Got this email from Harry Schneider, along with the article.

Another interesting read, sure to stir up some more comments on PAFOA
Unfortunately, the American people will not elect a suitable president in
the next election. The neo-cons have captured and perverted conservatism
to the point that the Bush Administration, (the first 100% neo-con
administration) has pursued neo-con agenda with a result of enormous harm
to the American military and perhaps irreparable harm to the American
economy.

Further, given McCain's age and history of cancer, his VP selection bears
close scrutiny. One possible candidate is Tom Ridge. Congressman Tom
Ridge had the most anti-defense voting record of any Republican Congressman.
Governor Tom Ridge launched an unprecedented legislative attack on freedoms,
- even coming close to surrendering state sovereignty - under his
leadership, a Republican bill would have given all federal agents the right
to enforce all Pennsylvania laws with immunity. Another Republican bill,
under his leadership would have amended the Pennsylvania Constitution to
nullify the Pennsylvania standard of protection against unreasonable search
and seizure. Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge was regarded as an
"empty shirt".

On the other hand, this article by Paul Kengor captures the essence of a
significant part of the enormous threat posed by an Obama presidency. I do
not discount the possibility that Ms. Rodham may find some way of unseating
Obama, perhaps because the birth certificate that the Obama Campaign
produced to prove Hawaiian birth is a forgery.

Many years ago, as a private detective, I discussed Communist penetration of
a specific labor union with Herb Romerstein. I concur with professor
Kengor's assessment of him.

Harry Schneider
June 13, 2008
Return of the Dupes and the Anti-Anti-Communists
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/...nd_the_an.html
By Paul Kengor
Since literally the founding of the American Communist Party in 1919, the
extreme left -- specifically, the communists -- have relied upon genuine
liberals to be dupes, or suckers, to help further their cause. Here's how it
typically worked: the communists would engage in some sort of work or
agenda, very focused, and which they would be prepared to publicly deny.
Anyone who has done any work with or on communists, from New York City to
Moscow, can speak at length about how they operated with deceit. As Vladimir
Lenin had said, in a favorite quote cited often by Ronald Reagan, the only
morality that communists recognized was that which furthered their
interests.

At some point as the communists pursued their intentions, someone or some
group -- usually conservatives or moderate Republicans -- would catch on and
blow the whistle. When the alarm was sounded, the communists typically would
flat-out lie about whatever they were doing: claiming not to be guilty of
the charges, but rather victims of right-wing paranoia. For this, they
relied upon gullible liberals -- non-communist liberals -- to join them in
attacking their accusers on the right.

These liberals, particularly after the McCarthy period, came to detest the
anti-communists on the right. These liberals were not pro-communist but
anti-anti-communist. They saw the anti-communists as Neanderthals, and still
do, even though the anti-communists were absolutely right about the 20th
century slaughter otherwise known as Marxism-Leninism. This ongoing
anti-anti-communism is immediately evident in a quick conversation with your
typical liberal in the press or academia. When I lecture at universities
around the country, rattling off facts about the literally unparalleled
communist destruction in the 20th century -- easily over 100 million people
died under communism from about 1917-79 -- the young people are riveted,
clearly having never heard any of this in the classroom, whereas their
professors roll their eyes, as if the ghost of Joe McCarthy had flown into
the room and leapt inside of my body.

It is all, yes, quite bizarre, quite strange, and really requires more of a
psychological explanation for which I'm not adequately trained. But the
point is that this anti-anti-communism works beautifully for the true
communists who rely upon liberal dupes -- of whom the communists are
privately contemptuous, given the liberals' stunning naïveté.

Fortunately, on the plus side, there have been some good non-communist
liberals who refused to be duped - the late Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. comes
to mind -- and who were crucial to ratting out the communists. These are the
smarter liberals, not dictated to purely by emotion. These liberals played
an important role during the Cold War, and for a very significant reason
that rarely gets its due: these liberals knew, as the right-wing
anti-communists knew, that the communists often actively undermined genuine
liberal causes -- from advancing workers' rights to civil rights.

Fast Forward

Why do I mention this now? Because the entire process is being repeated once
again before our eyes, except now it's worse, given that the modern left is
so outrageously uninformed, having been trained -- by the mainstream media,
Hollywood, liberal historians, and the academy -- to reflexively dismiss any
charge of communism as illegitimate McCarthyism, even when the charge is not
only accurate but, importantly, exposes how the communists have literally
schemed to undermine yet another genuine liberal cause.

I will start from the beginning:

A couple of weeks ago in Washington, Herb Romerstein and Cliff Kincaid, two
veteran investigators of American communism, held a press conference on
Capitol Hill to announce the release of two new reports on Barack Obama's
radical past, or, more specifically, his association with extremist elements
from the American left -- yet more evidence of a frightening pattern of
associations by Obama throughout his distant and recent life, from Bill
Ayers to Reverend Jeremiah Wright, all of which at the least shows bad
judgment. At the press conference, they discussed Romerstein's report on
Frank Marshall Davis, an influential figure in Obama's early life, whom
Obama refers to only as "Frank" (albeit affectionately) in his autobiography
Dreams From My Father. Davis was a communist, a member of CPUSA. Romerstein
developed that fact very carefully in his report, which contained at least a
half dozen exhibits and other forms of reliable documentation -- a fact that
itself is news, since many (on the gullible left) still like to question
whether Davis was a Party member.

Before going further, I would like to add a word on Herb Romerstein's
credibility: Romerstein himself was a communist early in life, a member of
CPUSA. He broke ranks over 50 years ago. He went on to become probably the
single most respected authority on American communism. He is the go-to guy
on questions of American communism -- thoroughly respected from the
legislative to executive branch. He is the individual who did the work on
the Venona papers. He is completely credible.

I know this well, because I know Romerstein. I've worked with him on
precisely this kind of research. He is extremely fair, precise, nuanced, and
knowledgeable. He constantly exhorts me by email or phone: "Now, Paul, be
careful there: He was a liberal and never a communist -- a sucker, maybe;
but not a communist." Another example, which is a direct quote from an
email: "He was a small ‘c' communist, but never a party member, and later a
non-communist liberal who cooperated with the FBI." Or, as he often says:
"No, Paul, he was a good guy. An anti-communist liberal. No dupe."
Romerstein is no witch-hunter and has never been accused of such. He is the
epitome of responsible anti-communism.

That said, what did Romerstein find on Frank Marshall Davis? He showed not
only that Davis was a communist, but -- listen up, liberals -- how Davis and
his comrades worked to undermine genuine liberal causes because of their
lock-step subservience to the Comintern and the USSR. Modern liberals need
to understand, for example, how the American communist movement, including
men like Davis, flip-flopped on issues as grave as Nazism and World War II
based entirely on whether Hitler was signing a non-aggression pact with
Stalin or invading Stalin's Soviet Union. The disgusting about-face by CPUSA
on this matter was unforgivable. And what a shame that liberal college
professors don't teach this to their students. Liberals also need to know
how their friends inside government were used by communists who sought
victory for Mao Tse-Tung in China in 1949, which would lead to the single
greatest concentration of corpses in human history: 60-70 million dead
Chinese from 1957 to 1969.

Finally, if that doesn't concern liberals, they should understand how
communists, including Frank Marshall Davis, used the civil-rights movement,
and again and again exploited and undermined the NAACP. Romerstein lays this
out at length in his report. He quotes Roy Wilkins of the NAACP, who rightly
noted of Davis and his comrades: "they would now destroy the local branch of
the NAACP." They would do so after having destroyed another good
civil-rights organization. "Comrade Davis," wrote Wilkins, "was supported by
others who recently ‘sneaked' into the organization with the avowed intent
and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line." Wilkins
knew well that this was a standard "tactic" by the communists; it was known
by everyone involved in the NAACP at the time. Wilkins, like many
civil-rights leaders of his time, refused to be duped by Davis and his
comrades.

Where does Obama meet Davis? -- in Hawaii. Similar to Obama, whose mother
moved from Kansas to Seattle to Honolulu, with Obama on to Chicago, Frank
Marshall Davis went from Kansas to Chicago to Honolulu. Obama freely admits
to learning and taking advice from Davis, which surely was nothing like the
"Midwestern values" that Governor Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS) claimed his
mother learned in Kansas. While most Americans by the late 1970s and early
1980s were at last convinced that détente with the Soviets was a sham, and
that the USSR was an Evil Empire that needed to be dissolved, Obama almost
certainly was learning exactly the opposite -- moving totally against what
Ronald Reagan described as the "tide of history," a "freedom tide" that
would "leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash-heap of history."

Instead, as Obama writes in Dreams From My Father, he was hanging out with
the "Marxist professors," attending "socialist conferences," and
"discuss[ing] neocolonialism." Rather than learning about the American
exceptionalism that would seek to bring freedom to the USSR and Eastern
Europe, Obama was hearing about the glory of the Bolshevik experiment. This
was the wrong side of history.

Enter Dana Milbank

Jumping into this unfolding drama is Dana Milbank, the columnist for the
Washington Post. Milbank was apparently one of the few mainstream
journalists to attend the Romerstein press conference on Capitol Hill,
according to the reporting of columnist Bill Steigerwald, a good reporter
who was also there. Steigerwald noted that it quickly became apparent that
Milbank was basically there to mock the event. In response, Milbank could
write about it in the Post, and his fellow liberals could enjoy a chuckle at
the expense of the latest exhibit of right-wing anti-communist cavemen.

Milbank didn't disappoint. He described the press conference as a new Vast
Right-Wing Conspiracy, as the 2008 version of the 2004 Swift Boat veterans,
and described Romerstein as "a living relic from the House Committee on
Un-American Activities." The whole thing, reported Milbank, sounded "like a
UFO convention." He even pooh-poohed the quite legitimate, quite telling
point that Obama's past affiliations are so "dodgy" (Milbank's word) that he
would have difficulty getting a government security clearance. Indeed, he
would-and that's a big deal for a man who could be our next president.

To be fair, Milbank, while at the press conference, did ask the pertinent
question: Was Romerstein trying to argue that Obama is a communist? What's
the point of this if Obama is not a communist, right?

Well, yes and no. He has not, to anyone's knowledge, ever been a member of
the Communist Party. On the other hand, his friends have been members. And
there is a clear long-running association in this man's life with the most
radical of the far left: on the religion side, there is Reverend Wright and
Father Pfleger, on the political side, there is the likes of William Ayers
and, yes, Frank Marshall Davis, to name only a few. And remarkably, Obama
cites some of these people as mentors, and even draws from their messages in
conceiving the title of the bestselling book that made everyone gaga over
Obama in the first place -- here I'm referring to Audacity of Hope, which is
based on a Rev. Wright sermon.

These associations actually should tell us a lot, as should Obama's struggle
to deal with them only once the public learns their full extent. It all
points to a truly troubling reality: regardless of whether the man is a
communist, his politics are remarkably radical, and have been for a very
long and recent time -- and that's a crucial consideration as America
considers voting for him.

And guess what? Dana Milbank and his allies know this. They will not admit
it because of what they themselves try to conceal on a daily basis, and
likewise as poorly as Obama: their obvious liberal bias. Like Obama, the
liberal press can never be fully open about its thinking and intentions. And
liberals in the press, by and large, clearly want Barack Obama to be
president, a bias that clouds their judgment and hinders their ability to do
objective reporting. Their lack of objectivity is obvious.

What's more, Milbank and the others would be concerned -- likely obsessed --
if Obama were a Republican who had these sort of long-running associations
with the far-right. In fact, they themselves do this kind of hard digging on
Republicans.

Frank Marshall Davis, as Roy Wilkins of the NAACP noted, toed the Stalinist
line. What would Dana Milbank think of, say, a John McCain mentor who had
toed the line for Hitler? I can tell you that I, as a conservative
Republican, would be pretty darned disappointed and would demand some
answers. I would not turn it into a joke. And if McCain did not absolutely,
convincingly repudiate it, I absolutely would not vote for him.

Once again, too, it is the anti-communism that liberals like Milbank visibly
despise, not the pro-communism. The end result is that the bad guys on the
communist far-left, such as the likes of Frank Marshall Davis, continue to
get a pass long after they've departed this world, as will those who
consider them mentors. These were extreme leftists who hurt liberalism --
who hurt some of the dearest liberal causes. Davis, in death, is protected,
his dirty work covered up, by a press who must now protect their anointed
one.

The irony of journalists like Dana Milbank, who is far from alone, is that
while they are laughing at the anti-communists, they seem to have no idea
that the loudest howls of laughter have always come from the communists who
see such journalists as dupes -- as gullible liberals to be duped to advance
the communist cause. It is a time-honored tradition, and genuine liberals
have filled the role again and again. It is always important to know who you
friends are and aren't. And the communists were never the liberals' friends.
The fact is that the joke is on liberals, except that none of this is really
very funny.

Paul Kengor is author of The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of
Communism (HarperPerennial, 2007) and professor of political science at
Grove City College. His latest book is The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald
Reagan's Top Hand (Ignatius Press, 2007).