"Most Americans revile socialism, yet Barack Obama's poll numbers remain competitive. One explanation: He's a longtime disciple of a man whose mission was to teach radicals to disguise their ideology. …

"One of Obama's main inspirations was a man dedicated to revolutionary change that he was convinced ‘must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, nonchallenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future.’

"Sen. Obama was trained by Chicago's Industrial Areas Foundation, founded in 1940 by the radical organizer Saul Alinsky. In the 1980s, Obama spent years as director of the Developing Communities Project, which operated using Alinsky's strategies, and was involved with two other Alinsky-oriented entities, Acorn and Project Vote.

"On the Obama campaign Web site can be found a photo of him teaching in a University of Chicago classroom with ‘Power Analysis’ and ‘Relationships Built on Self Interest’ written on the blackboard — key terms utilized in the Alinsky method.

"The far-left Alinsky had no time for liberalism or liberals, declaring that ‘a liberal is (someone) who puts his foot down firmly on thin air.’ He wanted nothing less than transformational radicalism. ‘America was begun by its radicals,’ he wrote. ‘America was built by its radicals. The hope and future of America lies with its radicals.’ And so, ‘This is the job for today's radical — to fan the embers of hopelessness into a flame to fight. To say, '. . . let us change it together!'

"Alinsky students ranged ‘from militant Indians to Chicanos to Puerto Ricans to blacks from all parts of the black power spectrum, from Panthers to radical philosophers, from a variety of campus activists, S.D.S. and others, to a priest who was joining a revolutionary party in South America.’ …

"Obama calls his years as an Alinskyesque community organizer in Chicago ‘the best education I ever had, and where I learned the true meaning of my Christian faith.’ But as radicalism expert Richard Lawrence Poe has noted, ‘Camouflage is key to Alinsky-style organizing. In organizing coalitions of black churches in Chicago, Obama caught flak for not attending church himself. He became an instant churchgoer.’

Indeed, Alinsky believed in sacrificing ethics and morals for the great cause. ‘Ethical standards must be elastic to stretch with the times,’ Alinsky wrote in his last book, ‘Rules for Radicals,’ adding that ‘all values are relative in a world of political relativity.’"

"Published a year before Alinsky's death in 1972, ‘Rules for Radicals’ includes a dedication in which he gives ‘an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical . . . who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.’ …

"According to Alinsky, ‘Ego must be so all-pervading that the personality of the organizer is contagious, that it converts the people from despair to defiance, creating a mass ego.’" Source: Investor’s Business Daily, Editorials & Opinion, 8/14/08

Alinsky played a major role in creation of Lyndon Johnson’s "Great Society", which I tried to eliminate as Director of the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO). I would have been successful but for the fact that Richard Nixon, under siege, retreated from his pledge that he would veto further funding of programs subsidized by OEO.

As I may have mentioned before, as Director of OEO I had 2,000 employees who were retained directly on a government payroll – 1,000 at headquarters and another 1,000 in ten regional offices. But there were some 500,000 radical activists employed by 10,000 non-profit corporations subsidized almost entirely by the U.S. taxpayers through OEO.

Virtually all of these entities were pursuing the Alinsky-Hillary Rodham-Barack Obama agenda.

Is Red China’s version of the European Union a model for what President Bush plans to achieve in North America?

According to an important article in Foreign Affairs magazine, the publication of the Council on Foreign Relations, "In Asia, current tensions between China and Japan have not prevented proposals for a free-trade zone, a common currency, and an investment bank for the region.

"Chinese in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, and Vietnam draw their adopted countries toward Beijing. China will not expand territorially (except titularly when Taiwan rejoins the mainland), but it will move to consolidate an economic network that will contain all the elements of production, except, perhaps, raw materials. Japan will adjust to China’s primacy, and even South Korea will see the writing on the wall." Source: Richard Rosecrance (Adjunct Professor of Public Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government and Senior Fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, both at Harvard University) and Arthur Stein (Professor of Political Science at UCLA), Foreign Affairs, July/August 2008, p. 145

Here are some facts about the Chicom Olympics which the media chose to ignore. Bill Hawkins has done an excellent job of describing the Red reality:

"[T]he symbolism that attended the raising of the Olympic flag was most revealing and disturbing. The flag was turned over to an honor guard of People’s Liberation Army soldiers, who then goose-stepped past the crowd. The scene had to remind anyone with a sense of history of the 1936 Olympics held in Nazi Germany. … 

"[B]eijing offers strong support to dictatorships in other parts of the world whose crimes destabilize entire regions. That support even clouded the Olympics. The Chinese government revoked a visa for U.S. Olympic gold medalist speed-skater Joey Cheek: This was not because Cheek protested Chinese human rights abuses or called for the independence of Tibet or Taiwan. It was because Cheek was a co-founder of Team Darfur, a group of more than 75 Olympic athletes who call attention to the genocide taking place in the Sudan. Beijing is the principle supporter of the Khartoum regime. The Bush administration did not force Beijing to reinstate Cheek’s visa, despite calls from Congress to do so."

"Beijing’s support for Khartoum is rooted in its trade and investment policies. Sudan’s large oil reserves are needed by Chinese industry. China has invested over $10 billion in Sudan. State-owned China National Petroleum Corp. (CNPC) owns the largest share (40%) in the Great Nile Petroleum Operating Co. (GNPOC). State-owned China Petroleum Engineering & Construction (CPEC) has built a pipeline from the GNPOC fields to the Red Sea, and a refinery complex outside Khartoum."

"CNPC owns most of a field in Darfur and 41% of a field in the Melut Basin. Another Chinese state firm, Sinopec, is building a pipeline to Port Sudan on the Red Sea, where CPEC is building a tanker terminal. About 70% of Sudan’s oil exports go to China, and account for 10% of China’s oil imports. The oil facilities are staffed and operated by Chinese ‘guest workers’ who assure Beijing’s control. David Blair, a reporter for the London Telegraph has reported seeing ‘Freshly painted billboards in Khartoum that carry pictures of smiling Chinese oil workers and the slogan: "CNPC - Your close friend and faithful partner."’  

"In exchange for oil, Beijing provides weapons and diplomatic support. China has supplied Sudan with tanks, artillery, helicopters, and combat aircraft. Darfur has been saturated with Chinese landmines. Beijing has helped Sudan build its own factories to manufacture small arms and ammunition, the real weapons of mass destruction in Khartoum’s campaign of ethnic cleansing. It is estimated that as much as 80% of Sudan’s oil revenue go to the purchase of weapons, while the general population remains one of the poorest in the world."

"Unfortunately, before President Bush got to the part of his speech in Bangkok about Chinese human rights, he spent much more time talking about the U.S.-Chinese partnership, mainly in economic terms. This priority of investment and trade with China, much of it to replace American production, was carried over from the Clinton administration into the Bush era. Former Clinton Undersecretary of Commerce Jeffrey Garten recounts in his 1997 book The Big Ten how the transnational business community persuaded President Clinton to abandon his worries about the Chinese dictatorship, ‘I saw no issue which raised more concern and emotion in the business community than the tying of trade to human rights in China.’"

   "Partnerships with China are always bad for the people in the subordinate country. Though not involving the overt violence used in Sudan, Beijing has inflicted losses on America as it has ‘reformed’ its economic policy from Marxism to fascism. A study released July 30th by the Economic Policy Institute detailed the impact that the growing U.S. trade deficit with China is having on American jobs, wages and key industries. ‘Between 2001 and 2007, 2.3 million American jobs were lost due to the China trade gap, including 366,000 last year’ reports EPI. Those displaced workers lost an average of $8,146 in wages last year, a total of $19.4 billion, as they were only able to find lower-paying jobs. Economic pressure can be just as unrelenting as militia groups in its ability to dislocate people and destroy communities.  

"Beyond the negative economic effects of the trade deficit with China ($256 billion last year), the flow of hard currency, investment capital and advanced technology is expanding Chinese industrial capacity and financial clout. Beijing’s new economic strength is used to support a military buildup and diplomatic initiatives aimed at undermining American influence and interests in every corner of the globe.  

"It is disconcerting how many people do not understand Samuel P. Huntington’s warning, ‘that economic activity is a source of power as well as well-being.’ Consider reactions to a new forecast that China could overtake the United States as the world’s largest producer of manufactured goods next year. John Engler, president of the National Association of Manufacturers, told The Financial Times (August 10th) it was ‘inevitable’ that China would take over on account of its size. ‘This should be a wholesome development for the U.S., for it promises both political stability for the world’s largest country and continuing opportunities for the U.S. to export to, and invest in, the world’s fastest-growing economy.’ Yet, it is American corporate investment that is helping China grow, and U.S. exports are dwarfed by what China sells in the American market. The result is a shifting balance of power. Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations noted that ‘The wealth of a neighboring nation, however, though dangerous in war and politics, is certainly advantageous in trade.’ Engler’s group is dominated by transnational trading firms whose narrow focus is divorced from any regard for national life. His desire to gain private profit by helping China rise as a rival to the United States is disgraceful.  

"Whether it is in Khartoum or Washington, the Beijing regime corrupts everything it touches. It does no good to talk about China’s problematic behavior when American actions work to strengthen the Beijing regime. U.S. policy must change to redress the dangerous imbalance in economic relations with China that has been allowed to develop.  

"China’s export-led growth is not just based on cheap labor, especially as it expands into strategic and high-tech sectors of its economy. Subsidies, currency manipulation, and the theft of intellectual property are all part of Beijing’s game plan to dominate global industrial markets. These tactics are, however, all open to countermeasures by properly drafted and enforced domestic U.S. trade laws. While some of these Chinese offenses have been challenged by U.S. cases at the World Trade Organization, that route is long and uncertain. Congress has repeated passed bi-partisan resolutions defending the sovereign right to use American trade laws independent of any WTO action. The next president needs to enforce existing laws more forcefully and against a broader sweep of the economy than either the Clinton or Bush administrations have done. China cannot be allowed to take larger market shares away from American producers."

"Licensing of technology for use in China needs to be significantly tightened, and many more Federal resources need to be devoted to policing any licenses granted to prevent technology from reaching the Chinese military and defense industry. Indeed, with Chinese theft of intellectual property so pervasive, the general rule should be to allow nothing of value to reach China, as it is certain to end up in the wrong hands."

"Finally, as a result of transferring over a $1 trillion to China via the trade deficit this decade, safeguards must be established to prevent Beijing from using this horde of cash to buy strategic American assets and spread its influence deeper into the U.S. economy and politics. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States should treat all Chinese investments as being under the control of the Beijing regime, and inherently a threat to national security if used to acquire access to manufacturing, technology, infrastructure, natural resources or financial institutions. CFIUS has the power to block all such acquisitions and should not hesitate to do so.  

"A dramatic scaling back of trade with China is only part of the program needed to maintain U.S. preeminence. Americans need to produce more, develop new technology, increase capital formation, and become less dependent on foreign sources for energy and other inputs vital to a growing economy. Contests at the Olympics are decided by competition, but so are contests in the international economy and the world at large." Source: William R. Hawkins, Accuracy in Media, 8/19/08 

The proposed Social Security totalization agreement between the United States and Mexico faces strong opposition from the public, according to a poll conducted by The Conservative Caucus Foundation (TCCF).

When asked whether Congress should overturn the agreement (which has not yet been submitted for approval), 96% said yes and only 2% no. The idea of a "global welfare system" was opposed by 97%.

Only 36% had heard about the agreement, which was signed in 2004.

The poll was conducted by mail during the Spring of 2008 and received about 1,500 responses.

The Conservative Caucus Foundation (TCCF), founded in 1976, regularly publishes studies on key public policy issues, including, for example, some concerning Red China, the Panama Canal, nuclear disarmament, and SDI.

-- 30 --

John Edwards’ name recognition is through the roof, although not in a way that he would have preferred.

I do find it interesting, however, that conduct similar to that for which Mr. Edwards is receiving so much attention, was part of the repertoire of Warren Harding, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and, of course, William Jefferson Clinton, not to mention Senator Edward M. Kennedy.

One can argue that the standards have changed and certainly the rules have changed, but one must acknowledge that former Senator Edwards has not handled this very well.

A foreign government presents an award to an elected official of the United States for promoting legislation to grant amnesty to illegal aliens. This is an outrage!

The Washington Post reported on July 20, 2008 that Senator Edward M. Kennedy received Mexico’s highest award for his efforts to pass the Kennedy-McCain amnesty bill and promote other policies which encourage illegal immigration.

Members of the United States government, who have sworn an oath to the Constitution of the United States, should refuse any such honors. The Senator should immediately return the award.

This isn’t the first time Senator Kennedy has advanced foreign interests. CNSNews.com reported the following disturbing news on October 20, 2006:

"In his book, which came out this week, Paul Kengor focuses on a KGB letter written at the height of the Cold War that shows that Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) offered to assist Soviet leaders in formulating a public relations strategy to counter President Reagan’s foreign policy and to complicate his re-election efforts.

The letter, dated May 14, 1983, was sent from the head of the KGB to Yuri Andropov, who was then General Secretary of the Soviet Union’s Communist Party.

In his letter, KGB head Viktor Chebrikov offered Andropov his interpretation of Kennedy’s offer. Former U.S. Sen. John Tunney (D-Calif.) had traveled to Moscow on behalf of Kennedy to seek out a partnership with Andropov and other Soviet officials, Kengor claims in his book." (from Paul Kengor’s book "The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism")

Indeed, with Senator Kennedy’s opposition to anti-Communist freedom fighters in Nicaragua and Angola; as well as the Kennedy family’s financial partnership with Communist dictator Hugo Chavez, we ask the Senator to reconsider the stands he has taken.

JOIN THE COMMUNIST OLYMPICS TRUTH SQUAD

Can you help on an important project? While the liberal media offers glowing coverage to the tyranny which rules Red China, the truth that the media will avoid is more horrifying than most people can even believe.

Freedom activists have been arrested and jailed. The Communist-controlled internet censors mention of Communist China’s crimes. Beijing harshly threatens countless numbers of religious believers and supporters of freedom. The PRC profits from killing prisoners for organ transplants.

Red China is the Number One polluter on Earth. Some of their food is toxic and they have been found to use banned chemicals.

Here’s where your help can make a difference. China’s rulers are counting on the media to sanitize their regime and ignore their brutality.

To help balance pro-Beijing propaganda during the Olympics:

• Write "letters to the editor".
• Call radio talk shows every day.
• Make a 2-minute commentary and post it on YouTube.

With your help, we can help balance the pro-Communist bias we see in much of the media during the Olympics. By forwarding this message to your friends, you can make an even great impact.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the greatest man of the 20^th century, died on August 3, which happens to be the birth date of the late Dr. Jonas Savimbi and my son, Samuel Joshua Phillips.

Ronald Reagan was not a perfect President. Two of his nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court – – – Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Connor – – – have been major disappointments, especially O’Connor, who has provably shown herself to be perhaps the most pro-abortion justice ever to sit on the court.

Of course, O’Connor’s pro-abortion record in Arizona was clear to all with eyes to see, which is why, in 1981, I led the opposition to her confirmation.

Now, Mrs. O’Connor has used her position as a retired justice sitting at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to say it’s okay to punish people for praying in the name of Jesus Christ.

Concerned Women for America (CWA) points out "In Turner v. City Council of the City of Fredericksburg, decided on July 23, Justice O’Connor said that a Fredericksburg City Council policy that excluded council-member Rev. Hashmel Turner from praying because he would have prayed in the name of Jesus did not violate his freedom of speech, religious liberties, or the establishment clause.

"Justice O’Connor deemed the prayers at the Council ‘government speech’ and therefore determined that a requirement that prayers be nonsectarian (not addressing any named deity) is appropriate. She said, ‘The restriction that prayers be nonsectarian in nature is designed to make prayers accessible to people who come from a variety of backgrounds, not to exclude or disparage a particular faith.’ Well, talk about twisted logic. By making prayer more ‘accessible’ to others, the Council excluded Rev. Turner from praying in the name of Jesus. What about his access?

"By perverting the First Amendment, judges like O’Connor prohibit something that the Founders wanted to protect – namely, the freedom to pray according to your beliefs – and sanction something the Founders wanted to prohibit, the government dictating how you can pray."

According to Christian Newswire (7/28/08), "The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals today ruled that the city council of Fredericksburg, Virginia had proper authority to require ‘non-sectarian’ prayer content and exclude council-member Rev. Hashmel Turner from the prayer rotation because he prayed ‘in Jesus’ name.’

"Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, writing the decision, said:

" ‘The restriction that prayers be nonsectarian in nature is designed to make the prayers accessible to people who come from a variety of backgrounds, not to exclude or disparage a particular faith.’ …

"Gordon James Klingenschmitt, the former Navy chaplain who faced court-martial for praying ‘in Jesus name’ in uniform (but won the victory in Congress for other chaplains), defended Rev. Hashmel Turner:

" ‘The Fredericksburg government violated everybody’s rights by establishing a non-sectarian religion, and requiring all prayers conform, or face punishment of exclusion. Justice O’Connor showed her liberal colors today, by declaring the word "Jesus" as illegal religious speech, which can be banned by any council who wishes to ignore the First Amendment as she did. Councilman Rev. Hashmel Turner should run for mayor, fire the other council-members, and re-write the prayer policy. And if he appeals to the Supreme Court, I pray he will win, in Jesus’ name.’"

A core principle of a representative republic, such as the U.S. was designed to be, is that, through the electoral process, public policy can be held accountable to the citizenry.

The Civil Service system undercuts this principle of accountability by providing secure employment to individuals who, to an increasing degree, go beyond the implementation of policies determined by their elected superiors to instead make policy decisions on their own.

It is thus appropriate that, if a President is to be held accountable to the states and the people, he must be able to hold the employees in the Executive Branch accountable to him.

Currently, a political tempest is brewing to condemn decisions by Justice Department employees to provide preferential hiring to individuals who are sympathetic to the policies of the President and his Attorney General. These Justice Department officials are, in like manner, being criticized for disfavoring individuals who are hostile to the principles and policies of the President and the Attorney General.