Something that needs to be emphasized regarding the information and comments in my last post: One thing you will notice regarding those on the left (including many "academic historians"), is the fact that they will not address the charges and the information presented in this post and others like it. There are two reasons for that:
1) They can't. The facts cannot be refuted, thus they resort to attacking the messenger or the source and sophomoric debate techniques like obfuscation. You'll often see this here in the comments and on other "progressive" (read "leftist") history blogs and message boards. It is embarrassingly obvious what they're doing, yet they're blind to it. They're also arrogant enough to believe others are.
2) They are, in many ways, philosophically in agreement with President Obama and many of the hardcore leftists in his administration. (See here for just one example.) Moreover, their responses and defenses, void of any intellectually coherent rebuttal, only serve to confirm the fact that they are: a. grossly misinformed, b. agree with what's going on or, c. dishonest.
A very sad, but not surprising state of affairs. I am still working on a very lengthy post that will address some of this in much more detail. The post will make my points abundantly clear.