TELLING IT LIKE IT IS !

At Big Labor’s demand, the Senate Labor Committee is preparing to vote on radical union lawyer Craig Becker’s nomination to the National Labor Relations Board without even holding a hearing. Aside from the Wall Street Journal, the media is turning a blind eye to this forced unionism extremist’s record.

“[Secret ballot] elections are profoundly undemocratic.” Those are the words of Big Labor lawyer Craig Becker, Barack Obama’s latest nominee to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) … and the man your U.S. Senators could be asked to confirm any day now.

That’s why it’s vital you call your U.S. Senators TODAY and demand that they vote against the nomination of Craig Becker to the NLRB. You see, Craig Becker’s record proves that he is a radical – even by Big Labor’s standards. In fact, as ACORN founder Wade Rathke stated, the appointment of Big Labor’s “secret weapon” Craig Becker would be a “big win no matter how you shake and bake it.”

As the quasi-judicial agency that administers federal labor law, just one of the functions of the NLRB is to oversee secret ballot elections and resolve unfair labor practices committed by union organizers. That’s why the union bosses see a militant NLRB as one of Big Labor’s most treacherous accomplices in increasing its radical forced-dues power.

Under a union-label NLRB, workers who try to dismiss unwanted union monopoly bargaining agents – or even try to stop their forced dues from being used to elect handpicked Big Labor candidates – would be denied even the most basic protections. And, considering Craig Becker’s record, it’s not a stretch to believe that – should he be confirmed by the U.S. Senate – Mr. Becker wouldn’t think twice about rubber stamping even the most abusive forced-unionism schemes cooked up by union militants.

You see, as a former AFL-CIO and SEIU union lawyer, Becker is solely responsible for forcing tens of thousands of workers under union boss control. In one case, reports from a Los Angeles SEIU Local union revealed that almost 63,000 people rejected membership in the union in 2007, but thanks to Becker, were still forced to pay dues. And Becker’s own words explain why. He was even so bold as to say unions were “formed to escape the evils of individualism and individual competition … their actions necessarily involve coercion.”

So, it should come as no surprise that Becker supports “home visits,” in which union militants repeatedly harass workers at home until they sign union authorization cards. The fact is, Craig Becker is so extreme he actually believes the only choice workers should have is WHICH union they should be FORCED to pay dues to. And should one refuse, he and the rest of Big Labor’s lackeys on the NLRB will choose for them.

Nothing would be more disastrous for American workers!

With the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP) due to take up the nomination next week, right now is the most crucial time to expose Becker’s forced unionism record. To stop Becker’s appointment, the full Senate must reject him, but if the HELP Committee doesn’t do its job by probing his radical views, it’s safe to say that won’t happen.

That’s why it’s vital you call your U.S. Senators today urging them to vote against the confirmation of union militant Craig Becker’s nomination to the NLRB.

Global Warming and CO2?  Where’s the real evidence?

It was kind of a cool summer, wouldn’t you say?  And those folks enjoying the early snows out west this fall, well, they might actually be praying for a little global warming.

Taking care of the earth is important but global warming is not a scientific fact.  The new movie Not Evil Just Wrong makes that clear.  But that’s not stopping leaders in wealthy Western nations from pushing radical “solutions” to this dubious problem.

Not Evil Just Wrong does a great job of clearing the air over some contentious issues.  Take the hysteria over CO2 emissions, for example.  It’s an odorless gas that every living being gives off when he or she exhales.  As Patrick Moore, once a founder of Greenpeace, says in the film, “Anybody who knows anything about biology knows that carbon dioxide is the most important nutrient of all of life.  It is the currency of life.”

Therefore, as MIT’s Richard Lindzen says, we must distinguish between pollutants and CO2.  He says, “When you see smokestacks in this country, it is very rare that you see black soot.  We have tons of environmental regulations designed to control real pollutants.”  CO2 is not a pollutant and has been regulated as hazardous only for the governments agenda grab for taxes and power.

Notice that he says “in this country.”  Global warming activists would be happy to slap moratoriums on the building of coal burning plants here in the U.S.  Even better, they would like to see existing plants eliminated.  This would crush American industry – maybe 7 million American jobs are associated with coal alone.

And, ironically, it would boost industry and production in China and India, were there are virtually no environmental regulations, and where they use “dirtier” coal than we do in the United States!  The unintended consequence, of course, is that by shutting down coal and coal-based industries here, we end up increasing global air pollution, which comes from dirtier plants overseas.

The film also questions another global warming proposition – that is, that even slight rises in global temperatures would be catastrophic.  Well, it would be catastrophic if you consider increased global food production and human flourishing a bad thing.  Europe, for example, thrived during the Medieval warm period.  In the latter Middle Ages, when temperatures dropped dramatically, crops failed, malnutrition and disease was rampant – millions perished, and the human “herd” was culled, if you want to put it that way.

Which raises another issue addressed in the film.  The proposed “solutions” to global warming are, in many ways, profoundly anti-human.  The wealthy can afford expensive power.  The poor and working poor cannot.  Patrick Moore says, “The idea that Al Gore has proposed that we can stop using fossil fuels in 10 years is completely reckless … 85% of global energy is fossil fuel today, and we depend on it for our survival.”

Lord Lawson, a member of the economics committee of Britain’s House of Lords, puts it plainly: “The people who are calling for massive carbon dioxide reductions are the enemies of poverty reduction in the developing world.”

I urge you to see the film Not Evil Just Wrong, being distributed by the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.  You can get a copy for yourself, your friends – or maybe even for your congressman.

Our troops will be interested to know that the Senate is focused on bringing home a victory in one particular campaign … their own! When the chamber marked-up the Defense Appropriations Bill, some Senators started siphoning away billions of dollars in military equipment for their own pet projects. At last count, there were over 778 earmarks attached to the bill, most of which are completely unnecessary or irrelevant – or both!

The Washington Times exposed a few of these “needs”. “Among the… pork packed into the bill: $25 million for a new World War II museum at the University of New Orleans and $20 million to launch an educational institute named after the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat.” Adding insult to what could be real injury liberals are trying to attach legislation to the Defense bill that would give the District of Columbia full voting rights.

This backdoor approach seems to be the strategy du jour for the leadership, who used this same maneuver to pass the “hate crimes” legislation in the House earlier in the month. Liberals know that D.C. voting rights (much like “hate crimes”) is contentious and unpopular – and very unlikely to pass as a stand-alone bill. But rather than work out the issue democratically, Senate leaders are using another Defense bill as a vehicle for their radical agenda. While our soldiers wait for new supplies, fuel, and training, leaders are either delaying the bill with constitutional questions or trying to funnel money away from soldiers to finance their own political interests.

Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA.) defended her pork – an extensive World War II museum in New Orleans – saying it would be a “constant reminder to future generations about the tremendous sacrifice of millions of Americans.” That may be true, but instead of building bigger memorials, we should concentrate on keeping our soldiers from becoming part of one … first!

American Journalist Sued in Canada Over al-Qaida Disclosures

American author and award-winning journalist Dr. Paul L. Williams is being hauled into a Canadian court over allegations he made about al-Qaida terrorists at an Ontario university.

Williams is being sued by McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, over his claims that Islamic terrorists stole 180 pounds of nuclear material from the school’s nuclear reactor.

The suit stems from comments Williams made during an appearance on the nationally syndicated radio show “Coast to Coast AM,” which also airs in several Canadian cities, and remarks made in his book, “Dunces of Doomsday.”

Williams, who has a Master of Divinity degree and a Doctor of Philosophy degree, “broke no American statute and his alleged violation of Canadian law took place not in Canada, but at his home in Pennsylvania,” according to a press release from Tracy Hood, director of No Compromise News, which is chronicling Williams’ case. The release outlined Williams’ predicament: “The case is significant since it represents the first time an American journalist is being forced to submit to Canadian law.

“Williams has been stripped of his Constitutional rights and forced to deplete his financial savings to pay for his Canadian lawyers.

“‘The matter would have gone away if I simply signed an apology,’ Williams said, ‘but what kind of journalist would I be if I apologized for telling the truth?’

“Williams visited McMaster University in May, 2006 to verify accounts by Janice Kephardt of the 9/11 Commission, journalists Bill Gertz and Scott Wheeler of The Washington Times, former federal prosecutor John Loftus, and others, that the liberal Canadian university had harbored leading al-Qaida operatives, including Adnan el-Shukrijumah, Jaber A. Elbaneh, Abderraouf Jdey, and Amer el-Maati.

“The same sources testified that when the al-Qaida operatives left McMaster, over 80 kilograms (180 pounds) of nuclear material was reported missing.

“During his visit to McMaster, Williams says that he discovered an over-abundance of professors from terror-sponsoring countries within the university’s department of engineering.

“In the Division of Earthquake Engineering, he says, 9 out of 10 faculty members were from the [Egyptian] Universities of Cairo and Alexandria. Similarly, Williams maintains the three McMaster officials who head the College of Engineering and supervise the work at the reactor all hailed from the University of Cairo.

“Jane Corbin of the BBC has reported that the engineering department at the University of Cairo remains under the control of the Muslim Brotherhood.

“Williams says that he and several of his associates, including a licensed private investigator, met with officials from the Ontario Provincial Police, who confirmed that McMaster has been under scrutiny for a long time; that many of the students have ties to radical Islam and terrorist organizations; and that Islamic members of the faculty have conducted clandestine meetings at an off-campus address in Hamilton . . .

“Supporting Williams’ contentions, Hamid Mir, the only journalist to interview Osama bin Laden in the wake of 9/11, has testified on tape that Anas el-Liby, a founder of al-Qaida, attended McMaster and managed, along with other al-Qaida operatives, to steal 80 kilos of nuclear material from the poorly guarded facilities at the school.”

According to the press release, Peter Downward, the attorney representing the University, said: “We regard Mr. Williams’ allegations about McMaster as being on a par with UFO reports and JFK conspiracy theories.”

The press release continues: “However, the predominance of Muslims from terror-sponsoring countries at McMaster and the lack of security at the reactor has been verified by independent sources, including Sean Michaels of GlobalTV-CA.

“Moreover, Ontario police officials have labeled the campus ‘a hive of jihadi activity.’

“In Canada, any person offended by a statement can file a lawsuit, and it remains up to the respondent to prove his innocence.”

by Deborah Markus, from Secular Homeschooling

1. Please stop asking us if it’s legal. If it is – and it is – it’s insulting to imply that we’re criminals. And if we were criminals, would we admit it?

2. Learn what the words “socialize” and “socialization” mean, and use the one you really mean instead of mixing them up the way you do now. Socializing means hanging out with other people for fun. Socialization means having acquired the skills necessary to do so successfully and pleasantly. If you’re talking to me and my kids, that means that we do in fact go outside now and then to visit the other human beings on the planet, and you can safely assume that we’ve got a decent grasp of both concepts.

3. Quit interrupting my kid at her dance lesson, scout meeting, choir practice, baseball game, art class, field trip, park day, music class, 4H club, or soccer lesson to ask her if as a homeschooler she ever gets to socialize.

4. Don’t assume that every homeschooler you meet is homeschooling for the same reasons and in the same way as that one homeschooler you know.

5. If that homeschooler you know is actually someone you saw on TV, either on the news or on a “reality” show, the above goes double.

6. Please stop telling us horror stories about the homeschoolers you know, know of, or think you might know who ruined their lives by homeschooling. You’re probably the same little bluebird of happiness whose hobby is running up to pregnant women and inducing premature labor by telling them every ghastly birth story you’ve ever heard. We all hate you, so please go away.

7. We don’t look horrified and start quizzing your kids when we hear they’re in public school. Please stop drilling our children like potential oil fields to see if we’re doing what you consider an adequate job of homeschooling.

8. Stop assuming all homeschoolers are religious.

9. Stop assuming that if we’re religious, we must be homeschooling for religious reasons.

10. We didn’t go through all the reading, learning, thinking, weighing of options, experimenting, and worrying that goes into homeschooling just to annoy you. Really. This was a deeply personal decision, tailored to the specifics of our family. Stop taking the bare fact of our being homeschoolers as either an affront or a judgment about your own educational decisions.

11. Please stop questioning my competency and demanding to see my credentials. I didn’t have to complete a course in catering to successfully cook dinner for my family; I don’t need a degree in teaching to educate my children. If spending at least twelve years…[in] public school left me with so little information in my memory banks that I can’t teach the basics of an elementary education to my nearest and dearest, maybe there’s a reason I’m so reluctant to send my child to school.

12. If my kid’s only six and you ask me with a straight face how I can possibly teach him what he’d learn in school, please understand that you’re calling me an idiot. Don’t act shocked if I decide to respond in kind.

13. Stop assuming that because the word “home” is right there in “homeschool,” we never leave the house. We’re the ones who go to the amusement parks, museums, and zoos in the middle of the week and in the off-season and laugh at you because you have to go on weekends and holidays when it’s crowded and icky.

14. Stop assuming that because the word “school” is right there in homeschool, we must sit around at a desk for six or eight hours every day, just like your kid does. Even if we’re into the “school” side of education – and many of us prefer a more organic approach – we can burn through a lot of material a lot more efficiently, because we don’t have to gear our lessons to the lowest common denominator.

15. Stop asking, “But what about the Prom?” Even if the idea that my kid might not be able to indulge in a night of over-hyped, over-priced revelry was enough to break my heart, plenty of kids who do go to school don’t get to go to the Prom. For all you know, I’m one of them. I might still be bitter about it. So go be shallow somewhere else.

16. Don’t ask my kid if she wouldn’t rather go to school unless you don’t mind if I ask your kid if he wouldn’t rather stay home and get some sleep now and then.

17. Stop saying, “Oh, I could never homeschool!” Even if you think it’s some kind of compliment, it sounds more like you’re horrified. One of these days, I won’t bother disagreeing with you anymore.

18. If you can remember anything from chemistry or calculus class, you’re allowed to ask how we’ll teach these subjects to our kids. If you can’t, thank you for the reassurance that we couldn’t possibly do a worse job than your teachers did, and might even do a better one.

19. Stop asking about how hard it must be to be my child’s teacher as well as her parent. I don’t see much difference between bossing my kid around academically and bossing him around the way I do about everything else.

20. Stop saying that my kid is shy, outgoing, aggressive, anxious, quiet, boisterous, argumentative, pouty, fidgety, chatty, whiny, or loud because he’s homeschooled. It’s not fair that all the kids who go to school can be as annoying as they want to without being branded as representative of anything but childhood.

21. Quit assuming that my kid must be some kind of prodigy because she’s homeschooled.

22. Quit assuming that I must be some kind of prodigy because I homeschool my kids.

23. Quit assuming that I must be some kind of saint because I homeschool my kids.

24. Stop talking about all the great childhood memories my kids won’t get because they don’t go to school, unless you want me to start asking about all the not-so-great childhood memories you have because you went to school.

25. Here’s a thought: If you can’t say something nice about homeschooling … just shut up!!!

An excerpt from a column on 9/8/2009 Marcia titled: Here’s what I REALLY think (an open letter to liberals) …

Dear liberal neighbors, acquaintances, friends and family,

I’m a conservative.  A political and social conservative.  I know that some of you assume that means I’m mean-spirited, selfish, intolerant, greedy, and perhaps even evil.  But before you write me off, allow me to explain what I really think.  You might be surprised to find that, at least in some areas, we want the same things.  We just disagree on how to get them.

I believe in limited government.  While I think government has many important roles to play (most importantly providing a military to protect our country), in general I believe the less government the better.  For one thing, bureaucracy too often breeds inefficiency, mediocrity, or even worse by not rewarding performance.  Anyone who’s been to his local Department of Motor Vehicles, or his post office for that matter, can attest to that.  But even if government bureaucracies worked perfectly, why would I (or anyone, for that matter) want to be subject to any more laws and regulations than I already am?  I believe I’m better at running my life than my congressman is.

As a believer in small government, it follows that I want my taxes to be as low as possible.  I prefer to spend my own money as I choose, not because I’m greedy, but because I’ll spend it more wisely and carefully because I earned it.  Government waste is a given.  And while I do believe the government should help the neediest among us, welfare states simply do not work.  Bill Clinton knew that well enough to act on it.  I believe individuals should be encouraged to be as charitable and generous as possible.  (As a Christian, I believe it’s my responsibility to help take care of people in need.)  But I also believe individuals fare better when they take responsibility for their own lives.  Dignity comes from taking responsibility, not handouts – and dignity breeds motivation. George Will summed it up nicely when he wrote that “excessively benevolent government is not a benefactor.”  I believe in equal opportunity, but I don’t believe that equal outcomes can (or should) be mandated.

I believe in personal freedom.  The less government bureaucrats have to say about my personal life, the better.  Naturally we’re all subject to the laws of the land, but it’s another thing entirely to have my family’s healthcare run by committee, for example.  Having lived through a few years without employer-provided health insurance, I know how tough that is.  I’d still prefer that to the British system in which my brother had to wait three months for an MRI to determine what a doctor here diagnosed by my description alone: that he’d suffered a stroke at the age of 38.  Guaranteed healthcare doesn’t mean much when it’s dangerously slow and just plain lousy.

Most public school systems are sad but perfect examples of how tax-supported bureaucracies simply don’t work.  As a conservative, I believe in school choice.  Not only would individual students benefit, it would inspire healthy competition and remind administrators that they are answerable to parents.

I am also a social conservative.  I believe in traditional Judeo-Christian values, and want the freedom to continue to worship as a Christian.  I also want the right to raise my children with those values.  I don’t want my children taught that the practice of homosexuality is right any more than my liberal neighbors want their children taught that it’s wrong.  Liberals who wouldn’t want their children taught Christian precepts in school should be able to understand why conservative Christians don’t want their children taught un-Christian precepts.  In fact, if public schools focused on academics and left social and moral issues to parents, we’d all be better off.  Social change dreamed up and forced on society, including children, by a few Washington insiders is a truly frightening prospect.  Too much power in the hands of a small group of any persuasion is a dangerous thing.

In a nutshell, I’m for limited government that acts to preserve opportunity and encourage personal responsibility.  I’m for small government that allows me the freedom to believe what I choose to believe, and raise my children accordingly.  I believe it’s my duty to help people in need, and that while government has a role to play in that regard, it is among the least capable of institutions to do so with positive long-term outcomes.

Ronald Reagan captured the conservative ethos in another quote from that famous 1964 speech: “[Y]ou and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.”

Listening To A Liar
Thomas Sowell – Syndicated Columnist – 9/8/2009

The most important thing about what anyone says are not the words themselves but the credibility of the person who says them.

The words of convicted swindler Bernie Madoff were apparently quite convincing to many people who were regarded as knowledgeable and sophisticated.  If you go by words, you can be led into anything.

No doubt millions of people will be listening to the words of President Barack Obama Wednesday night when he makes a televised address to a joint session of Congress on his medical care plans.  But, if they think that the words he says are what matters, they can be led into something much worse than being swindled out of their money.

One plain fact should outweigh all the words of Barack Obama and all the impressive trappings of the setting in which he says them: He tried to rush Congress into passing a massive government takeover of the nation’s medical care before the August recess – for a program that would not take effect until 2013!

Whatever President Obama is, he is not stupid.  If the urgency to pass the medical care legislation was to deal with a problem immediately, then why postpone the date when the legislation goes into effect for years – more specifically, until the year after the next presidential election?

If this is such an urgently needed program, why wait for years to put it into effect?  And if the public is going to benefit from this, why not let them experience those benefits before the next presidential election?

If it is not urgent that the legislation goes into effect immediately, then why don’t we have time to go through the normal process of holding congressional hearings on the pros and cons, accompanied by public discussions of its innumerable provisions?  What sense does it make to “hurry up and wait” on something that is literally a matter of life and death?

If we do not believe that the president is stupid, then what do we believe?  The only reasonable alternative seems to be that he wanted to get this massive government takeover of medical care passed into law before the public understood what was in it.  Moreover, he wanted to get re-elected in 2012 before the public experienced what its actual consequences would be.

Unfortunately, this way of doing things is all too typical of the way this administration has acted on a wide range of issues.

Consider the “stimulus” legislation. Here the administration was successful in rushing a massive spending bill through Congress in just two days – after which it sat on the president’s desk for three days, while he was away on vacation.  But, like the medical care legislation, the “stimulus” legislation takes effect slowly.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will be September 2010 before even three-quarters of the money will be spent.  Some economists expect that it will not all be spent by the end of 2010.

What was the rush to pass it, then?  It was not to get that money out into the economy as fast as possible.  It was to get that money – and the power that goes with it – into the hands of the government.  Power is what politics is all about.

The worst thing that could happen, from the standpoint of those seeking more government power over the economy, would be for the economy to begin recovering on its own while months were being spent debating the need for a “stimulus” bill.  As the president’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, said, you can’t let a crisis “go to waste” when “it’s an opportunity to do things you could not do before.”

There are lots of people in the Obama administration who want to do things that have not been done before – and to do them before the public realizes what is happening.

The proliferation of White House “czars” in charge of everything from financial issues to media issues is more of the same circumvention of the public and of the Constitution.  Czars don’t have to be confirmed by the Senate, the way Cabinet members must be, even though czars may wield more power, so you may never know what these people are like, until it is too late.

What Barak Obama says Wednesday night is not nearly as important as what he has been doing – and how he has been doing it.

Ron Bloom, the former United Steelworkers (USW) union bigwig appointed by President Barack Obama as “car czar” earlier this year is now poised to oversee ALL American manufacturing.

That’s right, a union boss whose forced unionism dogma destroys jobs, crushes employee free choice, and cripples the country’s competitiveness will soon be in charge of America’s entire industrial policy.

Also in a recent Washington Examiner, Kevin Mooney discusses new analysis of the “Obamacare” health care overhaul legislation from National Right to Work experts who have unearthed several disturbing provisions in the proposed bills that secretly intended to grant sweeping new forced unionism powers to union bosses.

Coupled with bailouts of $10 billion dollars and exclusive union access to lucrative federal grants, the union brass will now be placed in a policymaking and implementation role with respect to a statute intended to facilitate the forced unionization of nearly every health care employee.

History shows the future of union bosses who will abuse their newfound power to shut down medical facilities with sick-outs and strikes; force doctors, nurses, and in-home care providers to abandon their patients, so as to dictate terms and conditions of employment; and impose a failed, Detroit-style management model on the entire health care field.

To Congress:

• The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775 – you have had 234 years to get it right; it is still broke losing more every year.

• Social Security was established in 1935 – you have had 74 years to get it right; it is still broke with many people on it who never paid into it.

• Fannie Mae was established in 1938 – you have had 71 years to get it right; it is still broke.

• The “War on Poverty” started in 1964 – you have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to “the poor”; it hasn’t worked and our entire country is broke.

• Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965 – you’ve had 44 years to get it right; they are still broke.

• Freddie Mac was established in 1970 – you have had 39 years to get it right; it is broke.

• Trillions of dollars were spent in the massive political payoffs called TARP, the “Stimulus”, the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009… none show any signs of working, although ACORN appears to have found a new source of income: the American taxpayer.

And finally, to set a new record:

“Cash for Clunkers” was established in 2009! It took good dependable cars (that were the best some people could afford) and replaced them with high-priced and less-affordable cars, mostly Japanese. A good percentage of the profits went out of the country. And the American taxpayers take the hit for Congress’ generosity in burning three billion more of our dollars on failed experiments.

So with a perfect 100% failure rate and a record that proves that “services” government provides fail, you want Americans to believe you can be trusted with a government-run health care system … 20% of our entire economy?

With all due respect,

Are you … crazy?

F o r m e r   C o m m u n i s t

Dear Fellow American,

Barack Obama and the socialist leadership in Congress are working furiously to change America!  They want to transform our nation and they’re spending trillions of tax dollars to do it.

I am not talking about the type of misery Jimmy Carter inflicted on our nation.  Conservatives were able to reverse the course Carter had put us on.  But what we’re seeing today isn’t like anything you and I have ever seen!  I’m talking about a whole scale, radical transformation of our nation.  From our national defense to our foreign policy to our free market economic system.  Obama and company have implemented and have plans to further implement massive government control over each of us.

Americans – your friends and neighbors – do not fully realize the radical changes Barack Obama and the socialists in Congress are foisting upon our way of life!

But you do. And I do as well. Today the Obamaites, George Soros, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Rahm Emanuel, Harry Reid – the small but powerful group of left-wing radicals who are at the controls of this transformation are all disciples of the 1960s radical Saul Alinsky. Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals, was the Little Red Book for the college radicals of the 1960s. I know, I was one of them.

I understand better than most Alinsky’s deep, deep hatred of America. A hate that ran so deep he wrote a blueprint for tearing our nation down. And while I outgrew and repented my anti-Americanism and came to see how great and generous our country is, many agents of the radical left never grew up.  In fact, today many of them are leaders in Congress and in our White House, all embracing Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals – the road map for turning our nation upside down.

With every passing day we see what lays behind the Administration’s piecemeal efforts to take over the car makers, the banks and the health care system: creating a new America that will bear little resemblance to the country in which we grew up.  You and I must counter this. The Freedom Center willingly takes on the Paul Revere role.  We have a massive media blitz planned detailing precisely the radical transformation we’re undergoing.

I am writing a new booklet that I must blanket on college campuses as the new school year starts.  This booklet – “Alinsky’s Rules for Obama’s Radicalism” – paints a clear picture of Barack Obama’s agenda for our nation.  And we have prepared an advertisement to run in papers around the country calling on Americans to derail this train before it’s too late.

Sincerely,

David Horowitz

President & Founder of the Freedom Center

P.S. The idea that the disciples of Saul Alinsky – a man who so hated America he detailed a plan to tear it apart – are running our nation is hard to swallow. But the facts bear it out. Stand with me and the Freedom Center as we ride like Paul Revere across the nation and sound the alarm!