The hot dog vendor must have had Obama's favorite Dijon mustard

1. It looks like Obama eating my-wallet-on-a-bun.

2. Dude! Don’t bogart that joint!

3. Hee. Well-played.

   P.S. My tomatoes are growing nicely, thanks to the monsoons we’ve been having lately. But shhhhh, don’t tell Stacy. He’ll whip up into some parody of “beauty queen’s physical enhancement is really Obi’s Sister’s tomatoes” or “who needs expense silicone implants when you can grow your own?” silliness and get an Instalanche out of it.

4. dunno why, but that photo always makes me want to throw up on my own shoes. BLECH!!

5. Pingback: Instapundit » Blog Archive » LESSONS FROM DIJONGATE: Seeing how my posts were distorted was not terribly surprising; that is h…

6. Obi’s Sister, I’m suffering horribly with conjunctivitis. It’s all I can do to see the computer screen right now.

7. Well, his mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a homosexual pedophile. So, it’s entirely possible said experimentation took place–although far earlier than even Michelle imagines.
   Nice work.

   1. Cbullitt,

      I think you are correct that Frank Marshall Davis is likely to have had a sexual relationship with Obama when he was a child or teenager. As I recall, Davis boasts in his book Sex Rebel of repeatedly molesting a young girl named Ann with his wife in a three-way. Obama’s mother’s name was Stanley Ann Dunham. And she was 17 and unmarried when she conceived Obama with a much older black man who was already married. It is common for children who have been sexually molested to become sexually active very early. However, I am not sure it is correct to call Davis a “homosexual pedophile.” Davis really seemed to operate as a sexual predator so I don’t think he can be called either homosexual or heterosexual because his sexual orientation was not to a gender but to personality qualities that made someone vulnerable prey. I don’t think the psychological/psychiatric/therapy communities have quite gotten all the way to this idea that bisexuality is an orientation to traits in another person that make them prey to the predator, so this is my original idea: bisexuality is a sexual orientation to prey and the gender of the prey has little relevance in sexually arousing the predator.

      Cynthia

8. The mustard angle is interesting but there’s a super secret part of the story that has been completely, completely supressed. No tape has yet surfaced, but my reliable sources tell me that, along with the Dijon mustard, Obama asked if he could get his dog with….arugula.

9. I had been thinking about the level of angst from the nutroots that had posted on William’s blog, and how they missed the point altogether because of their fear of someone having a dig at their messiah, and it suddenly struck me that 2 female journalists might have had to go change their undies after such an in depth report ROFL

10. and here’s a real treat for a cat lover ROFL
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1179296/What-twitter-The-moment-sleeping-kitten-pecked-awake-cheeky-budgie-wants-play.html?ITO=1490

11. Pingback: Hey, comedians, this is how it works

12. You have certainly opened my eyes up to some new theories. My only hope is that he can open wide and swallow our national debt.

    I love the Graphic.

13. The idea that Davis’ sexual proclivities were about power, regardless of gender, had occurred to me–I just expressed it in terms of the hot dog joke, and probably not well. Thanks for the feedback.

14. Pingback: Cemented Homophia [Dan Collins]

    1. Cemented Homophia, aka Dan Collins:

       Dan, thanks for linking this post at Protein Wisdom and also linking a post and long series of comments at Neo-Neocon from April that also discusses the possibility that Frank Marshall Davis molested both Obama’s mother when she was around 12 and Obama when he was a teen. A heads-up for anyone who checks out the Neo-Neocon link: about halfway through the comment thread, Neo-Neocon busts the commenter Kaleokualoha for concealing his identity as one of Marshall’s sons.

       The topic of the relationship between Obama and Davis is so icky and speculative that I haven’t posted about it, although I have collected a number of pertinent links. To wit, the thread at Neo-Neocon is missing some important background on Davis and Obama that appeared on October 30, 2008, at American Thinker:

       “Dreams from Frank Marshall Davis,” Paul Kengor, American Thinker, 10/30/2008
       and
       “Barack Obama: Red Diaper Baby,” Andrew Walden, American Thinker, 10/30/2008

       There’s also this to consider from Accuracy in Media:

       “Obama’s Red Mentor Was a Pervert,” Cliff Kincaid, Accuracy in Media, 8/24/2008

       I wasn’t entirely clear on why you juxtaposed my comment with speculation on the effect on Carrie Prejean that the tumultuous and lengthy divorce proceedings of her parents — in which both parents accused the other of homosexuality — had on her statement against gay marriage at the Miss USA pageant in April. Were you trying to expose hypocrisy in the Left because you think they approve of the psychoanalysis of Ms. Prejean but will find my analysis one that they will reject because it suggests a dark side of the Obamessiah? I don’t doubt that if anyone in the Left Blogosphere knew I were alive and worth picking on that I would get a flaming comparable to the one Prof. Jacobson received for his three posts about Obama and the Dijon mustard — the ones that inspired this post. Bring it ON, I say!

       But my perception is that the Right Blogosphere has never understood just what it is about Prejean’s pageant answer that is legitimately infuriating: she said we have the choice to marry in the first part of her answer, which is always edited out to make her look smarter and more principled. However, we DO NOT have the choice of same-sex marriage. Not having it is enormously destructive and evenly deadly for millions of lesbians and gays and not everyone is going to be polite about having salt tossed on the wound. The response to Prejean’s self-serving destructivenss and gleeful cruelty in proportion to the HURT AND DAMAGE she caused was actually extraordinarily tempered.

       I do invite all the conservative Tea Partiers and their supporters to contemplate that if the Left punishes them for their extreme rudeness in protesting the policies and actions of Obama-Pelosi-Reid-Dodd-Frank — which they have suffered mightily under lo! these many weeks — in the same way and by the same rationale they have gone after the minority of gay rights supporters who have gone over the top in their hurt and anger about Prop. 8 and Ms. Prejean — then they might change their “Let’s punish the mean, bad people we disagree with for being rude about not wanting their thousands of years of suffering to go on indefinitely” meme to one that is more compassionate and empathic. Well, I can hope, can’t I?

       And the psychoanalysis of the effect of Prejean’s parent’s divorce on her has this going for it: the second part of her pageant answer was crafted to create an image in people’s minds of her parents that their divorce proceedings show is just not true. She lied and got caught.

       My impression of Prejean when I saw her at the National Organization for Marriage press conference at the National Press Club is that she is going to self-destruct if she’s allowed to talk long enough without a script. She does not seem to me to be a person with a strong moral compass. I go into that more at my post here. I think NOM knows she is a screw-up and is setting her up to fail in order to serve their purpose of making her flame-bait. That means NOM is the group that is destroying Prejean.

       Cynthia

15. I seem to recall Larry Sinclair making similar claims before the election and he was poo-poo’d as “not believable”…
    http://redinktexas.blogspot.com/2008/07/larry-sinclair-obamas-bad-penny.html

16. Thanks, Cynthia. Actually, I wasn’t thinking at all that you were one of the people who would scream over psychoanalysis of Obama, but not Ms. Prejean. I was defending your post from those who would attack you for doing what they themselves practice and/or approve.

17. It seems that we have some unhealthy imaginations at work. Frank Marshall Davis was neither a “homosexual pedophile” nor was he Obama’s mentor, as cbullitt claims. Davis was not “likely to have had a sexual relationship with Obama when he was a child or teenager,” nor did he “boast in his book Sex Rebel of repeatedly molesting a young girl named Ann with his wife in a three-way,” as Cynthia claims. The pornography disinformation against Frank Marshall Davis, which exploits an inability to distinguish fact from fiction, is just as heinous as the political disinformation. Further, it suggests that those making such false accusations may be projecting their own libidinous psychological disorders onto Davis.

    Frank Marshall Davis 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. According to the British website, “Mr. Davis (writing as Greene) explains that although he has “changed names and identities…all incidents I have described have been taken from actual experiences.”

    In a 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. 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/).

    There are at least four distinct disclaimers that indemnify Frank Marshall Davis from literal attribution of this novel:

    a. According to dictionary.com, “identity” means “condition or character as to who a person or what a thing is: a case of mistaken identity.” Changing name AND identities means changing names AND other “condition or character as to who a person or what a thing is,” which may include biographical data such as age.

    b. “Taken from actual experiences” does not mean they are accurate representations of actual experiences. It only means they are based on actual experiences.

    c. Edgar Tidwell, the expert on the life and writing of Frank Marshall Davis, says the book is “semiautobiographical,” which (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.”

    d. Further, scandalous memoirs such as “Sex Rebel: Black (Memoirs of a Gash Gourmet)” 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 an honest evaluation, any of these disclaimers should protect the author from literal interpretation. The combination of all four should provide absolute protection from any culpability. Unfortunately, Davis’s accusers are dishonest. Like Mike Nifong, the disgraced ex-D.A. in the Duke lacrosse case, their campaign to demonize their target ignores exculpatory evidence in their reckless rush to judgment. In order to smear Barack Obama through guilt-by-association with Frank Marshall Davis, they are virtually lynching Davis by grossly misrepresenting his character and influence. Such misrepresentation may be symptomatic of the accuser’s own psychological disorder, indicated by projection of the accuser’s own pedophilic fantasies onto the author.

    In “Sex Rebel,” Davis’s Bob Greene (not unlike Nabokov’s Humbert Humbert) hesitates at a pubescent girl’s sexual invitation, but foolishly relents. Like “Lolita,” Davis’s faux foreword is written by a Ph.D impersonator who details the psychological significance of the memoir. Like Nabokov, Davis wanted to write under a pseudonym to shield his reputation, but felt compelled to reveal his authorship. As a result, however, Davis has been posthumously accused of pedophilia, while “Lolita” is “considered by many to be one of the finest novels written in the 20th century.” In 1998, it was named the fourth greatest English language novels of the 20th century by the Modern Library,” despite also being initially dismissed as pornography, according to Wikipedia.

    For objective articles on this issue, please see http://wxxxnews.blogspot.com/2008/10/sex-rebel-black.html and http://iamthelizardqueen.wordpress.com/2008/10/14/the-national-enquirer-wingnuttery-and-autobiographies/#comment-5904

    1. My reply to Mark is that everything he says is A LOT like the replies of the commenter named Kaleokualoha that Neo-Neocon busted as Davis’s son, Mark Kaleokualoha Davis. Coincidence-much?

       Cynthia

18. Look, I’m so bad at this kind of thing that I couldn’t even work up TEH OUTRAGE for Star Trek’s terrible treatment of the Irish.

    http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=14854

    1. Dan,

       Noted!

       Cynthia

19. More of your fertile imagination, Cynthia. Neo-Neocon busted nobody. If you follow Kaleokualoha’s first post links on Neo-Neocon’s comments, Kaleokualoha openly declares the family relationship.

    Now how about addressing the message instead of the messenger, if that doesn’t intrude too deeply into your fantasyland?

20. Recommend you read comments 109 to 122 of http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=14661 for a more accurate assessment of that discussion than Cynthia’s “busted” disinformation. FYI: Here is post #122:

    [QUOTE]
    Comment by Sdferr on 4/3 @ 11:07 pm #

    I just looked back at neo’s post and see that she only just now checked Mark’s links and learned that he’s Davis’ son (and that only after he finally proclaimed on her blog that Frank was his dad). So she’s been disputing right along without being aware who she’s up against.
    [END QUOTE]

    1. Mark,

       The message of Frank Marshall Davis’s sexual perversions and advocacy of Communism was thoroughly addressed. Since he is your father, you just don’t like it.

       Cynthia

21. Yes, “thoroughly addressed” and thoroughly debunked. Zero evidence was even presented that he “advocated communism.” It is regrettable that a member of an unjustly maligned group, such as yourself, would willingly engage in spreading false accusations against anyone else.

    Or are you privy to some heretofore undisclosed information?

    1. Mark,

       Note the following from Paul Kengor’s article in American Thinker, 10/30/2008, linked in my post:

       Davis, who is now deceased, was an African American from the Midwest who had worked as a columnist for the Chicago Star, the communist newspaper of Chicago, a city that had one of the largest CPUSA affiliates, and, in fact, hosted the September 1919 convention that launched the American Communist Party. Though Davis always tried to conceal any communist associations — ironically, Obama supporters have picked up that torch — there’s no question that Davis was a communist, as is immediately evident upon reading his columns, examining his background, or consulting with people in the party (to this day) who confirm he was a communist. The fact that he was at least a lower case “c” “communist” is obvious. It takes a little more digging to find evidence of his membership in CPUSA — but not much. Among the sources that reveal his membership are Davis himself, notably in a letter he wrote to a friend, published posthumously by his biographer, Professor John Edgar Tidwell. “I have recently joined the Communist party,” wrote Davis.

       In 1948, Davis just happened to arrive in Hawaii the same time that leaders of the Communist Party in Hawaii — realizing the limits of national party organs like the Daily Worker and People’s Daily World — established their own weekly newspaper, the Honolulu Record. In 1949, Davis began writing a regular column for the Record, titled, “Frankly Speaking.” This was a key form of agitation work that Davis would do for the party in Hawaii for decades.

       Cynthia

22. Thanks for the post, but it only claims that he was a communist, a label much broader than those who actually advocate communism. You indicated that he “advocated communism,” an exaggeration which creates a straw man unsubstantiated by any empirical evidence.

    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.”

    BTW: Paul Kengor is an unreliable source regarding my father. There is irrefutable proof that he fabricated evidence regarding the 1949 Honolulu NAACP incident based on the Congressional testimony of rookie NAACP board member Edward Berman. He exaggerated Berman’s criticism, then falsely attributed this criticism to the NAACP’s Roy Wilkins. Berman’s testimony was conveniently posted by Cliff Kincaid as Exhibit 4A at http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/hawaii-obama.pdf

    Kengor’s fabrication is just one of four debunked fabrications based on Berman’ testimony. Each has been thoroughly analyzed, with supporting links, at http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/Kaleokualoha/gG5kN7

    1. Mark,

       I approved this reply because I think it is a model of misdirection in order to deceive and manipulate. Your purpose is to scrub your father’s reputation and thereby your own.

       Cynthia

23. Please note that even Paul Kengor wrote that “Davis always tried to conceal any communist associations .” Professor Edgar Tidwell said he was a “closet communist.” He did not advocate communism.

    Frank Marshall Davis rejected collectivism. He was a capitalist. He owned two paper companies, and sold advertising specialties, in Hawaii. He joined the CPUSA because of the professional and social opportunities it presented. He joined the CPUSA during WWII, just as the United States joined the Soviet Union during WWII, not because they shared the delusion of a communist utopia. Each was a marriage of convenience. He joined because membership had its privileges, such as professional and social opportunities. He considered membership in the CPUSA as a “vehicle and tool” because, according to “The New Red Negro” (cited by AIM’s Cliff Kincaid as a source):

    “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.

    Vilifying a writer for continuing to publish in CPUSA-supported publications, when they provided his only significant institutional support, is completely unfair. Langston Hughes, Richard Wright, and Frank Marshall Davis all took advantage of this institutional support.

    Further, as The New Red Negro makes clear, there was no monolithic Stalinist doctrine within the CPUSA: “This is not to say that the impact of the Communist Left on African-American writers in the 1930’s and 1940’s flowed from absolute unity of ideology and practical application of that ideology. As mentioned before, the CPUSA itself, despite the claims of both the party leadership and its most ardent detractors, contained various, often conflicting tendencies. This conflicts appeared within top leadership, where Earl Browder and William Z. Foster and their supporters were frequently at odds. They also surfaced in the regional leadership of important districts that were occasionally, and in the case of southern California frequently, in opposition to the national leadership. Finally, at the rank-and-file level, when leadership debates broke out into the open (as they did in 1929, 1956-1946, and 1956), the were replayed in almost every CPUSA unit, often serving as the vehicle for the expression of a wide range of “unorthodox” political beliefs (ranging from social democratic to anarcho-syndicalist.”

    “A huge proportion of African-American poets (and writers and intellectuals generally) remained engaged with the Communist Left and cultural institutions from at least the early 1930’s until at least the early 1950’s. With the partial exception of the period from the German invasion of the Soviet Union to the end of the Second World War, the CPUSA placed the issue of race and the fight against Jim Crow near the center of all its work.”

    The bottom line is that communist ties were the NORM for African American poets and civil right activists during that period. Such ties did not mean that they internalized Marxist values, much less Stalinist values, even if they were aware of the distinction. To them, the CPUSA provided safe harbor from the ravages of Jim Crow America.

    For those who question whether anyone would join the CPUSA without internalizing collectivist values, examples abound in more recent developments. Russians and Chinese joined their respective Communist parties because membership was important to professional advancement. Mikhail Gorbachev rejected these values in dismantling the Soviet Union. Leaders of the PRC’s capitalist boom are nevertheless pro forma Party members.

    Even today people join some organizations, such as churches and the YMCA, without internalizing their core values because membership has its advantages. I believe everyone will agree that many so-called “Christians” have not internalized Christian values. Some could argue that Stalinism perverted the core values of Marxism, just as the Spanish Inquisition and pedophile priests perverted the core values of Christianity.

    Thank you for keeping an open mind and objectively evaluating the evidence, rather than accepting the deliberate misrepresentation regarding my father spread by professional prevaricators of the blogosphere.

24. Thanks for approving my replies, but what misdirection do you perceive? Isn’t honest intellectual engagement, in pursuit of the truth, the purpose of your blog? Whom have I attempted to deceive or manipulate, to what end, through which statements?

    I am clearly stating that my purpose is to debunk the falsehoods regarding my father, not to portray him or Obama as saints, but my own reputation is hardly an issue. I have already received the highest security clearances of the United States Government before I retired in 1993 after 24 years of service. I only seek the truth, which is the reason I invite anyone to refute the specific misrepresentation I have identified. Thanks again!

    “Have patience awhile; slanders are not long-lived. Truth is the child of
    time; erelong she shall appear to vindicate thee.”
    – Immanuel Kant

Comments are closed.