The true history of the GOP really is that of a Grand Old Party. Time to be grand again.

Michael Zak in the lap of the conservative Gods.



Martin Luther King was a Republican as was Abraham Lincoln, though ya wouldn't know it...The dominant left MSM and education system have manipulated history outrageously and without effectively being held to account for decades and decades.

Here's the National Black Republicans site.

Here's Lt. Colonel Allen B. West, black Republican aiming to get to Congress.

And here's black Republican Christian Machosauce, cos he's so damn great and ya know he is.

Chuck Heston talking about civil rights before virtually any other Hollywood star.




Chuck marched with Sidney Poitier on Selma. Now the filthy paradigm of the MSM, celebrity and so on, try another fraudulent gambit and in relative comfort fifty years too late. As Chuck says, it's now "fashionable" and not dangerous at all to either your career and more, which it was. And it's true as Chuck said: "JFK couldn't get nominated to the Democratic Party today".

A left liberal Democrat can betray anything and anyone and do.




The Democrats founded the KKK to well, stop blacks freed by the Republicans from being gee, free. Democrats disarmed them, instigated Jim Crow, stopped all attempts at civil rights, until the 1960’s made it expedient to support them, well almost. Instead Democrat social engineering has destroyed whole sections of black society with the lies of welfare, junk Marxist product sodden education and grievance politics. But it sure does keep a permanently mired and thus handy Democrat voting base, eh?


Michael Zak is the author Back To Basics For The Republican Party sent me these great historical facts. Mike reminds conservatives that Republicans can be damn proud of their history, if they research the true one and not the dominant meme of oh I don't know...left liberal Democrat bullshit.

Mikes blog is grandoldpartisan typepad It's swingin'. You can email Mike at "grand_old_partisan@hotmail.com"

You can get more empirical history ammo republicanbasics com.

Here's Michael Zaks piece:

“On this day in 1866, the Republican-majority 39th Congress overrode a veto by the Democrat president, Andrew Johnson, to enact the 1866 Civil Rights Act. Every Democrat in Congress voted against it.

The purpose of the 1866 Civil Rights Act was to defend African-Americans from their Democrat oppressors in the post-Civil War South. There, Democrats had enacted black codes to impose near-slavery on African-Americans who had just been emancipated by the Republican Party's 13th Amendment.

Senator Lyman Trumbull (R-IL) wrote the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which conferred U.S. citizenship on former slaves and other African-Americans. The law guaranteed African-Americans "full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens." Republicans thereby granted African-Americans the right to own property, engage in business, sign contracts and file lawsuits.

This was the first time that Congress overrode a veto of a significant bill. Also, the 1866 Civil Rights Act contradicted the notorious Dred Scott decision, in which the seven Democrat Justices on the Supreme Court had decreed that black people did not have constitutional rights. To prevent Democrats from someday repealing the Act, Republicans later enshrined its provisions as Article I of the 14th Amendment.

Sadly, Democrats defied the 1866 Civil Rights Act and other Republican reforms. Democrat oppression of African-Americans would not be overcome until the 1960's civil rights movement.

Republicans today would benefit tremendously from appreciating the heritage of our Grand Old Party.

Michael Zak is a popular speaker to Republican organizations around the country. He is the author of Back to Basics for the Republican Party, the acclaimed history of the GOP from the Republican point of view. Each day, his Grand Old Partisan blog celebrates 155 years of Republican heroes and heroics. See www.RepublicanBasics.com for more information.

George L. Lyon:

“This is the history you do not get in text books written by for and about Democrats. When I grew up we were taught that the Republicans in the Senate and House in the 1860s and 1870s that accomplished the freeing of the slaves and the passage of the 13th, 14th and 15 amendments that outlawed slavery, applied the bill of rights to the states and guaranteed the right to vote to the freed slaves were "radical" Republicans. I guess that made the Democrats of that era, who passed the Jim Crow laws, that formulated separate and unequal, that disenfranchised and disarmed the freed blacks so that they could be subjugated and lynched, mainstream.

Michael Zak tells the true story of couragious Republicans who valued integrity over expediancy, and who placed their lives and safety at risk for a noble goal. He and his book are to be commended for telling us the story that mainstream academia would rather just ignore.”

Jeff Limon:

"After reading the first few pages of this book, I began to get pretty angry. All of my life I have voted Democrat and this book really chilled me to the bone. I personally feel totally duped. Did you know that every single African-American congressman before 1934 was a Republican? When I heard about the violence perpetrated by Democrats, their invention of the KKK, the "Southern Manifesto" that Southern Democrats in the late 1950s tried to use so that they could argue that Brown versus Board of Education (which forced racial integration into public schools in the South), and the white Democrats lynch mobs that killed hundreds of blacks in places like Colfax Louisiana, it just made me sick to my stomach.

Top it off with Strom Thurmond (Democrat - West Virginia) being a former Ku Klux Klan member, who filibustered against the passage of the civil rights movement to 1964, and you've got wholesale fraud on behalf of the Democrat party. I'm changing my voting registration today. Tomorrow I will be a proud Republican.

M.Lucca:

“Michael Zak's book proves that despite the rhetoric from the far left, the Republican Party has nothing to be ashamed of in its history regarding civil rights.

In fact, Republicans have a great deal to be proud of, as they were on the forefront of all of America's great civil rights triumphs, with the Democrats only being pulled along by public opinion. Zak shows that this history continues to this day, with Republicans leading the charge for TRUE civil rights (economic opportunity, personal responsibility, and the like).

A definite MUST READ for Republicans, free thinking Democrats, and those who believe the hype that the Republican Party has a poor civil rights record. Women and minorities who read this book, beware! Knowing the truth might send you back home to the Republican Party!”

Aaron Z. Gadouas:

"Back to Basics for the Republican Party" is a timely manifesto and historical overview of the ideas that define the Republican Party. As we feel inundated these days with media sound bites and empty symbolism in politics, it is easy to lose sight of the underlying organizing principals on which political parties are formed and how the parties differ from each other.

The author agrues that most Republicans misunderstand or are out of touch with the party's founding ideals and therefore are not successful in promoting the party to a wider audience. He takes us through a tour of what began as "The Party of Lincoln", emphasizing individual freedom under the rule of law. The immediate political outcome was the abolition of slavery and its enforcement by war. The tour concludes by demonstrating how those underlying principals have evolved today--namely, an abhorrence of tyranny worldwide and a continuing vigorous effort to decentralize government by bringing it closer to the people.

The author brings to life the personalities, both old and modern, who shaped the Republican Party. Both history book and political essay, "Back to Basics for the Republican Party" weaves together an impressive amount of facts and anecdotes that will make you think about Republican ideals in new and interesting ways. It is a well-written, lively, and lucid contribution that will be of interest to anyone who wants to better understand the Republican Party and its roots. The book is also peppered with witticisms and "zingers" that will make you cheer or shake your head depending on where you stand.”

And here's a very interesting counterpoint from black Republican Patrick D. John:

"I myself am a Black Republican, so I agree with Mr. Zak that the GOP's history on civil rights has not been fairly told.

However, this book makes the same 2 errors that most GOP loyalists make when discussing Blacks and the GOP: 1) they oversimplify the ideology of the early Republicans and abolitionists. For example, notably missing from Mr. Zak's book are the following facts:

that Herbert Hoover (Republican) was the first president to refuse to address the NAACP's convention, that Carter G. Woodson-the Founder of Black History Month-became so disappointed with the GOP that in the late 1920's he publicly stated that Blacks should stop being blindly loyal to the GOP, that soon after Reconstruction the GOP condoned the formation in the South of racially segregated GOP organizations, called the Lily Whites and the Black & Tans;

that beginning in the 1870's Republican candidates lost elections in some Northern states because the Radical Republicans' idea of perfect equality was not embraced by most Whites, not even by most Republicans; that Lincoln was NOT a Radical Republican, he was a moderate who had ALWAYS discussed freeing the slaves ONLY in conjunction with deporting them to another country, for Lincoln openly declared that Blacks were inferior to Whites;

that after the Civil War the GOP was weak nationally-since the founding of the GOP America has had 4 presidents who won by electoral vote but lost the popular vote, and all 4 were Republicans (Harrison, Hayes, Garfield, and Bush);

that not all Republicans or abolitionists believed in racial equality, in fact most did NOT, they believed ONLY in ending slavery, and even on that issue they disagreed on the reasons, some were against slavery for moral reasons, others because they feared slave revolts, others because slavery competed with White labor, others because they wanted the good farmland used for more than just cotton. 2) they leave out much of how/why Blacks left the GOP in the first place:

Mr. Zak's book does lay blame at the feet of Barry Goldwater, but overlooks the fact that Goldwater's victory in the GOP presidential primary obviusly says something about the views of rank and file Republicans in 1964-national civil rights legislation was clearly not a priority for most Republican voters in 1964, else Goldwater could not have won.

Goldwater was just the icing on the cake. Beginning in the 1870's, the GOP began taking the Black vote for granted precisely because the Democrats were such vicious racists. Mr. Zak's book points out how the Democrats were at one point synonymous with the KKK, but he overlooks the obvious political implication for Black voters-if their only 2 choices were between the GOP and the Klan, it was an easy decision.

Blacks voted for the GOP because they feared voting for the Democrats, this led to the GOP taking the Black vote for granted as the GOP moved further away from civil rights issues in order to attract more White voters, feeling confident that in doing so it would not lose Black voters. Today, it's the Democrats who take the Black vote for granted, because most Black voters are afraid of the GOP-the tables have turned.

As a Black Republican who is pro civil rights, I think what we need is a balanced review of history. This book is not balanced. Throughout history minorities have been used by the dominant group like a political footbal, and Blacks in America are no different. I'm working with some other Black Republicans to prepare a balanced view of Blacks and the GOP told from the Black perspective, not the perspective of a party loyalist."

And here American mentions two of the many great black Republicans in history:

"I really enjoyed reading Back to Basics for the Republican Party. It has so much information that must get out to the black community. It is truly remarkable that I did not learn about Thaddeus Stevens or Charles Sumner until I read the book. Both of these American heroes are likely unknown to most Black Americans, and that is a something that I would love to change. I will do my part! I am telling everyone that I know about the book, many of my friends and relatives will get one as a gift."


Robert B. Sklaroff MD:

"I have read all of the reviews that have been uploaded as of 5/23/2008, and the purpose of this filing is to summarize the points that were made AND to provide a perspective that has not yet been uploaded.

I have been carrying-around this book for a year, having learned about its author after I listened to Michael provide a speech to a Republican group in the Philadelphia suburbs. My only complaint is that it does not easily slip into my pockets, because there is so much concentrated information that I would want to reference during conversations.

It contains more than a "string of pearls"; it conveys "history with an attitude" which renders it easier to recall, and observations therein have subsequently been noted in other sources, notably the strong civil rights record of the GOP that indubitably dates-back to Lincoln...threading throughout the "narrative" that Republicans have generated for ~150 years.

COMMENTS:

Bruce Rheinstein's review serves to reinforce the history-lesson provided by Zak, amplifying and amending; it is engaging itself, and essentially the book is shown to pass muster when it emphasizes the contributions of the Radical Republicans.

Aaron Z. Gadouas's review emphasizes that Zak provided a timely manifesto and historical overview of the ideas that define the Republican Party, vital reading for activists and thinkers.

Michael Miller's review focuses upon the need to show the GOP has been anti-racist, and it recognizes the ability of Zak's book to help "recalibrate GOP compasses."

Former Diplomat observes that this book has been cited in a Supreme Court Opinion (as a DC "cult favorite") because it debunks myths and probes "simple truths." It should be noted that it has a treasure-trove of references, reflecting the extensiveness of the research that yielded it.

American laments that too few blacks appreciate the GOP's civil rights legacy. That the turning-point occurred in 1964 is probed, for Zak provides insight as to how their current D-orientation could/should be countered.

Patrick D. John considers it to be a GOP-Infomercial, claiming it oversimplifies and elides over key-points (some of which are discomfiting); the author aspires to compose a text (as a Black Republican) that emphasizes the former ("Black") more than the latter ("Republican"). His review should be consulted for myriad details that weren't included in the book, although some are more arguable as quasi-facts than are others.

George L. Lyon praises Zak for telling us the story that mainstream academia would rather just ignore, namely, that the Radical Republicans were courageous and accomplished.

PJ Hunger "Peej" praises the book because it renews excitement, corrects the course and calls for an engaging vigor not seen for a terribly long time; regarding the GOP, we can dust it off, polish it up, get it working again and show it off. The pivotal observation, however, is that the book conveys essential truths that are as relevant now as they were when first articulated and implemented.

Publius condemns the book because, to him, it represents a self-fulfilling prophesy. Allegedly, it starts with a premise and then creates supportive facts. As examples, it suggests that stereotypes applicable 100 years ago are no longer relevant. He forgets, however, that ideologies that generated those behaviors have evolved over time...but have not dissipated. The reviewer recommends Gould's "GOP" for history, but he fails to dispel the thrust of Zak's presentation of the GOP's strong Civil Rights legacy.

Jonathan Jenkins considers it to be of textbook quality, best perceived as serving as a compendium of the GOP's rich history and as a motivator for budding activists.

Karen B. portrays it as brilliantly concise, an observation recalls that Hemingway--when discussing "The Old Man and The Sea"--invoked this short-book as a model for how the best writers know what to edit OUT as much as what is necessarily included.

Jorge Roque praises the book for reminding him of why he's a proud Republican.

Ann Kotelman writes (simply/eloquently): "My friends, particularly the Democrats, are calling me a born again Republican. The book is inspiring, informative and cemented my affiliation with the party and my belief in Republican ideals." This captures, assuredly, the experience of most who have experienced Zak's efforts.

A Customer emphasizes both how replete the book is with nuggets and how well it conveys fundamental Republican principles that he tries to convey as often as possible.

S. Gershberg considers it a must-read because, by tracing the history of the Republican party, it show us where the political system needs to go at the start of the millennium. It contains so much fascinating detail that the reader must remember to try to remember all the concepts that it conveys so effortlessly.

Cathie Adams claims the book will put wind under your wings. As timely as the book may appear now to be (pre-Presidential Elections), it also has a timeless quality.

Bill Carroll says it all: "Michael Zak's book, "Back to the Basics for the Republican Party," is at once a splendid history lesson of our nation and an illuminating dialogue of our political system. Mr. ZaK begins with the events and the ideas that gave rise to the Republican Party. He goes on to explain how the fundamental tenets of the party enabled the Republicans to save the Union, rid our country of slavery and lay the foundation for the modern American economy.

Mr. Zak then discusses how the GOP strayed from its principles, allowing the Democratic Party to gain the advantage. Finally, the author provides, through his own incisive analysis, the framework by which the Republican Party can regain the moral and political high ground, and lead America to even greater accomplishments. Nonetheless, this book is neither a dry nor a pedantic study. It is a thoughtful, well-written, compelling and entertaining discourse in the realm of politics. Most importantly, "Back to the Basics for the Republican Party" is a clarion call for the GOP to return to its roots. I highly recommend this outstanding book."

I had planned to encompass all the reviews, but the last one was so concisely correct that it cannot be bested by any other reader."

The pre-fabricated and nuanced mis-Adventures In Paradise of a misunderstood Commie pothead radical.

"Whut? Me a Commie?" Frank Marshall Davis does his famous impression of Charlie Parker sans saxophone. This is surprisingly similar to his even more well known impression of a non-Communist, Communist Party Member. "I'd never belong to a party that would let me be a member!" said Frank at the time. As Frank later explained to those who lack the required sophistication and nuance: "The main reason I joined the Communist Party, was to NOT be a Communist, just like everyone else at the meetings".





“The Innocence Of Frank Not A Commie, Not A Weirdo, Not A Dope Head and Not A Radical Marshall Davis is clear, Comrades! And therefore, Barack Obama is as innocent as a babe. It says so in the blurb he wrote for Bill Ayers book! Where is my Glorious People's shoe?!“ Comrade Khrushchev. [No Relation.]


Dear sports, here we go again. Mark Davis has posted another mountain of non-fascination regards the tedious sequence of events surrounding his Pop, Frank Marshall Davis. And as I never, ever delete comments due to the free speech for all thang, here tis. And it may have to be a bit of a series as this is the smaller one. Gee, I hope I’m small enough!

For Mark it seems, any alleged AIM errors in sequence or attribution apparently mean that while Frank was well, kind of a Communist Party member, he was not a Communist per se! Mmmm. All the way with Left per se.

Ok, fair enough. The facts must be correct, but it doesn't wash for me and the attribution and alleged right wing conspiracy motive is utter balls. It can appear to even the most charitable of mind, that the intent and purpose for Mark Davis, is not to arrive at a clear picture of dear old Dad at all, but to discredit and dismiss ANY and ALL criticism of Frankie, the non-party washing machine, Commo Party man.

Gee, and luckily Mark Davis has never slandered, mis-represented or accussed AIM and Kinkaid of a damn thing and in any way. Phew! I was sooooo worried there for a minute. Oh, he has? Damn man!

So while Frank was a Pinko beatnik agitator and laughable 50’s stoner, he apparently was the fairly respectable and even patriotic kind. Riiight. Nuance.

“I just wanted to help that nice Stalin man!” Ethel Rosenberg.

So Frank’s associate/pal Paul Robeson, who was clearly a self-admitted and proud Stalinist buffoon and useful idiot dupe, and who recommended that Davis go to Hawaii to dig the scene, catch some waves, appear in an Elvis film and oh yes, write for a Commie paper, is er, maybe irrelevant? Ok.

Here's Comrade Paul's freaking beyond repair love letter to Joseph Stalin on Uncle Joe's sadly unpainful death. I kid you not. Now do read this classic Hollywood Pinko crud and have a bucket ready. Paul Robeson is quite plainly a mad, ass licking and stratospheric useful idiot of the profoundly ungrateful and uber-treasonous crimnal stripe. He should have been arrested and shot. Oh yes. After all, he was so in favour of a regime based entirely on the firing squad. What a disgusting fucker.

Note how our Paul NEVER actually stayed in the USSR permanently, but preferred to return, like all Pinko celebrities, to the easy comforts of as he said an "allegedly free West".

"That Old Man River, he don't say nothin'..." Paul Robeson, celebrity shitbag moron extroadinaire.

THIS was the man who according "Professor Gerald Horne, a contributing editor of the Communist Party journal Political Affairs", speaking about Saint Frank, recommended that Frank the allegedly non-Communist nincompoop, go to Hawaii, and not act like a Communist ever...[Dig this vid, kid.]


And the excerpt via AIM: "Professor Gerald Horne, a contributing editor of the Communist Party journal Political Affairs, talked about it during a speech last March at the reception of the Communist Party USA archives at the Tamiment Library at New York University. The remarks are posted online under the headline, "Rethinking the History and Future of the Communist Party."

Horne, a history professor at the University of Houston, noted that Davis, who moved to Honolulu from Kansas in 1948 "at the suggestion of his good friend Paul Robeson,..."

Colonel Neville: And so on. Just be warned that Professor Horne is also a classic Commie shitbag and academic geek who babbles on insanely like the following, and in 2007 yet!:

"...the CPUSA and, indeed, the global movement of which it is a part, has been distorted grievously by the infestation of anti-Sovietism and anticommunism and the opening of these wonderful archives should not only lead to a reassessment of the party but help to push back the right-wing which has profited so handsomely from anti-Sovietism and anticommunism – forces which have brought this nation to the brink of catastrophe..." [!]

Colonel Neville: Dear Professor Horne, you are a stupid cunt and therefore an excellent source of evidence and laughs.

"The Future" of the Commo Party" How about mass resignations and subsequent suicides?

Um, what do Commie’s do exactly? Usually a lot like Frank did. Hey, it’s also a mere endless list of sickening and beyond belief coincidences that virtually everyone important in Barry Hussein’s ugly history is a radical freak, right?

“Look away children! Look away!” Miss Primrose.

And dig, the whole meme is that Davis apparently NEVER, EVER, EVER, NEVER influenced Barack Obama...and yet, Mark Davis is writing from a blog on jeepers, Barry Obama's official site! Ha bloody ha. Shut my mouth and call me Shorty.

Here is a small part of The Current Truth of Comrade Davis as told by Junior Comrade Mark Davis.

"Tsk, tsk..." Mark Davis.

Jr: “Mark has left a new comment on your post "Frankly Marshalling Davis.":

Here are the LIES of fabricated version #1:

Fabricated Version #1: In his report “Obama’s Red Mentor Praised Red Army,” AIM’s Cliff Kincaid claimed: “The House Committee on Un-American Activities (HCUA) took testimony in 1950 from a member of the Honolulu branch of the NAACP, Edward Berman, who referred to "Comrade Davis" as someone who "sneaked" into the NAACP meetings "with the avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line."

Colonel Neville: Er, ok. This news just in from the Mark Davis camp. Communists at Communist meeting apparently never call each other “Comrade”. This is a "Fabrication" spread by the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Boy, I’m glad that’s cleared up. Of course, we Conservatives somehow manage to exert enormous influence and control, by having little to no voice in either Hollywood, the music industry, the MSM, academia, publishing and education etc, etc etc. Amazing really.

Everyone please take notes. Davis was a non-sneaker. A NON-SNEAKER. Got that? He just hung around with regular guy intent. And hey, a wrong attribution. Case dismissed! Frank hollow for a Marshall Davis was a Quaker!

“Hey, can I just help with the sandwiches and coffee? Maybe arrange the chairs? I don’t want to impose. Down with the counter revolutionary running dogs of Imperialism! Oops, did I say that out loud?” Frank not a Communist Davis.

But even to those high on crazy pills, Davis was a Commie minded guy, thus he joined the Party. He was a party dude...

And just as Mark Davis himself has admitted. Or did Frank Davis at some point say “Hey, ya know I was totally wrong about Communism. It sucks shit!”

No, guess not. Ah, Mark says he even gee golly whizz, “criticised Stalin”.

“He used...sarcasm”. The Piranha Brothers. Monty Python.

Ouch. That must’ve been why Stalin died not long after maybe?

“My heart is broken Comrades. Frankie baby says I’m not entirely correct in my brutal methods. I can’t go on!” Laughing Joe Stalin, the cruelly jilted totalitarian Dictator.

Hey Mark, maybe you can let us all know the crushing rejection Frank made of say the Gulag and the subjugation of Eastern Europe? Should be a hoot.

As Mark said, it was the er, “NORM” to be a Pinko artist, musician and poet etc. Ya don’t say? Just like today then. Thus Sean Penn, Kevin Spacey, Harry Belafonte the Bel Air STALINIST and Havana Radio DJ, Naomi Campbell and Oliver Stone etc, etc, etc ad nauseum, all LURV Fidel and Chavez, the worlds number one Che the child killer fan.

Jr drones on: “In this version, Berman supposedly criticized Davis for allegedly sneaking into NAACP meetings, while allegedly having the “avowed intent” of converting the same meetings.

FACTS:

a. Contrary to Kincaid’s claims, Berman’s testimony did NOT claim:

i. Davis “sneaked” into any meeting

ii. Davis attended more than this one meeting

iii. Davis had “the avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line.”

b. Kincaid’s claim is inherently absurd. If a person has “the avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line,” they could hardly “sneak” into a meeting.

Colonel Neville: Ok. One meeting just to help with the chairs. Yes, so Communists are well known for infiltrating as publicly as they can? That’s their policy of course, right? Er, no.

“Comrades, we must be transparent, honest and fair! That’s the Marxist way! We have nothing to hide but the firing squads!” Comrade Beria. [Please note. This is the nice Beria, not the bad Beria! Favourite quip: "I'm gonna Beria! Ha ha!"]

Jr: c. Berman’s letter stated that Davis WAS SUPPORTED BY OTHERS who RECENTLY "sneaked" into meetings "with the avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line. Kincaid misrepresented the others’ purpose as Davis’s purpose.

Colonel Neville: Ok, so all his FRIENDS were Pinko proto-sneakers, but Frank was a decent and reasonable non-Marxist fellow? Got it. Ok, with a series of statements that contradict, not all can be equally true and maybe even none. But many elements can be and can certainly come from other events that are entirely true.

I’ll tell you what’s “absurd”, is the endless diversion into events, sequence and attribution as pure conspiracy and lies as the main story.

As if Frank had another persona, another mentality, other behaviour and goals other than that of a Communist Party member and classic pot headed radical. The angle and tone is consistent that even collating a naturally evolving investigation into an entirely legitimate subject is wrong, and entirely driven by ill motives.

A classic and favourite tactic of Islamist loons, is that they bog you down in endless slicings and interpretations of the Koran etc, all while planning tomorrow's bombing and committing today's atrocity for Islam. But I digress.

What are Mark’s motives for endless diversion, ad hominem and denial of there being anything at all worth noting about Frank? And not just like the incurious and unquestioning fans of Obama, but like say, what was the true intent of Frank Marshall Davis?

Who WAS Frank and what were his life-long and never apparently clearly disavowed goals? They seem damn clear to me. The nonsense of saying he only became a Commie cos’ he appreciated the alleged values of making America “what it could be and for everybody”, is a crock of pure radical shit.

Yeah, Marxism is good for you! Just ignore the turgid Socialistspeak, the gunfire, the screaming and the rivers of blood...

So maybe Frank’s wanted to turn the HACU and the local Commie Club into a Rotary Club, or maybe a Conservative Think Tank? Maybe a nice branch of the Republican Party? Maybe but no, eh? Gee, did Frank vote um, Democrat? Cos' quite Frankly, I for one would be shocked, yes shocked, that a radical Leftist voted for the Democrats!

Davis was apparently just one of millions of such deluded people across the free West. They start with a legitimate grievance of their own or someone else's more often, and sometimes with good intentions. On that particular road to Hell, they rather naturally it seems to me, often become treasonous useful idiots and humourless radical bores. Extrapolating their chip on the shoulder blues into the irrational and nihilistic. No, really, they do.

As Mark Steyn has said, people who "live in a fantasy life completely supported by the system they despise”.

A popular self-justifying two faced posture and fraud of the 1950’s Red and so on, was and is to say "I’m a Communist but I’m not a Stalinist!" No, you’re the productive, honest and Conservative kind of Communist.

Or "I'm a Maoist instead cos’ Mao is so much nicer the way he mass murders an all", or some such stupid combination there of. Stalin, Mao, Che, Pol Pot, Fidel and Che, Ho Chi Minh and Kim Sung ILL etc, are not aberrations of Communism, but the natural result of Communism.

Anyone who is a Commie poophead, or an asshat supporter and sympathising fellow traveller twerp, supports the same goals, methods and attitudes as the aforementioned cavalcade of Commie freaks. There's no alternate Communism. Just as there is no alternate Nazism or Islamism.

“I was a Nazi Party member to make Germany better for everyone, but I was never a Hitlerist!” Hymie Himmler. [No relation]

Tell me what's so good about being a Marxist today in any proven sense? Anything? Guess not. So here's the thing. Anyone who endlessly apologises for A: Frank Marshall, B: Communism, C: Barry Hussein Obama and D: Attacks any and all critics in Leftard conspiracyspeak is full of crap. Frank was full of crap, Obama is bursting with manure and as for Mark Davis? I imagine he can grow splendid roses of the mind too.

Fortunately Frank Davis was apparently a popular but lower to mid level Pinko journalist. Sadly, he clearly did much more than meet und zer greet with the current President Elect, Barry Sotuero Hussein Obama. I note that Mark Davis doggedly stays on his train of thought and answers none of my er, bigger picture conundrum's. Oh well, maybe he finds me as boring as I generally find him.

I need and aspirin or two. Radical political tactics and Left Liberal mindset gives me a bloody migraine, and not in a good way.