Saturday, August 16, 2008

Birchite and Bigot Cliff Kincaid and his racist, anti-communist lies exposed on his own web site

CLIFF KINCAID WROTE: 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?

RESPONSE: Obama didn’t identify “Frank” by his full name in his book because he identified a number of people only by their first names. This is common practice in a memoir. I would think a journalist like Cliff Kincaid should know that. Obama probably did not (and does not) denounce his “communist and anti-American views” because Davis did not reveal any “communist and anti-American views” to Obama. What specific “communist and anti-American views” is Kincaid referrring to?

His demand for fair wages and other benefits for workers?

His demands for equal protection of the laws?

His demands for freedom of the press?

His support for a woman’s right to choose?

His demand for integration of the armed forces?

His support for the integration of the AFL and CIO?

His demand to end restrictive covenants in real estate?

His support for the Fair Employment Practices Act?

His demand for general dismantling of all laws supporting racial segregation?

His demand for an end to laws support anti-Semitism?

His demand for an end to nuclear weapons?

His demand for the rights of soldiers in combat zones to vote in national elections?

His support for a broad United Nations (not just the U.S. and Great Britain forming a world power union)?

KINCAID WROTE: “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.”

RESPONSE: What evidence do you have that Davis was not a positive influence? If the AP’s failure to mention Davis’s affiliation with the CPUSA is a “lie,” then AIM’s portrayal of Davis’s “Red Army” poem as anti-American is ALSO a lie, because AIM failed to mention that the Red Army was an ALLY of the United States when the poem was written. If AIM-speak considers half-truths to be “lies,” then AIM may one of the world’s biggest liars because AIM columns regarding Davis are filled with half-truth’s including the facts that:

-When Davis opposed U.S. entry into WWII, both Congress and the general population opposed U.S. entry into WWII. Failure to mention Davis’s position was the common position was a half-truth, and therefore a “lie” in AIM-speak.

-When Davis was associated with communist-affiliated institutions, other leading African-American writers, such as Richard Wright and Langston Hughes were ALSO associated with communist-affiliated institutions. It was NORMAL for African-American writers to be associated with communist-affiliated institutions for one simple reason. According to The New Red Negro ONLY the Communist left had any significant institutional impact on African-American writing during the 1930s and 1940s. This support was crucial as the institutions that had maintained the New Negro Renaissance faded. And for better or for worse, the leading CPUSA functionaries involved in “Negro work” took a direct interest in African-American cultural production in a manner that was unusual, if not unique. Failure to mention that Davis’s association with communist-affiliated institutions was NORMAL during that period was a half-truth, and therefore a “lie” in AIM-speak.

AIM should be careful about calling the kettle “black.” If AIM’s half-truths are added to AIM’s direct falsehoods, they may set a new record in the Annals of Prevarication.