times story defending Obama against Corsi’s book was followed by a Washington Post story attacking the author. The liberal media have been forced to take note of the book because it has become number one on the New York Times bestseller list.
The Davis Connection
Regarding the Davis-Obama relationship, now confirmed by the Obama campaign, the Post, as well as its “conservative” competitor, the Washington Times, recently ran a dishonest Associated Press story that portrayed Davis as a positive influence on Obama who had no affiliation with the CPUSA. This was the real lie.
Prior to that, the only time the Post came close to mentioning Davis was after I held a May 22 news briefing on the subject and Post reporter Dana Milbank attended and then attacked our event without mentioning that the main subject was none other than Frank Marshall Davis. Of course, dishonest coverage like this helps explain why Corsi’s book is meeting a pent-up demand for facts about the candidate and is so successful. The American people understand that they are not getting the truth about Obama from the mainstream media.
Another line of attack—that Corsi is doing the bidding of the Republican Party and the John McCain campaign—makes no sense because Corsi writes very critically of McCain and is a member of the Constitution Party, which is fielding its own presidential candidate, Chuck Baldwin, this fall. Plus, Corsi’s editor at WorldNetDaily, where he writes regularly, is Joseph Farah, whose book, None of the Above, argues against Obama and McCain.
The pro-Obama media emphasize that the Corsi book is published by Simon & Schuster’s Threshold Editions, whose main editor is former GOP strategist Mary Matalin. The 40-page Obama report dishonestly claims the Corsi book is “brought to you by the Bush/Cheney Attack Machine.” But it is clearly the case that Corsi and Farah are independent conservatives who have no allegiance to the GOP. Corsi has written articles and even a book attacking the Bush/Cheney Administration’s secretive Security and Prosperity Partnership, a forerunner for an emerging North American Union.
Corsi has written a book on Obama for the obvious reason that little is known about the Democratic candidate, and there is no evidence that the major media are interested in uncovering or publicizing the hidden facts about him. On the other hand, the media are doing a good job covering McCain’s controversial connections, such as his ties to lobbyists for foreign countries.
Post reporter Eli Saslow writes that the Corsi book “lacks major revelations.” Wouldn’t it be nice if the Post let us decide that for ourselves? Why not run a true and accurate story about Frank Marshall Davis and let the readers decide? But Saslow must figure that such a story would only hurt the media’s candidate.
Saslow let the truth slip: “Until recently, he [Obama] had the luxury of presenting his story alone.” Since when should a presidential candidate have the ability to present his own story without critical comment and investigation by the media? And especially on the subject of admitted use of marijuana and cocaine and connections to communists? But that has been the case with Obama, and that is why Corsi is being attacked.
Larry King as Obama Puppet
As part of the campaign to destroy Corsi, some reporters have dredged up some controversial comments he posted on a website that people found objectionable. CNN’s Larry King, with the help of a “progressive” from Media Matters named Paul Waldman, tried this and other tactics on his show on Wednesday night. They are just a diversion from the substance of the book. King found Corsi guilty of “false” claims against Obama even before he introduced Corsi on the show.
On the other hand, King identified Waldman as being from “A progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing and correcting conservative misinformation in the United States media.” This is how the organization, which has significant links to the Democratic Party, describes itself. It started out as a front for Hillary Clinton but is now spending most of its time defending Obama.
It is interesting to note that the title of the official Obama campaign report on Corsi, “Unfit for Publication,” was an actual headline over a previous Media Matters account of Corsi’s book. In attacking AIM’s reporting on the costs of Obama’s Global Poverty Act, the Obama report also cites misleading charges from Media Matters (Jonathon Moseley addresses this controversy in the August-B AIM Report.) So it is obvious that the Obama campaign and Media Matters are colluding.
These pathetic attacks will probably generate more interest in the book. And once people read the book, they will only have more questions and suspicions about Obama and his powerful media machine.