Part 4 -- 2012: America's last free election?

By Wes Vernon

(See Part 1, Part 2, Part 3)

No alliance — either worldwide or on our soil — is as under-reported as the collaboration between Communism and radical Islam.

Terrorism: the 20th century agitators

Back in the eighties, on the old syndicated CBS Radio program Crosstalk, Benjamin Netanyahu, then Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, told me that the (then still existing) Soviet Union was behind much of the Middle East terrorism — a phenomenon which at that time had reached the American attention span when a terrorist radical Islamic movement overthrew the Shah of Iran and took 52 Americans hostage for 444 days.

That the Soviet Union was instigating trouble worldwide was hardly shocking news. That was routine during the Cold War. But in his book and in the radio interview, the future Israeli Prime Minister outlined in detail the extent to which the Soviets were backing Mid-East terrorism to the hilt.

And today?

In 2012 — even with the Soviet Union itself gone — worldwide communism and radical Islam are supporting each other. The obvious cultural divide between the two in no way hinders this alliance of convenience.

The two-pronged threat to the U.S., Western Civilization, and indeed the world is forging ahead on all cylinders. Former KGB agent Konstantin Preobrazheny has explored and exposed what he alleges is "the hidden hand of the KGB" (under its new name in today's Russia) that is behind today's "Communists and [radical] Muslims."

Speaking to the July 19 conference of America's Survival, Inc., Preobrazheny described "Made in Moscow Terrorism."

Revolution's "hidden resource"

"The Communists have considered Islam their ally from the very beginning," he said, "because in the early 20th century, Islam was [considered] the religion of the 'oppressed people.'"

Interestingly, Stalin (whose persecutions of every other religion in the Soviet Union were brutal, uncompromising, and without end) wrote this message for Vladimir Lenin to deliver to Russia's Muslims:

"From today, your beliefs, customs, your national and cultural institutions are free and inviolate. Organize your life freely and without hindrance."

Konstantin Preobrazhensky reviewed how the Soviet Union helped Saudi Arabia to be born; how after World War II, Islam was used by the Soviet state; how Nazi Germany developed an active outreach to the Soviet Muslims headed by the former Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who fled to Germany after the failure of an anti-British uprising in Palestine (this man was awarded the military rank of SS Gruppenfuehrer); and how many cultural activities in the Soviet Union "helped create the original varieties of Muslim civilization."

Recall the late Alexander Litvinenko, a former KGB agent poisoned in London in 2006 under suspicious circumstances that suggested the complicity of the Putin government in the deed (denied by Moscow, but not credibly refuted). Before he died, Litvinenko told Preobrazhensky that his former FSB/KGB colleagues trained famous al-Qaeda terrorists during the eighties. One of them has been responsible for the murder of U.S. nationals outside the United States. Another was a right-hand man of Osama bin Laden.

The onetime KGB operative cites British politician George Galloway as having explained that socialist/leftist movements around the world and radical Muslims have the same enemies, primarily "Western civilization in general and the United States and Great Britain."

"One can forecast that in the current situation, as leftists in the USA and other Western countries grow in influence, their alliance with the Islamists will be expanding," he warned.

Arab Spring disaster

In his introduction to Preobrazhensky, ASI President Cliff Kincaid noted that at the outset of the "Arab Spring," the Marxist-Leninist organization Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) played a key role. The Muslim Brotherhood (which gained power in Egypt in part with a strong behind-the-scenes assist from the Obama White House) "gave rise to terrorist organizations such as Hamas."

Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood president, Mohammed Morsi, has reinforced his already well-known contempt for the United States by demanding that America release the "blind sheik" who masterminded the first World Trade Center bombing.

The Blind Sheik's Marxist attorney Lynne Stewart has defined radical Islamists as "basically forces of national liberation."

Weather Underground terrorists (and pals of Barack Obama) Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorhn participated in protests in Egypt in January 2010, at the time the "Arab Spring" campaign to destabilize Western-friendly Middle Eastern governments was about to gear up for its big push.

1980s warning, again in 2012

Prior to the conference, Kincaid conducted his own interview with Konstantin Probrazhensky in which he said — as the then-relatively unknown Netanyahu had warned in the eighties — that "Long before Islamic terrorism became a global threat, the KGB had used terrorism to facilitate the victory of world communism." Further, Probrazhensky told ASI that Islamic terrorism is a "child" of the old Soviet-sponsored terror networks, and that Russian involvement must be addressed by the U.S.

As early as the fifties

Robert Moss — author of The Spike, a Cold War novel (which many have claimed reflects real-life circumstances) testified before a Senate committee that as early as 1954, "the 10th Department of Soviet military intelligence, the GRU, drew up a plan to threaten Western access to Middle East oil." This was to be accomplished by penetration of the Arab world and alliances with radical movements.

Congressional probe?

All of which led to this statement July 19 from ASI:

"We believe the House Committee on Homeland Security chaired by Rep. Peter King should hold hearings on these matters. A new committee or subcommittee — specifically designed to probe Marxist organizations — needs to be established as well. There is enough work to do in regard to analyzing the international communist networks and radical Islam."

Frank Marshall Davis addendum

Obama supporters are pushing back with regard to the book The Communist, wherein a card-carrying Communist "mentored" Obama during his tender years and into his teens. Since we, in our last installment, focused on the book, we herewith present some objections by the book's detractors and the answers offered by the author, Paul Kengor.

• Despite gross misrepresentation of the Obama-Davis relationship, there is NO evidence that Davis was Obama's "mentor," as claimed throughout the conservative blogosphere.
  
  I completely disagree, which is why I open the book by citing literally at least a dozen pro-Obama and pro-Davis sources, friends, associates, and biographers all describing the Obama-Davis relationship in mentor-like language, often even stronger. Of course, "mentor" is a subjective phrase, and there are so many different levels of mentorship. All along, I've expected critics to zero in on this element of my book. Because the word is subjective, it gives critics the one area where they can attack it.
  
  When you read the book, however, and consider it with an open mind, I think you'll agree that this was a mentor. At the very least, no one else qualifies as Obama's mentor during these crucial, formative adolescent/teen years of Obama. The only competitor would be Stanley Dunham, who introduced Davis to Obama as a black-male role model/father figure — i.e., for the purpose of mentorship.
  
  
• Although Obama's book indicates "Frank" was a family friend who offered him advice on racial issues, Obama wrote that Davis "fell short" and his views were "incurable." Obama's book proves that Obama did not consider Davis to be a "wise and trusted counselor," which is the standard definition of "mentor." By what creative definition can Davis be considered his "mentor"?
  
  First off, a very important point of understanding: note the clever use of "Obama's book" — as if that's the only source of reference on the Obama-Davis relationship. That's the tactic being used here. In fact, of course, there are far more sources beyond Obama's book. If you go by Obama's book alone, then you can only document maybe three or four or five meetings between Obama and "Frank." Even David Maraniss concedes they met upwards of 15 times. I've had other sources tell me they met far more than that.
  
  I totally disagree with this person's assessment here. The definition of "mentor," according to Oxford and Merriam-Webster, is an experienced or trusted guide, counselor, or adviser. In point of fact, Dreams from My Father clearly meets this definition of mentor — easily.
  
  
• Further, according to "Dreams," Obama visited Davis only twice on his own after visiting with Gramps: once to discuss his grandmother's bus stop incident, and three years later before leaving for college. When could any "communist" training occur?
  
  Again, note the game being played with Dreams. That's not only the source in the universe! Gee, Ronald Reagan never mentions his mentor, Ben Cleaver, even once in his memoirs. Does that mean that Reagan and Cleaver never met? It's totally unreasonable to expect that every single Obama-Davis meeting would be recorded and detailed in Dreams. There are countless people that Obama met who aren't mentioned in Dreams. Does that mean Obama never actually met them?
  
  On the frequency of visits, I addressed that above.
  
  On the "communist training": Indeed, Dreams certainly gives no indication of that. And why would it? Dreams talks very little about politics generally, and Obama in Dreams is super-guarded about "Frank," so much so that he never once gives his full name anywhere in the entire book. In fact, in the 2005 audio version of the book, "Frank" is purged completely — not a single mention. Does anyone really think that Obama, knowing Frank's past, and being so careful about concealing his name, would say something like this in Dreams: "Well, Frank was an old CPUSA member, and he and I would spend long evenings discussing Marx and Lenin and Fidel and Che. I was hooked."
  
  This is not a reasonable criticism, which, again, is why we obviously need to go beyond Dreams as our sole source. One of the sources I cite in the beginning of my book (pp. 13-14) is Ron Jacobs, an on-the-ground Hawaiian author who, in his book, includes more Hawaiian sources on Obama than anyone else who has written on Obama. Jacobs says that Frank had Obama read black communists like Langston Hughes and W.E.B. DuBois.
  
  Now, even with that said, I'm very careful in The Communist to say that I can't definitively say that Davis provided Obama with communist indoctrination. I simply tell the story about Davis, show what he believed, and then also detail the many quite striking political similarities between him and Obama. As I say in the book, these could be mere coincidence, they could be mere commonalities among fellow leftists. Nonetheless, they are quite stunning, and so similar that it's hard to see them as all mere coincidence.
  
  
• Correlation does not imply causation. There is no evidence that Davis discussed politics or economics with Obama, much less any evidence that he discussed socialism. There is no evidence that Obama or Gramps were even aware of Davis's CPUSA involvement.
  
  Again, note the tactic: "no evidence" in Dreams. This is a game being played here.
  
  Everyone in Honolulu knew about Davis' CPUSA involvement. Gee, he had been dramatically pulled out of there in December 1956 by the Democrats in Washington to testify on his "Soviet activities" before the Senate Judiciary Committee. It would be the height of naivete to assume Obama and Gramps weren't aware of this. Obama even talks in Dreams of "Frank's" books, experience, and "hard-earned knowledge." Was this mere knowledge of Pinochle? For the record, Obama in Dreams quotes Frank disparaging "the American way." Clearly, that alone reveals some indication of Frank sharing his worldview, which included a view of a decidedly un-exceptional America.
  
  My goal with this book is to show readers who "Frank" was. The commonalities of viewpoint with Obama are quite notable, even if (as I indeed concede) we can't always imply a direct level of causation. That's not my goal. My goal is to expose the mystery behind the person of "Frank."
  

And that is the author's response to those who would erase history, just as Obama has shelled out millions to hide years of his history.

© Wes Vernon