You may recall that media on both sides of the Great American Divide attacked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Governor Sarah Palin in the same horrendously sexist ways that some journalists are now attacking Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Why are so many accomplished women still being described as “abrasive,” “shrill,” and “power hungry” while their male counterparts are described as “strong,” “forceful,” and “ambitious” for behaving in exactly the same way? And by the way, just as many female journalists viewed Clinton and Palin in sexist ways.
This is not surprising—but it is dispiriting to those who do not understand it. Read my book Woman’s Inhumanity to Woman which will enlighten one and all on this subject, and it’s just out in a new edition with a new 2009 Introduction.
As I note above, we should write about, even challenge public figures on the issues, on their track records, not on how they talk or look, or on their marital status, sexual preference, or religious and political beliefs. And, by the way: If we are going to comment on the private affairs of public figures, and I’m not sure we should go there, then many male public figures should be judged, not only by the “lust in their (Jimmy Carter Jew-hating) hearts,” but on their relentless flings with movie stars, interns, and prostitutes, their adulterous affairs, secret second families, etc.
Now, what kind of woman is not judged harshly? Mother Teresa perhaps—although my hard-drinking colleague Christopher Hitchens would not agree. Alright, a woman who hides her light under a considerable bushel, who marries young, bears children, worships God, is humble, donates to charity—perhaps, but by definition, she is probably not a public figure.
Ah–someone like Susan Boyle, an overnight sensation on UTube, who is essentially an amateur, with no professional track record can become the world’s darling. The media and the world approve of female “virgins,” i.e. unknowns, whom the all-too-fickle public can then pride themselves on having “discovered” and with whom the masses may more easily identify than they can with women who are not only gifted but who, like men, have sacrificed more traditional (female) lives and traits in the service of ambition, public service, grand dreams, etc.
On April 18th, at this very blog, I dared write that I was not all that impressed with Susan Boyle. I wished her well, admitted that she was disarming, charming, rather endearing, but that, in my opinion, while her brief rendition of I’ve Got A Dream was good, that it was the work of an amateur. I wrote:
“Of course, a song on UTube can become an instant sensation among an attention-deficit disordered mass population because it is short and because the Rise of Boyle reprises the myths of Cinderella, the Ugly Duckling, and Horatio Alger all rolled into the unexpected rise of one cheery, gutsy, rather sweet Scottish woman. In a time of economic catastrophe and free fall, any one of us could be Susan Boyle, we can, each of us, be lifted out of anonymity and wildly embraced by the world; yes, even if we are no longer young, not that “pretty,” and without any serious training.
No we can’t.
Yes we can: At least some of us can and this fact, (the amateurishness of our icons and stars), suggests a lowering of standards that is alarming, proof that our civilization is also rotting from within.”
Thus, I dared bemoan the Age of the Amateur on the internet and on television, the obsession with gossip, celebrity, and reality-TV, the increasing absence of standards, the triumph of mediocrity, the mass preference for terrorist death cults whom people elect to office in “democratic” elections. (Think Gaza. Think Egypt).
You’d think that I’d personally mocked Abraham, Moses, Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, and Mohammed for, in one fell swoop, countless comments came in chastising me as “bitter,” “sour,” “envious” (!), “mean-spirited,” a “moron,” “you are what’s wrong with the world today,” etc. However, what was amazing was that these comments never stopped coming; they continue to this day. One comment was somewhat chilling. It read:
“Heard her; like her. Read you; pity you. I was a singer until throat cancer took care of that. Now I write professionally. Susan is safe from me. You are not.”
True, I’d once again broken ranks with some feminist pundits who’d viewed Boyle’s ascension as a triumph over ageism and looks-ism. Perhaps they’d sent my blog far and wide. But I think, rather, that the sentiments of most commentators were raw, real, rough, and probably came from people who feel vindicated, elevated, by the rise of an unlikely unknown.
We live in a world in which something like the Susan Boyle phenomena constituted a religious experience for millions of people. My commenters described her as “pure,” and her voice as “stunning.” Many said they wept. Celebrity culture, winning televised competitions, may constitute a new religion.
Barring unforeseen circumstances, Judge Sotomayor will be confirmed as a Supreme Court judge. Susan Boyle, who did not win the “Britain’s Got Talent” competition last night (and who has already been excoriated in the media for having cursed at some journalists), will, nevertheless, win a record contract and remain in the public eye.
And I—even as I sit here, writing this, I am told that one of the signs protesting the Israel Day Parade reads as follows: “Close Guantanamo Bay, Re-Open Auschwitz.” I fear that the heartbreaking significance of such a sign will be lost on the 220 million people who allegedly viewed Susan Boyle on UTube.
Here’s what I told the person who called me from the parade: Those of us who “get it,” must remain clear, public, determined, forceful, (yes, even if we are women and as such, at risk for public condemnation); we must nevertheless continue to have courage and to be strong.
Hazak v’ematz.
Phyllis,
You are something else, an inspiration and a guiding light. Once again, you hit the nail on the head. Long live The Phyllis Chesler Organization!
Thank you (again) for all that you do.
we’re about ready for tulipmania. considering the lack of real history and mostly fake, few will know it happened before. indeed, our lives, aside from the terror of real attacks and crazy banner holders, are pretty boring. no wonder susan boyle created such a sensation. and, of all the things to consider regarding a supreme court judge, i do think the word empathy, stands quite alone. there may be a bright spot however, in the matter of non rembrances of things past. those in favor of auschwitz, should be popped in there, soon as it reopens. i am feeling better already.
Affirmative action makes sense when we break a barrier. It makes sense to support Sotomayor for that reason. One might make a similar argument and say that it was right to support Obama for that reason. But once the barrier is broken and we have seen that a particular minority member has made it past a certain line, affirmative action becomes dangerous. For one thing, it is inherently anti-Semitic, since Jews are normally over-represented in most high-prestige fields. My daughters, who, obviously, are women, did not get into the colleges of their first choice because they belonged to three over-represented categories: Jews, New Yorkers, graduates of Stuyvesant High School. Women are already an over-represented category in college admissions.
Another problem with affirmative action is that it legitimizes poverty. Issues like the minimum wage are forgotten once there is affirmative action. The gaps between rich and poor, and between the incomes of blacks and whites in America, have grown since affirmative action was introduced. It is no accident, comrade.
Why are men still so fearfull of the power of women is still a wonder to me at 76 years on this planet ? Does one not need the other for survival of life,maybe not with the advancement of science. Could it be fear of control by the female, who bears the responsibility of birth. Condeming Susan Boyle’s Scottish outburst after her loss, a women who has been singing in a Scotch Tavern for years, listening to the male outburst for years, have the same right? I believe it is simply ” TURN AROUND IS FAIR PLAY ” which we in America have been practicing for many years.
Regarding Judge Sotomayor, she is to looked up to in her achievements, however, the Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment and every avenue of herpast judgements must be looked into and weighed. Remember, she is not the only woman that has been on his list and though she has served in most of the judicial arenas, this does not make her the only qualified canidate. A women if selected as the third to sit on this Supreme Court, must be considered with extreme care. Most cases apperearing in front of these judges are not routine court room trials, they are final decisions involving strong reasoning and thus our lives & futures are dependent on their findings. If her history shows a political past agenda, she shoud not be the chosen one, if not, we must all regard her as having the fairness to continue. If she has favored ethnic background as reasoning for many of her decisions while in different areas of her law career, I would personally say she is not his right choice.
“conservative colleagues”
What does being conservative have to do with anything? Sonia Sotomayor should not be opposed merely by conservatives—but by anyone who believes that justice must be blind. The very concept of “empathy” no place in a court of law. Judges are supposedly to decide on the merits of the case, and not their sentimental feelings on behalf of a supposedly disadvantaged group. Just remember the name of Frank Ricci. He is the white fireman stabbed in the back by Sotomayor. She, perhaps unwittingly, believes in sticking it good and hard to white people. It’s payback time for past injustices. Is she even able to take her views to their logical conclusion? We can have that debate at another time. This is what we know here and now: Sotomayor should not even be allowed to serve on a jury. Her core values are unintentionally far more reconcilable to Nazi legal thinking than the values of the American Constitution. And no, I’m not even slightly exaggerating.
“we should write about, even challenge public figures on the issues, on their track records, not on how they talk or look, or on their marital status, sexual preference, or religious and political beliefs.”
As soon as they stop mucking around in my personal business, I’ll stop caring about theirs. Which is to say, their personal lives will always be relevant.
The Nazis enacted racial preferences to aid the Aryan majority. Those advocating affirmative action policies in the United States mistakenly believe they have nothing in common with Hitler’s goons because their efforts are made on behalf of racial minorities. This is supposed to make all the difference. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sooner or later, all racial preference statutes will aggressively target specific racial and ethnic groups. At this moment, white men are particularly targeted. They are the cancer afflicting the Earth. Such scum bags deserve to be punished—and Sonia Sotomayor subconsciously, if even consciously, considers herself justified in meting out the punishment.
Oh now we don’t have the right to demand to know how women candidates and nominees think about previous decisions like Roe v Wade and the roots of privacy in the constitution? We do not have the right to require an accounting of her immigration decisions or how she feels about the suit brought against the airlines by people claiming they have been profiled?
This is the Carrie Prejean argument that if we challenge other women we are being inhumane, more important to smile and close ranks. But that is not a feminist argument, that only protects our gender enemies as they continue to make laws that put our rights back to the 19th century.
What is more, our opponents will not be so sensitive with a real feminists should one ever be actually proposed for the Supreme Court. Yes, for a long time there has been a myth that judges are objective and above personal and subjective decision making but even the Supreme Court has stopped trying to sell us that anymore. It is time to recognize the ease at which women can become slaves again in this country and stop risking women’s rights on supreme court roulette.
No thanks. I had a butcher abortion, my best friend almost died, I saw another woman actually die. I do care about the thousands of restrictions on women’s right to control their own body. Those laws combined with poverty which are restricting women’s choice to limit their reproduction. I have have right to know if this president is committed to women’s rights or just open borders by testing his nominee. How coy his reassurances — he never asked, he says and are we to admire his sensitivity and be shamed into also not asking?
The Supreme Court has ruled in REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINNESOTA, et al., PETI-TIONERS v. SUZANNE WHITE, CHAIRPERSON, MINNESOTA BOARD OF JUDICIAL
STANDARDS, et al, that we do have the right to such info from judicial candidates – not specifically how they will rule but if they agree or disagree that the reasoning is correct in prior decisions.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=01-521
So there is no reason for BO not asking Sotomayor her position on Roe v Wade. Except that he doesn’t want us to know.
Britain’s Got Talent is a bit of a joke. Susan Boyle has more talent than many, and will do quite well out of this, but neither she, nor any of the contestants are role models. And I think the homely image was hammed up a bit.
Regarding Sarah Palin, I think she was picked on as a woman and as a republican. Margaret Thatcher would have been worshipped by most feminists had she not been a Conservative.
And it is their backgrounds which shape the candidates – I used to ignore this in jury selection not wanting to believe people are stereotypes but the truth is their backgrounds tell you in most cases how an individual will vote. I learned this at my clients expense. When your life is at stake you cannot ignore your instincts and your experience.
And just who introduced her life story and background as a qualification???? It was BO and his political operatives that said her ethnicity, childhood circumstances and gender were critical that she is the product of subsidized housing and a single “mom”. None of this is the real story but it is what Sotomayor gave us. Are we to be told it is now off limits while BO praises the very information we are not to comment about or take into consideration when we judge this nominee?
1) On Popular Culture: “Yes we can: At least some of us can and this fact, (the amateurishness of our icons and stars), suggests a lowering of standards that is alarming, proof that our civilization is also rotting from within.”
Phyllis, on this you nailed on the head. Who is Ms. Boyle? What is this thing called American Idol? I refuse to watch this. TV, most popular culture, debase the individual. It pulls you down. Their fame and success is a symptom of a wide-spreading disease. The public votes with purchases and viewership. This is a mental drug, a palliative and escape from reality.
2) On Judge Sotomayor: I don’t have a good feeling about her. It may be prejudice. You see, I am of Cuban ancestry, but refuse to be labeled a “Hispanic”. Job application: “People of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban ancestry, bla, bla, bla…” I don’t look your regular Mexican, don’t speak like them, don’t even like Tacos. Yeworican = liberal = some resentment for the “gringos” that has helped them and their country so much (Puerto Rico has been the freest and more prosperous Latin American nation). I am not “Latino” either, I don’t speak Latin nor were born in the Latio region of Italy. Anyhow, I am leery of her, that’s it. What about American, period? If anything, I relate better to the white European race.
I am against affirmative action, never liked the idea of having to be helped up because of race or origin. I was accepted here to adapt, contribute, and enjoy, not to impose anything on anyone, like many Muslims try to do. That’s why I have always admired Frederic Douglass and Dr. King. I don’t like the politics of resentment based on racial phantoms.
Interesting set of observations. I hope that Judge Sotomayor will be confirmed.
The Republicans will only be hurting themselves if she is not.
I have to know more about this judge before I decide. I want to know where she stands on the Constitution. There were 5 women on the short list– I can not help but wonder if the other 4 were victims of minority blackmail. One women on my blog wrote a stunning piece today that I just have to share here:
“And as BOTH Hillary and Sarah have proven, these radical liberals will choose a man over a woman regardless of ideology or skin color any day.
Apparently in a radical liberals mind, race trumps gender. But hey, if you add a race in with the fact that its a woman… well that is a pure win! And a threat from the White House and the radicals in Congress such as Schumer stating that to condemn someone with this minority status would be done “at their peril”?
..this is absolutely ‘Minority Blackmail”. But of more concern to me is…since Obama, Schumer, Pelosi, Reid , Frank, etc have figured out how to blackmail Americans….how long will it take for the terrorists to figure it out? How long will it take them use it against us “from within” as they have always promised to do?
Or ….have they already.”
I must admit – this is a valid question- a very valid question! What of the 4 other women and will they be back-ups should this one fail to pass?
“The Republicans will only be hurting themselves if she is not.”
Why are you focussing on Republicans? The odds are about 50/50 that Sonia Sotomayor will have to drop out of consideration by the middle of June. Republican criticism will only be a secondary reason for her decision. Once again, never forget that Michigan is a very left-wing state. It was Democratic Party voters who decisively defeated the racial preference ballot proposal.
You are so consistantly clear-headed, brave,and honest.
Sorry, Phyllis, I’ve got to disagree with you over Sotomayor. She is “Not Fit for the Bench.” I worked on the book “Unfit for Command” and one of the research jobs we focused on was Kerry’s background and his post-Vietnam activities.
What we found was that not only had he gravely misrepresented his Vietnam service (some of which was very honorable and brave), but he had allied himself with our countries enemies, undermining our troops morale who were still in combat with the Communists. Who he was associated with was very important and still is.
Sotomayor is a member of La Raza (The Race). Supposed you or I belonged to a group known as “The Chosen Ones” (meaning, in our cases, Jews). Wouldn’t we rightfully be described as religio/ethnocentric, biased, and that our worldview would be the main focus of our thinking and activities, not as neutral factors in determining facts of law?
Sotomayor is what we have found her out to be – a bigot (Latinos are better than Whites, etc); a racist (she doesn’t like white men); a racist (by belonging to a race-centered organization, La Raza); a biased attorney/judge (who bases her decisions on outside experiences and biases instead of the law and precedent); and possibly a liar about her family (needs to be confirmed).
We do not have the luxury of allowing another Ruth Ginsburg on the court given the horrible decisions that the liberal/leftists on the SC have given us regarding national security, intelligence, and law enforcement rights. Terrorists have the same constitutional rights as you and me. What is wrong with this picture?
A Supreme Court justice once said: “The Constitution is not a suicide pact.” I agree.
Sotomayor will NOT become an “independent agent” because her whole being is one of a “dependent agent” based on her heritage (Latino) and gender (female).
The Democrats have always made excuses for their politicans and judicial nominees, though they have elected them to the centers of power – Sen. Robert Byrd D-W.VA, a former KKK leader (no one wants to ask how many Blacks were killed in W. Va. while he was their leader); Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass) got away with criminally negligent homocide (manslaughter) and obstruction of justice with Mary Jo Kopeckne, as well as having illegal contacts with the Soviets, among other very questionable internal security contacts; Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich), the top Communist Party supporter in the Congress (only challenged by the late Bella Abzug, a Soviet agent of influence and Ron Dellums, an avowed socialist with a communist fronts and groups rap sheet a mile long). The list of other Democrats like thse could go on for a hundred pages.
The threats to America, today, now, are immense and there is a possibility that we won’t exist as a free, capitalist, and first-rate nation if Obama carries out his plans to create a marxist thugocracy which are well underway as I write. I’ve never seen a president undermine our national security and economy at such a rate of speed as I am today.
Obama makes Jimmy Carter seem like “George Washington” even-though Carter was one of our worst and stupidest presidents ever (I never doubted his patriotism, only his intelligence or lack thereof).
We must resist Obama at ever opportunity because what those of us in the alternative media are finding out about his advisors, aides, and appointees is beyond belief. The Obama administration is as mad about power and seizing it by “any means necessary” as was Hitler or Lenin or Ho Chi Minh, and in fact, has borrowed a lot from Communist strategists Gramsci and Togliatti (the salami tactic proponent).
When Obama’s mentors were Frank Marshall Davis (CPUSA); possibly Soviet registered agent David S. Cantor; admitted CPUSA fronts supporter Don Rose; and Cantor/Rose’s protege David Axelrod; not to mention Robert Malley, son of Soviet agent (founder of the Egyptian Communist Party and the Soviet propaganda publication “Asia-Afrique” – the whole family was kicked out of France as security risks), Bill Ayers, an avowed communist terrorist, then ” Houston, we have a problem.”
I have only scratched the surface of who is behind Obama, who is advising him, and who is doing his dirty work on the ground around the country (more indictments of ACORN are around the corner).
Pres. Ronald Reagan once said about treaties, “Trust, but verify.”
From what I’ve seen about Obama and company, once you have verified his crew and their backgrounds and ideologies, there is no need to “trust.”
The only “trust” you can believe in is that they are out for a far-left power regime that is poison to our country.
In 40 years of investigative journalism, from undercover in the Left to Vietnam, I’ve never seen our country in so much danger.
You never give the enemy an inch unless you’ve booby-trapped that inch. Giving in to Sotomayor is giving Obama 10 yards and another first down in his effort to destroy the Constitution and rule America like any good Commissar.
The communists in the Spanish Civil War used to say “No Pasaran” (literally, “They shall not pass”). That is one slogan I want to adopt now, be it re Supreme Court nominees, gun-control, racial preferences/quotas, taking over private industry, misusing taxpayer funds, hiring people who couldn’t get a security clearance to clean a toilet, or reimposing a totalitarian “Fairness Doctrine.”
No retreat. Not one inch!
One more comment on the issue of Judge Sotomayor and the label of Hispanic and Latino, if I may.
I have always been suspicious of bunching up so many different people under that category. It smacks a little of herding, of steering this block into some voting preference by drowning differences with a clear political purpose.
May be it is a prejudice from my background. In Cuba, for dissension and planning to escape, I was expelled from the university, thrown in jail, beaten and tortured by my own people. When I arrived here at 24, I GOT ON MY KNEES AND KISSED THE SOIL OF THIS BLESSED COUNTRY. Since then I learned the language, prospered, became an American citizen, raised a family, traveled to many parts of the world, with family or alone. I only crossed with the “authorities” while receiving 6 traffic tickets. Talk about freedom. So, I am a little leery when I see Mexicans and similar others who come here and form enclaves that resist assimilation, ask for more than they give, raise foreign flags while in grievance, and disrespect the law of the land. On immigration, I am with the Minute Men, and suspicious of Judge Sotomayor.
You may understand, and cut me some slack, if I am also a little contemptuous of people like Bill Ayers and his partner Ms. Dorn, Reverend Wright, Farrakhan, Father Flaegler, Mr. Chomsky, Alinsky, and then Hanoi Jane, Shirley McLaine, Sean Penn, Danny Glover, Harry Belafonte, Robert Redford, et al, and then those who were there but “did not listen or remember”, and certain liberals in general.
I know the entrails of the communist beast. Here, later, I learned that all the facets of deceit and cruelty I experienced in Cuba were the same as those experienced by Soviets citizens in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, etc. The Soviet Union remains the number one country/regime in the history of mankind in committing genocide against its own people. Besides killing any group breathing and resembling human beings, Stalin and the Soviets snatched the lives of 8 to 10 million Kulaks in just a few years. These Russian peasants, former Mujiks, must have been thought to be beasts, less than horses and cows, as few raised a voice on their behalf. This Holocaust was as meticulously planned as Hitler’s with the Jews, yielded more victims, and was as cruel, if not worst, for cannibalism became commonplace. President Reagan tagged them forever as: The Evil Empire. There are aspirants and admirers waiting in line: The Hugo Chavezes and the Putins of the world.
Mr. Friedman:
Thank you very much for your courage and your informative response, about which I agree 100%. Allow me a few comments:
1) On the Issue of La Raza: Besides Judge Sotomayor, we have Major Villaraigoza from LA, also involved with La Raza. The agenda of this radical group is not different from the KKK, kind of in reverse. They want to split the US, and hate whites. Electing the LA Major is as if David Duke would have been elected to office. Of course, while those are “Latinos”, Duke is white.
2) The Temptation of Puerto Rican Liberation Movements and the Fallacy Behind Them: I have visited Puerto Rico many times, and worked there once. No matter what the US do, and did for these people, there is a fringe, fanned, abetted, and financed by the Castro’s regime, that maintains that PR is not free, a colony of the US, etc. While on the leading indicators of freedom and prosperity, PR leads all Latin America, these persons are blind to that, and their influence is big in New York. I am afraid Judge Sotomayor sympathizes with them. While in the University in Cuba, I befriended several Puerto Ricans, son and daughters of terrorists wanted by the US. Without naming names, the biggest one was killed in a shootout with the FBI a couple of years ago after years on the lam.
3) On Jimmy Carter: I have stated in this blog several times that it is a disservice to Mr. Carter to compare him to Mr. Obama. For wrong and feeble he was, we knew his ancestors, he participated in World War II, then volunteered to become, and became, an officer in a nuclear submarine, Carter was, and still is, a patriot. Kindly compare that to community organizer Barack Hussein Obama.
4) On Obama: No comment. NO COMMENTS! Just who, with some little common sense, could have voted for him!
Am I the only one to suspect that Boyle was intentionally homelied up for the competition? I’m thinking this idea came right out of a pre-production meeting. Hey what if there was an extremely frumpy, homely, middle aged woman who came on the show and after Simon et al, had a good laugh at her appearance, she blew the roof off of the place?
I can’t comment on the quality of the talent search shows because I don’t watch them. I am sure that they look for the heart-warming stories to boost their ratings, BUT the people like Paul Potts and Susan Boyle are real people who love music. Maybe they aren’t candidates for the Met. Who cares? They are at least participants in an aspect of our culture that they truly love, and they have worked hard to perform at their best. People like them, who make up church choirs and high school orchestras, don’t bring our culture down. We have enough high-culture types who do that for us. Don’t forget it was the radical chic with their box seat subscriptions who elevated the Black Panther thugs to cultural icons. I won’t even start on some of the darlings of the art world.
David Thompson:
Based on comments like this “This is what we know here and now: Sotomayor should not even be allowed to serve on a jury. Her core values are unintentionally far more reconcilable to Nazi legal thinking than the values of the American Constitution. And no, I’m not even slightly exaggerating.” I think any reasonable person would judge you to be an ignoramous
The sad thing is, we probably know more about Sonia Sotomayor and Susan Boyle than we know about Barack H. 0bama? Go figure?
Delia:
From your previous comments, you seem to know everything about Obama. You can’t have it both ways
Support her here : http://www.facebook.com/pages/SUSAN-BOYLE-I-MISS-you-/100403182584
Thank you Max F. your facts and research leaves no question in my mind and I am sure many other’s that this choice by Pres. Obama will come back to
reveal even more to his backers what they were hoping would not be picked up and exposed. I guess we have a real “Ken & Barbie ” in the “White House”
and look at the damage those dolls have done to how we look at ourselves, the image makers have suceeded bigtime in the political arena and this time
we are all in for their changes to our democracy as seen by the world at large.
Well, can’t Susan Boyle be nominated to the Supreme Court? All she needs to do is switch her citizenship.
She has a compelling life story.
I would willing to bet that her take on life would illustrate more wisdom than some white men, too.
To Anita Hope and others:
Here is the latest in a long series of columns on Obama and friends. This one, by my friend and fellow researcher Trevor Loudon, puts together a lot about Obama’s background ties to the Communist Party and its sympathizer orbit. We spent over a year and a half-researching these people and documents in order to make sense of just who Obama was and where he came from. As I said (and was quoted in the Wash. Post, May 23, 2008), “Obama was raised in a marxist-ricn environment” and “that it had to have an affect on his world-view.”
Trevor is one of the top Obama investigators in the world, and when you read the other Obama File columns, you’ll see why.
http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2009/06/obama-file-78-smoking-gin-proof-that.html
I suspect that there is more to come on Obama’s friends, mentors, and background that will further expand this Obama File #78.
Max
RE #12. Marion L.: [...] I hope that Judge Sotomayor will be confirmed. The Republicans will only be hurting themselves if she is not. [...]
Marion, unfortunately for liberals, the Sotomayor affair has gotten a life of its own, not anymore controllable by media. This is not anymore a republican issue, but a Lani Guarnier, “quota queen” issue which is unstoppably ramifying throughout the white population of this country, accept it or not.
The democrats have irresponsably and for too long played the “divide et impera” card, managing to tip the electoral balance by luring one or another minority segment in their fold – now they’re facing the defection of their essential electorate, i.e. the white population of this country, facing the ugly situation of becoming a party of… minorities, hardly an enviable situation.
Thomson said above that he sees a 50/50 percent that Sotomayor will be out of the nomination process soon – I’d risk (considering the Democrats’ loath of being associated with an unpopular cause after the Prop 8 and the GM debacles, and with the prospect of Ricci decision hitting the fan in a matter of weeks), that Sotomayor will be forced out from the race by the WH in a couple of weeks – call it Guernization.
And remember, Soetoro is no W, i.e. he’s not a guy who sticks to his guns or protects his associates – weathervane is Soetoro’s device and his time in the limelight is his only preoccupation.
So….
The aspiration to impartiality – without which there can be no justice – is foreign to women.
Sorry Phyllis, I like Max Friedman respectfully disagree. By the way, excellent post Max. Great points. Let me see if I can possibly offer some complementary observations.
I WANT the kind of bloody high-powered lazer beam on this nomination process that Ted Kennedy put Clarance Thomas through. Why? Because Phyllis, as Max put so well, the stakes are that high.
Those Thomas hearings helped (along with Ross Perot) put and then keep Clinton in the White House. Don’t believe that? Well go back and look at the make up of the score card of Dems & Republicans in the various state governments at the time. Reagan had delivered this country over to it’s natural impulse – a center-right nation – and although it was a trend that started in the Carter years it became a torrent with Reagan and it carried over into Bush I.
The Thomas hearings are a historical flashpoint. Yes conservativsm was still ascending – yes we took over congress in ’94 & held albeit a slim majority for 12 years.
But the Reagan revolution was truly a revolution because of the plurality of majority conservative rule – he delivered that through state goverments all across the nation before it culminated with the Gingrich led ‘Contract w/America’ congressional takeover. And in the process we had the most prosperous thirty year expansion EVER – until sept 2008.
That Thomas fight, like Bork before, galvinized the Dems to fight. It was the beginning of the revitalization of their party – and it turned back the tide at the grass roots – in respective states. In 1992 it was not yet inevitable that California would remain democratic – there was even hope that Wilson could return the state back to it’s pre-Nixon silent majority. Likewise the North East was not yet as alien as a fig tree on the Moon when it comes to conservative representation – as it is today.
Phyllis, I once worked for a lawyer who lived in University Hts & had an office in the Statler building in Cleveland. He was an excellent lawyer, an interesting guy, and having honed his political infighting skills in post WWII Washington – one hellva fighter. I don’t think he would much appreciate your plea for calm that this article regarding Sotomayer inspires either. Because it’s weak, ineffectual and tantemount to surrender.
This is a contact sport and it is supposed to get bloody sometimes – because if we don’t have these kinds of confrontations politically – then we get all plugged up like we did in the fifties – and wind up with a bloody decade like 60′s.
Max is dead spot on. It doesn’t matter that the GOP lacks the votes – for either a rejection or a fillabuster – it doesn’t get any more vital than this;it’s about who we are and who we want to become, as a people & as a nation. Its important that the country have this discussion – & LOUDLY!
It’s also important for conservatives to get angry and get loud as well. Families fight – people disagree – it helps develop direction and clarity of purpose.
This nation should be every bit as transfixed by conservatives grilling her record since first getting nominated by another republican Prez – and the kind of volatile and controversial statements and rulings since – EVERY BIT AS THEY WERE BY THE LURID PERSONAL ATTACKS THOMAS SUFFERED.
Her political affiliations are off base? What!!!! Are you kidding??!!!!! Why would they be? You didn’t mention a credible reason because there are none!!!
It is shameful to hear such garbage coming from one as intelligent and as well traveled as you. What example are you attempting to set for young women and men out there today? Did I just hear a argument that expects a soft peddle from the right because..??? fill in the blank?
Right now from what I’ve read this woman would have no trouble what so ever getting appointed to the Supreme Court -………. IN PARAGUAY! Just because she’s been soft peddled in a compliant liberal media doesn’t mean WE HAVE VETTEED HER YET!
Stay tuned – if this GOP in the Senate has any cajones left – it’s gonna get very reverse-Borkish – because there is far more substance to challenge this candidate beyond the afore-mentioned La Raza affiliations and the Ricci case…
It is up to Jeff Sessions to make this candidate sing for her supper. If she gets to Chambers – it will be on bloodied hands and knees.
I disagree, on the grounds that actions speak louder than words and a history of unguarded statements is likely more reliable than a carefully calculated answer from an expert at examination and cross-examination. And before declaring that a comment is out of context, one should look at what the context is. (What I have seen is damning.)
To say that we should not “Bork” Judge Sotomayor is to say that because the Dems engaged in distortion and character assasination the GOP must not ask hard questions and search for answers, then make them known to all.
If nothing else, Obama’s history with appointments should make us wary.
I am constantly frustrated by the way debates about this sort of thing are framed. Sonia Sotomayor is chosen to sit on the Supreme Court, and those of us who are Republicans have several choices to make. We can either subject her to some of the same scrutiny that any nominee of a Republican president is routinely put through, in which case we’ll be castigated as if our opposition is unique; or we can accept her and stand aside. If we criticize anything she says, it must be because we’re either a) racists or b) sexists. A Republican male is essentially not allowed to oppose a woman for any office on her record, statements, or positions; any opposition is immediately branded sexist without debate or even thought. We’re just afraid of a powerful woman. Yeah right.
As has been pointed out endlessly, no one would ever support a man for anything, if he’d said anything resembling a reverse version of the “wise Latina” statement. The idea of a white man attending any sort of white cultural seminar or symposium, and then being hired dogcatcher in a small town somewhere, is certainly debatable; a judge is almost certainly absurd.
So, what are we left with? The left expects us to play by the rulebook, and when a Republican president appoints people to the Supreme Court, of course the rulebook can’t be found, because *this* is important: that man might destroy the Constitution! It’s the political version of “What’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is negotiable.”
How fitting that our President would choose someone for the Supreme Court who belongs to a group that hates whites. I think that the Republicans should fight her nomination in the most respectful way. And I do think it is fair to bring up her “giggling, wink, wink” comments concerning courts of appeal “making” the law.
It’s very simple, Sotomayor is a RACIST and judging her based on her record it’s clear. Again she’s a racist. To rule against the fireman was clearly against the constitution and RACIST! She judges based upon her belief system and she’s stated so in public and that’s not improper to take into account. I don’t care if you share a vagina with me or not. I want BLIND JUSTICE and she is one scary human being. I don’t want her in one of the most powerful if not most powerful of all positions for the rest of my life and my children.
Isn’t Sotomayor the FOURTH woman nominated to the SCOTUS? Wasn’t Harriet Myers a nominee, along with Ginsberg and O’Connor?
Hans, I believe she withdrew before thus was not nominated, Sotomayor if elected would be the third women on the court.
Ditto to comments 1 and 15.
There are a handful of writers/thinkers these days who are so refreshing to read because they are not afraid to express a point of view that appears to care not whether it fits into a convenient nitch. The priority is truth-telling, even if it means going against the grain. Ms. Chesler, you are a rare and wonderful voice. I am grateful for your work and always glad to read your perspective, whether I agree with all of it, or not. Usually, I do. When I don’t, you always compel me to rethink things from a new perspective.
I see that Max Friedman still considers Frank Marshall Davis to have been Obama’s mentor, despite Obama’s denial. Is there any evidence of this mentorship besides purported evidence in “Dreams From My Father”?
Although Obama’s book indicates “Frank” offered him advice on racial issues, Obama wrote that Davis “fell short” and his views were “incurable.” Obama did not even visit Davis for three years before going to college. Obama’s book, itself, proves that Obama did not consider Davis to be a “wise and trusted counselor,” which is the definition of “mentor.” But what creative definition can Davis be considered his “mentor”?
Okay Kaleo. Tell us about the timeline of the relationship between Obama and your father. When did Obama arrive in Hawaii, at your house, how many nights did he stay there listening to stories, possibly drinking, etc?
Since it was a Communist Party member (Geralde Horne)who first brought forth your father’s name, why don’t you have something to say to them about it?
What I’m interested in is why did your father stay in CPUSA fronts up to at least 1973 (a Chicago CP front known as the Chicago Committee for Protection of Foreign Born) as well as a few others? That was a long way away from Hawaii and implies that someone got him to sign on to the letterhead of that group in 1973.
What about the issue of the book “Sex Rebel”? I’ve haven’t mentioned this at all that I can remember but it reveals a side of your father that presents some problems in how to characterize him. How much of it was true, and how much was braggadicio? Sorry to raise this issue but you opened the door.
One of the great mysteries about Obama’s time in Hawaii was just who he hung out with, how much narcotics did he use and what kind (I’m not too concerned with Maui weed or whatever Curtis Sliwa calls it), and where did he get it?
Many of us who have researched Obama’s background have not gone into some of the above mentioned areas because they would have opened a can of worms and involved you.
Unfortunately this is not to be now that you have chosen to open up the whole issue of your father and Obama. But what about your father and Obama’s grandparents? What about “Ann”? What about the “parties”?
There is a lot that needs to be explained and you might be the only one who knows what actually went on when Obama and his grandparents were friends of your father, and came over to his house. If you were away in the service during this time, please say so.
Interestingly, the son of a CPUSA member who was a mentor to Obama’s political advisors Don Rose and David Axelrod openly admitted that his father was a longtime communist and registered Soviet agent (for importing Soviet publications and propaganda).
Perhaps there are others out there who are now willing to talk about the past. As long as your full version of what went on between your father, Obama and the Durhams is not told, serious questions will remain.
As a historian, I am willing to listen to all sides and involved. You opened the door; I just drove a truck thru it. Are you going to dodge it or climb on board for a frank discussion of an important period in Obama’s life?
Sincerely,
Max
Max: It appears that my first response may be disappeared into some black hole, so I am reposting it in two parts.
MAX FRIEDMAN POSTED: “Okay Kaleo. Tell us about the timeline of the relationship between Obama and your father. When did Obama arrive in Hawaii, at your house, how many nights did he stay there listening to stories, possibly drinking, etc?”
RESPONSE: Unfortunately, I cannot confirm the timing of his visits. Like everyone else, I must examine the available evidence. “Dreams” indicates Obama occasionally visited as a youth with his grandfather. It does not support Kincaid’s contention that the relationship was either mentorship or “almost like a son,” especially since “Dreams” indicates Obama did not visit at all for three years as an older teen. As they say on CSI, “follow the evidence.”
Misrepresenting this relationship was one of the earliest falsehoods in Kincaid’s body of lies. By exaggerating evidence that Davis advised Obama, yet ignoring evidence from the same source that Obama did NOT consider Frank to be a wise and trusted advisor nor visit him for three years, Kincaid is as dishonest as ex-D.A. Mike Nifong. The “Nifong Syndrome” is the stacking of evidence by ignoring evidence that does not fit one’s agenda. By portraying Davis as Obama’s mentor, despite conclusive evidence to the contrary, Cliff Kincaid and others have proven void of journalistic integrity.
MAX FRIEDMAN POSTED: “Since it was a Communist Party member (Geralde Horne) who first brought forth your father’s name, why don’t you have something to say to them about it?”
RESPONSE: Horne accurately identified my father as Frank from “Dreams,” but (unlike Kincaid) Horne did NOT misrepresent Davis as Obama’s mentor. I am seeking to confirm the truth, and refute the lies.
MAX FRIEDMAN POSTED: “What I’m interested in is why did your father stay in CPUSA fronts up to at least 1973 (a Chicago CP front known as the Chicago Committee for Protection of Foreign Born) as well as a few others? That was a long way away from Hawaii and implies that someone got him to sign on to the letterhead of that group in 1973.”
RESPONSE: Because he is not available to answer that question, all we can do is speculate. He probably participated in groups such as the Committee for Protection of the Foreign Born because he was genuinely interested in protecting the foreign born. It is my understanding that a “front” is an organization whose sponsorship is disguised. By definition, participants in front organizations are usually unaware of secret sponsors.
MAX FRIEDMAN POSTED: “What about the issue of the book “Sex Rebel”? I’ve haven’t mentioned this at all that I can remember but it reveals a side of your father that presents some problems in how to characterize him. How much of it was true, and how much was braggadicio? Sorry to raise this issue but you opened the door.”
RESPONSE: How did I open the door? He wrote a pornographic novel under the pseudonym Bob Greene, one chapter of which is devoted to the protagonist and his wife having sex with a thirteen year old girl, according to a British website (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2601914/Frank-Marshall-Davis-alleged-Communist-was-early-influence-on-Barack-Obama.html) on 24 August. Scandalous memoirs have been a literary genre for centuries. According to Wikipedia, such fictional novels are allegedly factual, but are largely invented. The title, alone, qualifies it as a “scandalous memoir.”
In a curiously-timed same day report citing the British website, “Accuracy In Media” (AIM) reported that Edgar Tidwell, an “expert in the life and writing of Davis” confirms that Frank Marshall Davis wrote “Sex Rebel: Black” as a semi-autobiographical novel. “Semiautobiographical” (according to dictionary.com) means “1. pertaining to or being a fictionalized account of an author’s own life. 2. pertaining to or being a work of fiction strongly influenced by events in an author’s life.” Despite Tidwell’s expert opinion that the novel was SEMI-autobiographical, AIM’s Cliff Kincaid escalated accusations against Davis by first claiming he was a sex pervert (http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-red-mentor-was-a-pervert/) in their 24 August report. (Kincaid falsely attributed the “pervert” claim to the British website.) On 14 October, AIM again escalated the charges by claiming Davis was an “admitted child molester” (http://www.aim.org/aim-column/was-a-communist-obamas-sex-teacher/).
Kincaid’s pornography disinformation (details upon request) against my father, which exploits an inability to distinguish fact from fiction, is just as heinous as his political disinformation. It suggests that those making such false accusations may be projecting their own libidinous psychological disorders onto Davis.
MAX FRIEDMAN POSTED: “There is a lot that needs to be explained and you might be the only one who knows what actually went on when Obama and his grandparents were friends of your father, and came over to his house. If you were away in the service during this time, please say so.”
“As a historian, I am willing to listen to all sides and involved. You opened the door; I just drove a truck thru it. Are you going to dodge it or climb on board for a frank discussion of an important period in Obama’s life?”
RESPONSE: Yes, I was away in the Air Force since 1968. Fortunately, Uncle Sam taught me Deception Analysis techniques that I have used to debunked many of Cliff Kincaid’s falsehoods regarding the Obama-Davis relationship. I am more than willing to discuss the situation to the best of my knowledge. Since I am willing to examine this history in good faith, hopefully you will do the same.
I have documented Kincaid’s “specific misrepresentation” of this relationship in my blog (at http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/Kaleokualoha/gGxdvX), with an even closer examination of AIM’s misrepresentation of the 1949 Honolulu NAACP incident (at http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/Kaleokualoha/gG5kN7). AIM’s conflicting misrepresentation of Edward Berman’s Congressional testimony, which Kincaid conveniently posted as Exhibit 4A of http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/hawaii-obama.pdf, brings to mind Daniel Webster’s famous quote: “Falsehoods not only disagree with truths, but usually quarrel among themselves.”
In our previous discussion (http://www.city-data.com/forum/elections/285236-meet-stanley-obamas-mum-8.html), I believe you indicated that you were willing to examine Kincaid’s reporting on this relationship, including his associate Bill Steigerwald’s assertion that my father was a “lifelong member of the CPUSA” (see http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/Kaleokualoha/gGxyg3). Steigerwald has continuously stonewalled requests to substantiate his claim. Hopefully, they will be more willing to answer inquiries from friendly voices.
It is indeed regrettable that so many honest people have been hoodwinked by a skillful disinformation campaign led by Kincaid’s ironically named “Accuracy In Media” (AIM). Fraudulent memes, unwittingly propagated by well-intentioned bloggers, have spread throughout the blogosphere, which proves the effective of viral disinformation campaigns. Even the title of Kincaid’s initial attack, “Obama’s Communist Mentor,” is itself a masterful deception. Through the “fallacy of equivocation,” it implies three enduring falsehoods:
– That Davis was an avowed or known communist who advocated collectivist principles. The evidence, however, indicates that Davis never advocated communism.
– That Davis had a continuing mentorship with teenage Obama, “almost like a son.” The evidence, however indicates that Davis was an occasionally visited family friend whom Obama did not even see for three years before college.
– That Davis taught communism to young Obama. The evidence, however, indicates that although Davis offered advice on racial issues, Obama did not even trust that advice.
(The “fallacy of equivocation” is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense, by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time. It occurs when an equivocal word or phrase makes an unsound argument appear sound.)
Through innuendo, half-truths and outright fabrication, Obama’s opponents have deliberately misrepresented a casual family friendship as sordid political indoctrination sessions or worse. In their fervor to malign Obama, they sought to transform the legacy of a relatively obscure leftist poet into a “Stalinist agent” who corrupted Obama’s values. Slander and libel were their tools of the trade, because truth was no obstacle. Destroying Davis’s reputation was collateral damage.
For example, another card in AIM’s web of lies is their claim “Obama’s Red Mentor Praised Red Army” (see http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-red-mentor-praised-red-army/), which is a half-truth built on the falsehood of mentorship. Cliff Kincaid neglects to mention that during WWII many Americans, including the President of the United States, praised the Red Army because the Soviet Union was our ALLY (see http://books.google.com/books?id=kjDwCkg1HB8C&pg=PA120&lpg=PA120&dq=fdr+praise+red+army&source=bl&ots=ooSzuhMGDr&sig=1v2SJsWam4pjFWNqC0BuGduOIAY&hl=en&ei=ilksSpvUN5ayMJ2_5dsJ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6).
University of Kansas Professor Edgar Tidwell, whom AIM’s Cliff Kincaid cites as “an expert on the life and writings of Davis,” dismisses misrepresentation of Davis’s influence in one simple paragraph:
“Although my research indicates that Davis joined the CPUSA as a “closet member” during World War II, there is no evidence that he was a Stalinist, or even a Party member before WWII. Further, to those attempting to make the specious stand for the concrete, there is no evidence that he instructed Barack Obama in communist ideology. Frank Marshall Davis did NOT believe in overthrowing the USA. He was committed to what the nation professed to be. For him, communism was primarily an intellectual vehicle to achieve a political end-a possible tool for gaining the constitutional freedoms of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for ALL Americans” (see http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/Kaleokualoha ).
In another example of Kincaid’s “Nifong Syndrome,” he picks and chooses incriminating evidence from Professor Tidwell, yet ignores exculpatory evidence from the same source that does not fit his fraudulent “Stalinist” meme. Kincaid also “Nifongs” evidence from “The New Red Negro” in the same manner.
If intellectual engagement and sincere substantive discussions are the goals of this blog, I welcome the opportunity to pursue the truth through cordial debate with you and your readers. Thanks!
“The men the American public admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth.”
– H. L. Mencken (1880 – 1956)
Kaleo: Thank you for your serious answer to many of the issues raised in various columns and books about your father, his life, and about Barack Obama.
I cannot speak for Cliff Kincaid, Tidwell, or others. What I am interested in is the history of your father and how it relates to “facts” or “suppositions” or “allegations” about his life.
I am still interested in the relationship of your father to Paul Robeson and Harry Bridges re working in Hawaii for the Honolulu Record, the ILWU or any of its component parts, etc.
I understand that you were not born or were very young when a lot of the events I’m concerned with took place, and that you might not have any knowledge about them. That’s reality and I have to accept that.
I will forward your comments to Cliff Kincaid and let him respond if he desires. I cannot speak for him, or the other writers cited above. Re Tidwell – I disagree with a lot of his conclusions but that is for another day.
Also, I will compare your comments with what Kincaid wrote in the AIM publication so that I can see both sides of the issue.
Thank you for your courtesty in replying here.
Max Friedman
Thank YOU, Sir!
Max: It’s been a month without a peep. Are Kincaid and Steigerwald stonewalling? Have you compared Berman’s actual testimony with AIM’s posts regarding the 1949 Honolulu NAACP incident? How about the other “specific misrepresentation” I have identified?
Gee, Max! It has now been over a year since you agreed to compare my comments with what Kincaid wrote in the AIM publication so that you can see both sides of the issue. Do you need more time to authenticate Kincaid’s claims?