Paul Kengor

Cliff Kincaid: Gay Activists Are 'Going After Our Kids'

Jerry Kenney and Cliff Kincaid of America’s Survival interviewed Dr. Paul Kengor last week about his new book, and the conversation quickly turned to the issue of the mental health of the unborn future children of gay couples. Kincaid contended that “there’s gotta be a backlash to this kind of thing” from ordinary people who “are gonna feel and sense a revulsion to this; they’re gonna be disgusted by it. Because, let’s face it, they’re going after our kids.”

Kengor, who admitted he does not know with certainty what the future children of gay parents will think, is pretty sure in twenty or forty years they will say, “‘I love my mom and mom’ or ‘I love my dad and dad’ but, yeah, if you really ask me I would have preferred to have had a mom and a dad.’" However, Kengor reminds those who disagree with him that they are also not psychic, but yet they are the ones who are “so insistent on rushing right into it, with no data, no interviews, no nothing.”

“Well, you know, it’s interesting how the left uses the language,” Kennedy responded. Arguing the left “short circuits” common sense, Kennedy claimed that their language is “usually the opposite of what they’re saying.”

Kenney felt that as a straight person, he is being left out of the LGBT movement’s call for greater inclusion: “You know, what is it, the LGBT, and now they got the Q. Well where’s the H, for heterosexuals? I mean we have problems too! I’m tired of being called a bigot.”

Cliff Kincaid Pledges To Fight To The Death Against Gay Marriage Before It Destroys America

Last week, Cliff Kincaid of the conservative groups Accuracy in Media and America’s Survival interviewed Paul Kengor about his new book, “Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage.” Kincaid agreed with Kengor’s theory that gay marriage is an outgrowth of a Communist plot against America, while insisting that there is “a natural revulsion against where this whole thing is going. And [Americans] sense that our country is slipping away. And we can’t let that happen. It’s as simple as that.”

“We’ve got to fight to our deaths to save this great country,” Kincaid asserted.

Kengor hopes that his book will expose the truth about the gay rights movement, as he lamented that liberals are “unwittingly” backing a Communist agenda.

“This has been planned in advance,” Kincaid added. “This is the planned destruction of our country.”

Paul Kengor Hails Effort To Boycott Elton John Music

Conservative author Paul Kengor appeared on Jan Mickelson’s radio program this week to discuss the public’s response to Caitlyn Jenner’s gender transition. Kengor, believing his opinions are representative of Americans writ large, asserted: “I think a lot of people are getting really fed up with a lot of the saturation on marriage, on transgenderism, and all these other things. And the Bruce Jenner situation just strikes a lot of people as weird; they don’t want to hear it. They don’t want to deal with it. They’re kind of fed up with it.”

Mickelson, similarly “fed up” with the media “trying to play with our brains over this,” responded that “there’s two different elements to it, Dr. Kengor, and I bet you would agree with this. One is, as I said, the freak show part of it. But the other side is the sense that there are people who are making up and serving this stuff up in order to legitimize or mainstream, or to rewrite the social script.”

Bravely resisting such LGBT indoctrination, Kengor wondered if Jenner’s transition will eventually be revealed as “sort of a farce.” Even if Caitlyn Jenner is not lying about her transgender identity, Kengor says, he still upset about the “juggernaut that’s going on in the culture to redefine literally everything from marriage, to family, to sexuality itself,” especially because we are “dealing with a very tiny minority of people, and they represent a maximum three percent of the population are homosexual, and an even tinier percentage of those actually want to get married, and then a much tinier number still want sex change operations.”

Concerned for the minds of our youth, Mickelson argued they “totally get worked over by a disproportionate amount of content that deals with this statistically insignificant group of people, and you get they’re just playing us. It’s programming.”

“People really are sheep,” Kengor continued, pointing to a Wells Fargo ad about a lesbian couple adopting a deaf child as “a carefully crafted piece of propaganda.”

Mickelson, questioning whether Franklin Graham’s boycott of Wells Fargo over the ad is the right response, asked for Kengor’s sage advice. While Kengor claimed he did not know whether Graham took the right approach or not, he did share the “really interesting thing that happened a few months ago” when “Elton John called out two Italian designers, Dolce and Gabbana, who are gay men – they’re gay designers, fashion designers. And they criticized his adopting of children.”

In response, “Elton John led a bunch of gay marriage brigades  to a boycott of Dolce and Gabbana products. And Dolce and Gabbana just responded by saying ‘listen, ah, we simply believe that every child should have a mother and a father and be brought into a family. We’re gay too,’ they were saying to Elton John.”  Kengor praised the response of the Italian parliament, who supposedly said “‘well let’s boycott all Elton John music.’ And Elton John got his back up about that.” “But,” concluded Kengor, “if you’re gonna do it to one side, then maybe the other side oughta do it to you!”

Right-Wing Pundits Rail Against Gay Military Leaders

During his remarks at the Pentagon’s celebration of LGBT Pride Month on Tuesday, Brig. Gen. Randy S. Taylor, who has served in the Army for 27 years, introduced his husband to attendees. Predictably, Taylor’s remarks and other speeches by LGBT service members did not go over well with the far-right, including talk show host Michael Savage, who on Tuesday blasted the Pride event and even managed to draw a connection to ISIS.

“So this is the world we’re living in,” Savage sighed. “This is what Obama has done to America, this is what he has done to the military. A man, a general now, introduces his husband at an event like this. Do you have any idea why ISIS is insane as they are? Do you have any idea that you are looking at two sides of a coin here? You see a ninth-century view of the world from a point of view of ISIS, and you see a view of the world that is so warped and so accepted in America as the norm, that most people’s heads are spinning around the world not understanding how a super power became a ‘stupid power’ in one generation.”

Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy In Media was similarly enraged, taking to BarbWire to castigate “Obama’s Orwellian Armed Forces”:

Indeed, the “wife” or “husband” of a top U.S. general was on display during the Pentagon gay pride ceremony on Tuesday, as reported by Rowan Scarborough of The Washington Times. He noted that Brigadier General Randy S. Taylor introduced his husband, Lucas, at a Pentagon event on Tuesday. Another top Pentagon official, Air Force General Counsel Gordon O. Tanner, also has a husband.

In Obama’s Orwellian Armed Forces, two men make a marriage, even if one takes the title of “wife” and the other “husband.” Or, perhaps, both are husbands. Who knows? I may have to consult the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association for the latest instructions on the correct terminology.



It appears that over the past several years, Obama has been acting as a seamstress, weaving things into the fabric of America that didn’t exist until he took office.

Left behind in the wake of this exercise in building a new nation are the remnants of the old America—traditional values, a strong military, and a constitutional system based on free enterprise and limited government.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins reacted to the event by asking members of his group to pray for the “good soldiers” who, he says, are facing discrimination because the Obama administration is “catering to” gay service members:

Back during the congressional debate over DADT, the military's service chiefs were promised that the Equal Opportunity guidelines would not change -- which, like many other assurances, has turned out to be a bold-faced lie that greased the wheels of repeal. As we've witnessed in the four years since, once the camel's nose was under the tent, the dominos started to fall. Under an affirmative action-type system, what troops do in the bedroom will transcend what they do in battle when it comes to key personnel decisions. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that the military will start catering to gays, lesbians, and transgenders at the expense of good soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. As they have with every incremental change, activists will leverage this new standing as a way to demand access and force affirmation.



Faith and military service have been an inseparable piece of the American fabric for centuries. And to watch that fabric unravel at the hands of a radical few is painful -- but not irreparable. Courage, the same kind that led the great men and women of this country to put on their uniform, is needed more now than ever. Pray for our troops -- not only that they would have the fortitude to fight the enemies abroad, but the agenda within. (emphasis added)

WorldNetDaily, a far-right outlet, spoke about the event with conservative writer Paul Kengor, who said that it denigrated religion and lamented that same-sex relationships are no longer subject to discrimination in the military:

He told WND: “What you’re seeing here is the Left’s and Obama’s fundamental transformation of the military. This is the cultural revolution and long march through America’s most cherished institutions that the radical left, particularly the cultural Marxists, have long sought. This is a takedown.

“They were very shrewd. They understood that once you captured culture via education, media, and Hollywood, the rest would fall in due course. And as Americans become increasingly secular and individualistic and relativistic, they’ve been fairly easy prey. The left took the public schools, the universities, media and social media, Hollywood, and now the Boy Scouts and even the military.”

As evidence of this deliberate campaign, Kengor cited the media’s celebration of Bruce Jenner’s transformation to “Caitlyn” and the recent spate of television shows targeted at children and young people celebrating transgenders.

Kengor observes: “I must say that I’m tempted to congratulate them. They’ve worked long and hard and patiently at this. Unfortunately, it’s just such a shame because they’re ruining what was once a great country. The left laughed at Ronald Reagan’s description of America as a Shining City Upon a Hill. Well, they can take comfort in the fact that it ain’t no Shining City no more.”

Kengor believes military culture is simply following the same cultural trends as the rest of society. He notes homosexuality and other sexually deviant behavior was once seen as a reason to deny a security clearance. However, as public morality has shifted, Kengor argues it is impossible to expect the military to remain permanently aloof from society.

“As for military men openly acknowledging gay ‘husbands’ – hey, why not? Once upon a time in America, such a spousal arrangement would have been a huge security risk inviting instant possibility of blackmail,” he said.

“But that’s no longer the case in a culture and country where behavior like this is celebrated as a joyous expression of liberation and self-expression. In the new fundamentally transformed America, these two soldiers are no longer security risks; they’re cultural icons. They’re the new heroes. They are the new G.I. Joes.”

Kengor warns Americans the new sexually progressive military is unlikely to produce the kinds of legendary military heroes prior generations of Americans once idolized. Indeed, Kengor says many heroic Americans would find no place in the armed services of today.

“I guess I’ll be the one to ask the politically incorrect but obvious question: What would George Patton think of this? Of course, we all know that he was a mere hate-filled homophobe whose abiding anti-marriage-equality bigotry should have forever disqualified him from disserving our military.”

More importantly, said Kengor, the transformation of the military into a pro-homosexual and pro-transgender force is only a step toward what he sees as the left’s final goal of driving religion entirely out of public life.

“Marriage is within their grasp. What’s next? The greatest foe of all: God and religion. A victory there would be the secular left’s ideological apotheosis.” (emphasis added)

Religious Right Groups Warn Gay Boy Scout Leaders Will Sexually Molest And Recruit Boys Into Homosexuality

Even as the Religious Right’s favorite reality TV family is rocked by a sexual abuse scandal, the American Family Association is urging its members to pull their sons from the Boy Scouts out of fear that gay troop leaders will sexually molest them and recruit them into homosexuality.

Former AFA official Bryan Fischer, who hosts a daily program on the organization’s radio network, called Boy Scouts head Robert Gates’ support for admitting gay troop leaders “a disaster, a moral catastrophe.” If gay men are allowed to lead Boy Scout troops, he said, “It’s no longer going to be Boy Scouts of America, it’s going to be Gay Pedophiles Scouting For Boys”:

The AFA’s Randy Sharp told the organization’s OneNewsNow news outlet today that lifting the ban on gay troop leaders would present a “clear and present danger” to boys and that there for parents should “immediately remove their sons” from the organization:

He was hinting at a policy revision to allow open homosexuals to act as leaders and mentors to scouts.

Randy Sharp, director of Special Projects at the American Family Association, says the Boy Scouts are playing with a "clear and present danger" and parents should be aware.

"We would urge all parents to immediately remove their sons from the Boy Scouts of America," Sharp, speaking for the pro-family group, tells OneNewsNow.

He says homosexual leaders are poised to influence boys about their sexuality and their presence subjects boys to opportunities for sexual abuse by their trusted leaders.

John Stemberger, head of the rival organization Trail Life USA, similarly warned that such a “tragic” move by the Boy Scouts would endanger “the safety and security of its boys” and even allow “the homosexual agenda to infiltrate the church”:

John Stemberger, chairman of the board for Trail Life USA, said in a statement that Trail Life is "saddened" by the Boy Scouts' announcement.

"It is tragic that the BSA is willing to risk the safety and security of its boys because of peer pressure from activist groups," he said.

Many churches that sponsored Boy Scout troops also dropped their support and Sharp says Gates' announcement is an "opportunity for the homosexual agenda to infiltrate the church."

Meanwhile anti-gay activist Michael Brown told WorldNetDaily that allowing gay Boy Scout leaders not only “opens the door for sexual predators,” it also “opens the door for gay boys to be flirting with straight boys under the auspices of the Boy Scouts’:

Michael Brown, who holds a Ph.D. from New York University and has researched and written a number of books on homosexuality, says he is not surprised by the Scouts.

“I said from the start that gay activists would not stop at having openly homosexual boys in the Boy Scouts, but now it’s openly homosexual leaders.”

Brown, whose books include “Can You Be Gay and Christian?” and the upcoming “Outlasting the Gay Revolution: Where Homosexual Activism Is Really Going and How to Turn the Tide,” believes if the Boy Scouts accept openly homosexual leaders, they will cease to be a positive moral force in the lives of American boys.

“This sets a wrong role model for these kids,” Brown told WND.

Yet, Brown says parents should have further concerns.

“This opens the door for sexual predators, a real danger, and it opens the door for gay boys to be flirting with straight boys under the auspices of the Boy Scouts,” he said.

Americans for Truth About Homosexuality’s Peter LaBarbera, for his part, told OneNewsNow that by allowing gay leaders, the Boy Scouts would “promote the acceptance of sexual perversion”:

Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality says the presence of open homosexuals will destroy the scouting organization.

"Because you cannot be a wholesome organization and promote the acceptance of sexual perversion at the same time," he warns.

As Brian wrote earlier today, evangelist Franklin Graham has warned that the move “would put young, innocent boys at risk,” while conservative author Paul Kengor said that a lack of “courage” from the Boy

Conservative Author: Voters 'Really Screwed Us Up Big-Time' By Ignoring Obama's 'Extremely Unusual' Upbringing

Joe Miller, the onetime Alaska GOP Senate candidate who is now the host of a fringy radio program, brought on Grove City College professor Paul Kengor this week to discuss Kengor’s book discussing President Obama’s connections to a childhood family friend, Frank Marshall Davis, who Kengor contends mentored the president and instilled in him a communist worldview.

“It’s pretty amazing that we’ve got a guy sitting in the Oval Office that was by his own admission mentored at least a dozen times by a card-carrying member of the Communist Party,” Miller said. “And then you combine with that his childhood experience growing up in Indonesia.”

“It’s a verified report, his mom was invited to a party of ex-pats in Indonesia and she declined, saying ‘those aren’t my people.’ And that was the environment that our current president was raised in,” Miller claimed. (In fact, Obama recalled in his memoir “Dreams From My Father” that his mother argued with her husband Lolo Soetoro about attending his “company dinner parties,” saying that his American colleagues were “not my people”; she wasn’t referring to Americans in general.)

“Yeah, that’s right,” Kengor agreed. “And again, the people listening, especially any liberals who are listening who don’t like any of this, find for me any other president on the right or the left, Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, who has an upbringing like this. I mean, there flat-out aren’t any. This is extremely unusual.”

Kengor added that Rudy Giuliani was right when he questioned whether the president loves America.

“So that’s why someone like Rudy Giuliani, who got in a lot of trouble for this a few weeks ago, when he comes out and everybody’s scratching their heads and perplexed about why Obama acts the way he does toward the Iranians, toward the Israelis, why he won’t mention the words ‘radical Islam’ together, why has he kind of curious, baffling policies that are hard to understand,” he said. “Well, what Rudy Giuliani said was exactly right.”

Later in the interview, Kengor took particular issue with “Sex Rebel,” an erotic novel thought to have been penned by Davis.

“You can’t make this stuff up,” he said. “This is a really weird, really strange, really bad environment, and the American people really screwed us up big-time in electing somebody and not caring about any of this radical stuff in his background.”

Kengor: People Aren't Mourning Shirley Temple's Death Because They're 'Too Obsessed With Miley Cyrus And Gay Marriage'

Paul Kengor is hoping to create a new faux-scandal surrounding Shirley Temple Black’s passing.

Writing in the perpetual-outrage-machine WorldNetDaily, Kengor asserts that Americans now ignore or actively dislike the child star-turned-ambassador because she didn’t “pole dance or ‘twerk,’” and now they refuse to mourn her appropriately.

“Our culture is too obsessed with Miley Cyrus and gay marriage to give proper recognition to [Temple Black],” Kengor writes, leaving us to wonder who exactly is criticizing the late actress.

I learned only yesterday that Shirley Temple, the iconic child actress, died earlier this week at age 85. Reports on her death were easy to miss. I went through my usual scan of various websites and saw nothing. I fortunately caught a buried “Shirley Temple, R.I.P.” by a writer at a political website.

I was dismayed by the sparse reaction to the loss of this woman who lived a great American life. Had Shirley Temple died 50 years ago, or even 30 years ago, the country would have stopped. People everywhere would have paused to give Temple her due. It would have been the lead in every newspaper.

But not today. Our culture is too obsessed with Miley Cyrus and gay marriage to give proper recognition to a woman who was one of the most acclaimed, respected, and even cherished Americans, a household name to children and adults alike.



In the 1934 classic, “Bright Eyes,” Shirley played a five-year-old who lost her father in an airplane crash and then lost her mother. She is comforted by loving people who would do anything for her, including her godfather, who is identified as just that. The godfather behaves like a true godfather. The movie includes constant, natural references to faith, never shying from words like God, Heaven, and even Jesus—verboten in Hollywood today.

Today’s sneering secular audiences would reflexively dismiss the film as Norman Rockwell-ish. To the contrary, the movie is hardly sugar-coated. Just when your heart is broken from the death of sweet Shirley’s dad, her mom is killed by a car while carrying a cake for Shirley on Christmas day.

That doesn’t remind me of any Norman Rockwell portrait I’ve seen.

What such cynics really mean is that the film isn’t sufficiently depraved for modern tastes. Shirley doesn’t pole dance or “twerk.” She doesn’t do a darling little strip tease for the boys while singing “Good Ship, Lollipop.” The references to God are not in vain or in the form of enlightening blasphemy. And the movie has a happy, not miserable, ending.

Come to think of it, maybe this isn’t a movie for modern audiences!

For 80 years, Shirley Temple’s bright eyes brightened the big screen. They reflected what was good and decent in this country. She embodied what made America great, and she brightened our lives in the process.

Kengor: Satan Duped Gay People Into Supporting Marxist Marriage Equality

Grove City College professor Paul Kengor, author of Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century, has more to say on the issue of duping in a WorldNetDaily column published yesterday.

Kengor claims that progressives have “long been hell-bent on taking down the family” and “at long last seem to have found the vehicle to make it happen: gay marriage.” In promoting marriage equality, Kengor argues, are pursuing “totalitarianism” with the “unwitting support of a huge swath of clueless citizens and voters”:

“Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.”
– Karl Marx, “The Communist Manifesto”

That quotation from Karl Marx appears in his 1848 “Communist Manifesto.” Yes, even way back then, the extreme left was looking to abolish the family, with marriage (the center of the family) specifically in its sights. Really, it’s a battle that goes back to the Garden of Eden, where a sinister force first tried tear asunder the male-female union the Creator had ordained. Fortunately, better angels prevailed, including Natural Law and common sense, which, by tradition and experience, enabled civilization to keep male-female marriage and the traditional family together.

Nonetheless, that hasn’t deterred the far left, which has long been hell-bent on taking down the family. Leftists have made their arguments and tried different tactics, but they at long last seem to have found the vehicle to make it happen: gay marriage. Once advocates of gay marriage succeed in redefining marriage as anything but one man and one woman, there will be no end to the redefinition. The current liberal/progressive standard that consulting adults who love each other ought to be entitled to “marriage rights” cannot, by logical consistency, prohibit polygamous marriages, group marriages and even inter-family marriages (mother married to son or daughter or stepson or stepdaughter, dad to son or daughter or stepson or stepdaughter). By the left’s new insistent standard for what rises to the level of “marriage,” any and all of these are fair game. Liberals in their hearts know this; it’s undeniable. It will be a mess – a mess of marriage.

And what will have initiated this fundamental transformation of this onetime pillar of human civilization? Again, the answer is this altogether entirely new 21st century phenomenon called “gay marriage.”

This is an exciting time for extreme leftists. They are genuinely transforming human nature. (That, by the way, is the textbook definition of totalitarianism: to transform human nature.) And they’re doing it with the unwitting support of a huge swath of clueless citizens and voters.

Kengor includes in this “huge swath of clueless citizens and voters” gay people themselves, who he claims are “being used, duped, by a deeper, sinister force” and have been “enlisted in the radical left’s unyielding centuries-old attempt to undermine the family”:

I recently got an email from a Townhall reader responding to one of my articles on gay marriage. He was once part of the “gay left.” He told me that most gay people, who are either not political at all or nowhere near as political as the far left, have no idea how their gay-marriage advocacy fits and fuels the far left’s anti-family agenda, and specifically the far left’s longtime take-down strategy aimed at the nuclear family.

The emailer is exactly right. Most of the gay people I have known are Republicans, not leftists. Generally, I’ve always had no problem easily dialoguing with gay people, though it’s now getting more difficult, as liberals are doing their usual bang-up job convincing a certain group (this time gays) that I as a conservative Republican hate them. Even when socially liberal – and, even then, mainly on matters like gay rights – the gay people I’ve met have been economic conservatives. But in signing on the dotted line for gay marriage, they have also, whether they realize it or not (actually, they don’t), enlisted in the radical left’s unyielding centuries-old attempt to undermine the family. They are being used, duped, by a deeper, sinister force. For that matter, so are Republicans and “conservatives” who support gay marriage, so are libertarians, and so are the independents/”moderates” swimming (as they usually do) with the cultural tide.

Speaking of whom, here’s a quick news flash: There’s nothing conservative or moderate about suddenly redefining the oldest institution in the history of humanity, especially with an idea not even as old as my Windows phone. Sorry, folks, but that’s radical, extreme; that’s the kind of thing radicals and extremists do.

What kind of radicals and extremists? That brings me back to our pal Karl Marx and his loyal followers.

But it’s not just gay people who have been “duped” by the gay marriage agenda! Kengor claims that President Obama too has been tricked by communists into supporting marriage equality:

The 1960s were a huge boost to the destruction of traditional marriage in the West. In radical circles in the ’60s (and into the ’70s), “smashing monogamy” was the buzzword; it was all the rage. For an enlightening and sickening read on this, get a copy of the late Larry Grathwohl’s classic “Bringing Down America: An FBI Informer with the Weathermen.” Grathwohl, who just died last summer, had penetrated the Weathermen in the 1970s. Day after day for month upon month, this Vietnam vet and war hero had to buddy around with Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn and crew. His horrible task meant doing what they did, living like they lived. A thread throughout Grathwohl’s account is how the Weathermen – who, of course, were communists – were hell-bent on abolishing monogamous marriage, which they viewed as a repressive remnant of male and white supremacy.

How ironic that Ayers and Dohrn would come to know and work with Barack Obama, serving on boards with him in Chicago and infamously giving him their political blessing from their Hyde Park living room in 1995. And even more ironic, Obama, who today is a dupe for what Ayers and Dohrn once recklessly pursued, is, by all accounts, a good husband committed to monogamous marriage.

Kengor concludes that in marriage equality the left has at last found its “wrecking ball” and its “Trojan horse for its longtime goal of destroying traditional marriage and the traditional family.” This is all “unnecessarily divisive,” he claims, because “if gays and their supporters had simply pushed for some form of civil unions or partnerships, rather than insisting on literally redefining marriage – smashing and changing its very meaning – none of this acrimony we’re seeing now would be occurring.” But, of course, “that’s what the Marxists and the radicals have always done: divide and destroy.”

And yet, even then, having survived the ’60s radicals, the communists, the Soviets, Karl Marx and all else, the core notion of marriage as being between one man and one woman remained intact in America. It was the ideal. It was the standard. It was the definition of marriage. It hung on. It prevailed. Battered and beaten, it was not defeated.

Could anything break it? Could anything cut it down?

Alas, yes. The answer is finally upon us. The left, in the West generally and America specifically, has found its hammer and its sickle to smash and undercut marriage. Under the banner of “gay rights” and feel-good slogans like “tolerance,” “freedom,” “marriage rights” and “equality,” and, on the flip side, accusations of intolerance, bigotry, “hatred” and “homophobia” slung at opponents, the left has seized upon gay marriage with a downright stunning and relentless abandon. The left has its wrecking ball.

The far left has finally found its Trojan horse for its longtime goal of destroying traditional marriage and the traditional family. Advocates of gay marriage are now dupes in that deeper process, whether they know it or not.

And sadly, it’s all so damned unnecessary. As one thoughtful liberal told me, if gays and their supporters had simply pushed for some form of civil unions or partnerships, rather than insisting on literally redefining marriage – smashing and changing its very meaning – none of this acrimony we’re seeing now would be occurring. This is all so unnecessarily divisive. Yet, that’s what the Marxists and the radicals have always done: divide and destroy. And now, they have gay-rights supporters unwittingly enlisting in their mission.

So what’s the source of this gay-rights totalitarian communist wrecking ball, Kengor asks. “Is it liberals, socialists, or ‘progressives’? Or is it something even darker, deeper, older, roots as old as the Garden of Eden, and more sinister?”

Alas, I must ask: Who or what is truly the ultimate source of the duping? Is it the communist left? Is it what we can only generally call the extreme or far left? Is it liberals, socialists, or “progressives”? Or is it something even darker, deeper, older, roots as old as the Garden of Eden, and more sinister? Is it really anything new?
 

Kengor: ‘I Feel Bad for Obama’ Because He Didn’t Have a ‘Wholesome, Norman Rockwell Upbringing’

Historian Paul Kengor has been doing a circuit of right-wing talk shows, promoting his new book, “The Communist” which ties President Obama to a childhood family friend, the labor activist and writer Frank Marshall Davis. Although Kengor refuses to comment on filmmaker Joel Gilbert’s hypothesis that Davis is actually the president’s biological father, he argues that a direct line can be drawn between Davis’ Communist writings and the president’s support of universal health care, advocacy for the middle class, and even his “Change” and “Forward” slogans.

In an interview with Janet Mefferd this week, Kengor painted Davis as a sinister and strange influence on the young Obama’s life. Echoing Mike Huckabee’s accusation that the president has a “different worldview” because he grew up with “madrassas” rather than “going to Boy Scouts,” Kengor marveled that Obama’s grandfather chose Davis as a mentor for his grandson rather than “a Boy Scout troop master, a little league coach.” Not only that, but Obama’s grandfather and Davis “would even smoke dope together.”

“So I tell people, I honestly feel bad for Obama. This wasn’t exactly a wholesome, Norman Rockwell upbringing,” he added.

Kengor: In 1970, Stanley Dunham was looking for a black male father figure, mentor, role model for his grandson because the father was gone. So, right there, Janet, you or I, we have sons, grandsons, we’d probably pick as a mentor a boy scout troop master, a little league coach.

Mefferd: Yeah, someone upstanding.

Kengor: I mean, to think that you’d pick a card-carrying member of Communist Party USA, called to Washington to testify on his quote-unquote Soviet activities by the Democratic-run Senate Judiciary Committee, is kind of remarkable and kind of revealing.

Mefferd: Sure.

Kengor: But that’s who Stanley Dunham picked. And Stanley Dunham and Frank Marshall Davis were real close. They’d play cards together, Scrabble, drink together. One person named Donna Weatherly Williams, who was there when Dunham introduced Obama to Davis in 1970, says that Davis and Dunham would even smoke dope together.

Mefferd: Oh boy.

Kengor: And, I mean, here you’ve got, at that point Frank Marshall Davis would have been about 65 years old. So I tell people, I honestly feel bad for Obama. This wasn’t exactly a wholesome, Norman Rockwell upbringing.

Mefferd: No, awfully dysfunctional.

Kengor: Very dysfunctional, very.

Later, Kengor revisited the right-wing meme that President Obama somehow hates Winston Churchill because he removed George W. Bush’s bust of Churchill when he redecorated the Oval Office. This hatred of Churchill, according to Kengor, could very well have been instilled by a drunken rant of Frank Marshall Davis:

Kengor: If you would have asked me five years ago, or anybody in America five years ago, name one American who doesn’t like Winston Churchill…

Mefferd: Now we know!

Kengor: Nobody, yeah. Then suddenly in January 2009, well we have one: Obama. And now we know of another: Obama’s mentor. And actually, I should add, as a Cold War historian, I did know of Americans who didn’t like Churchill. It was members of Communist Party USA and the Daily Worker. So Davis was towing the Soviet line, the Communist Party line. Does this mean that Obama doesn’t like Churchill because of Davis? I can’t say that for sure, but I mean these guys met many times together, at least over a dozen times together, and late evenings. And you know Davis was always very political, always talking about politics, drank a lot, could be very incendiary in his comments. And I’m sure that Obama must have heard a few diatribes against Winston Churchill by Frank Marshall Davis.

 

Kengor: Obama 'Change' Platform Appeared 'Almost Verbatim' in Frank Marshall Davis Column

Grove City College historian Paul Kengor had the good fortune this year to release “The Communist,” his biography of President Obama’s early mentor Frank Marshall Davis, just as director Joel Gilbert started promoting “Dreams From My Real Father,” a mysteriously well-funded film claiming that Davis was in fact Obama’s biological father. Gilbert has not only helped boost interest in Kengor’s object of study, he has succeeded in making Kengor by far the most reasonable person on the Right’s Frank Marshall Davis beat.

In an interview with Phyllis Schlafly on Eagle Forum Radio this week, Kengor declined to comment on the veracity of Gilbert’s “real father” hypothesis. But like Gilbert, Kengor is convinced that Davis was a bigger influence on Obama’s thinking than the mainstream media will admit. One example, he told Schlafly, are Obama’s 2008 campaign slogan of “Change” and his 2012 slogan of “Forward,” in which he sees “remarkable” similarities with Davis’ writing. He points to a 1946 column by Davis which contains “almost verbatim the Obama platform for 2008”:



Schlafly: I want to be clear about this, Paul. Nobody’s saying President Obama is a Communist, but there’s no question about the man who had the biggest influence on his life, Frank Marshall Davis. He was a real, honest to goodness Communist who had a membership card issued by the Communist Party. And in those days, a certain number of people actually did that. But today, when you read and hear Obama’s speeches, it’s kind of like it’s an echo of the many things that Frank Marshall Davis wrote in communist publications. What are some of those, and do they remind you of Frank Marshall Davis and you kind of think those are wordings that, goals that kind of hung around in his subconscious for years?

Kengor: They do, Phyllis, they remind me very much so of Frank Marshall Davis. And I have to say, as a scholar, I can’t say that, ‘Well, Obama said A and that’s because Davis believes in B.’ But, well, you look at these things and they’re remarkably similar. The constant use of class warfare, of class rhetoric. Some of these seem to be beyond the sort of standard similarities that you would see, just because Obama and Davis are both on the left. I’ll give you just another example. Obama, of course, ran under the mantra of ‘Change’ in 2008, ‘Hope and Change.’ Well, the very first column that Frank Marshall Davis wrote for the Chicago Star…

Schlafly: A Communist paper.

Kengor: Yes, a Communist paper. This is the kick-off column, and he wrote a piece, this was July 6, 1946, and it was called “Those Radicals of ’76.” And in that column, Frank Marshall Davis talked about the importance of advancing, quote, ‘fundamental change,’ unquote, in America. America needs to be ‘transformed through fundamental changed.’ And that’s almost verbatim the Obama platform for 2008. And Obama’s 2012 campaign slogan, which is simply, ‘Forward,’ I found on the front page of the Chicago Star, very top, right below the masthead, Frank Marshall Davis using that same slogan. One of them says, ‘Bravely Forward!” exclamation mark. So, could this just be a coincidence? Yeah, sure I guess it’s possible that it’s a coincidence. But you look at all the long list and the rhetoric and you look at that and you say, ‘Well, it seems like it might be more than just a coincidence.’

Author of Obama Exposé Repeats Debunked Churchill Bust Myth, Says Churchill ‘Rolled Over in his Grave’

Grove City College professor Paul Kengor is out with a new book, The Communist, which examines President Obama’s relationship with his grandfather’s friend Frank Marshall Davis, who has become the nexus of several right-wing conspiracy theories.

In an interview with American Family Radio’s Sandy Rios this week, Kengor went into detail about the “amazing” similarities between Davis and Obama, including what he claims is their “hate” for Winston Churchill. Kengor and Rios went on to recount the favorite right-wing story that “one of the first things” Obama did as president was remove a bust of Churchill from the Oval Office and send it back to England.

Kengor imagines that when this imaginary diss of the British leader took place, “Churchill rolled over in his grave” and “Frank Marshall Davis leapt up in his grave and laughed and saluted.”

Kengor: Well, I dug into the Chicago Star writings, the Honolulu Record writings, and you see here in Frank Marshall Davis a man who constantly bashed Wall Street, excess profits, capitalism, the rich, GOP tax cuts, General Motors, was calling for taxpayer funding of public works projects and universal healthcare, was trashing Winston Churchill. I mean, here’s a thought for you: name two Americans who hate Winston Churchill. Well, I couldn’t have done that five years ago. Now I can give you two: Barack Obama and Frank Marshall Davis. The similarities are amazing.

Rios: Well, and evidenced by, you know, one of the first things Barack Obama did, you and I both know but others might not, that he removed the bust of Winston Churchill from the White House. Sent it back to Great Britain!

Kengor: Yeah

Rios: Unbelievable!

Kenger: Unbelievable. Unbelievable and so many Americans just yawned when that happened. I mean, Churchill rolled over in his grave when that happened. Frank Marshall Davis leapt up in his grave and laughed and saluted when that happened, because Davis despised Winston Churchill, called him, like Harry Truman, called him a ‘fascist,’ a ‘racist,’ an ‘imperialist,’ a ‘colonialist,’ every name in the book. And to imagine that today, Frank Marshall Davis must be looking at the results of November 2008 and seeing all these young people that voted for Obama and all these old, one-time Cold War anti-communist Democrats and all these moderates and independents and he must just be laughing so hard that he can hardly control himself at what’s happened.

For the record, here is a photo the White House posted today of Obama and British Prime Minister looking at the Churchill bust outside the Oval Office in 2010:

Update: White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer clarifies that there were at one point two busts of Winston Churchill in the Oval Office area. One, which was a gift to George W. Bush, was removed when President Obama took office to make room for a bust of Lincoln. The other, which has been in the White House since the 1960’s, remains. And the argument that President Obama’s change of Oval Office décor signals a “hatred” for Churchill remains absurd.

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious