FEMINISM: MASK FOR MARXISM?

Tom Valentine's guest on Radio Free America (Shortwave, 5.065 MHz, mon-fri, 9 pm cst) on December 28, 1994 was Andrea Pearson, editor-in-chief of a newsletter called "Americans In Exile" [contact info to be included below]. Ms. Pearson has some non- politically correct views on Feminism, etc. Note that views expressed in the following do not necessarily reflect my own views or those of Conspiracy Nation.

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

[Awesome sounds of John Phillip Souza's "Stars and Stripes Forever"]

ANNOUNCER: It's Radio Free America, the talk show for intelligent Americans, with your host, Tom Valentine.

Radio Free America is brought to you by The Spotlight [CN -- Note: Throw mud here.] Call 1-800-522-6292 for your subscription.

And now, the newspaper that "tells it like it is" presents Tom Valentine.

TOM VALENTINE:
Hello, everybody. Welcome back, to Radio Free America.

And before I get to my guest and to our topic tonight, I want to bring up something that I mentioned in the first hour.

The New York Times lead editorial today [12/28/94] should be framed and hung on the mantle like the antlers of a trophy animal by a big hunter, down at The Spotlight. "The Miscalculation in Chechnya," it says.

"President Boris Yeltsin was justified," (get that), "...was justified in using force against the breakaway Russian republic of Chechnya."

So, right off the bat, the opinion of the owners of the New York Times organization is, that Yeltsin was "justified" in this that we're watching on the media right now.

And it was The Spotlight that pointed out yesterday, or this week's Spotlight points out that the bankers are behind the move on it, and that Russia got the nod from the united States. In fact, on December the 11th, Boris Yeltsin was given the green light to go ahead and attack, according to The Spotlight, by none other than Strobe Talbot of the Clinton administration!

The very last paragraph of this long, rambling [New York Times] editorial chastising Boris Yeltsin for being clumsy as he carries out the orders from the boardroom... The very last paragraph says, "Washington has an interest in keeping Russia and 'reform' intact." It does. And this is the wonderful paragraph here, that belongs on the mantle: "After initially giving Mr. Yeltsin a green light for military intervention [in Chechnya]..."

They just got through chewing him out for being clumsy and his application of the military and his not finding a political solution. But they're admitting that Mr. Yeltsin was given a green light by the Clinton administration. Well how is it the Clinton administration can give the Russian bear a green light to kill people if it isn't somebody higher up? And I don't mean God, but people playing God with all the money -- the bankers.

This editorial, folks, you should get it and frame it. Today's New York Times editorial on Chechnya. It's an excellent piece to prove our point.

Now. We gotta change gears, change subject, totally. On Radio Free America, whenever I have open phones in the last few years, one of my, I would call 'em regular callers, is a lovely lady. She calls in from Pittsfield, Massachusetts. And she always has something intelligent to contribute. And so last week when she called and we were talking, I asked her if she'd be a guest. And she has agreed to be a guest. So I want to introduce Andrea, from Pittsfield, Massachusetts. Of course, we always use only first names of callers. However, Andrea, you have stepped out of the anonymity of caller-ship and you have... Your last name is "Pearson". Andrea Pearson, you are no longer anonymous.

Welcome to Radio Free America.

ANDREA PEARSON:
Good evening, Tom.

VALENTINE: First of all, tell me a little about yourself. Why is it that you have this consuming interest in the, the movement of the feminists and their influence on our society?
PEARSON: Well it's my observation that, under the banner of Feminism, Marxism and Socialism are being imposed on the American people. And not only that, but Feminism and the culture that has replaced the American culture that we once had, is a paradigm. And because men are so socialized to protect women from things that are offensive, and to give them good things -- that no one speaks against it.

So...

VALENTINE: Wow... Wait a minute, wait a minute. What you just said is very interesting.

Because we men... And if you're brought from a traditional family, you are taught by your parents that uh, the "ladies first" and to have courtesy and that the distaff side of things is to get all of your attention. And we do for our women. That's the purpose of a man being alive. We're taught that.

And you're saying that, because of that, these feminists have an edge in pushing their agenda.

PEARSON: ...the Marxists in our government and in the U.N. are manipulating the male nature in order to impose Marxist policies and programs and [to] influence our belief systems and change our culture. I think it's one of the most destructive forces that has ever happened in the history of the world. And...
VALENTINE: This is gonna be very interesting, Andrea. We have a break coming up. But already, I'm interested.

My guest is Andrea Pearson, from Pittsfield, Massachusetts. And the gender war, being used on us. I'm Tom Valentine, this is Radio Free America.

[...break...]

All right, we are back, live. And my guest is Andrea Pearson. And she's out of Pittsfield, Massachusetts.

And before we go anywhere further with your thesis and so forth, Andrea... When you say "Marxist"... Now that has a different connotation to a lot of different people. My idea of a Marxist is one thing, yours may be another. How are you using "Marxism", "Marxist"?

PEARSON: Well in the writings of Karl Marx and other Communists, they write about their belief systems in many different ways. For instance, in terms of borders, who owns property, who can own land, who owns the operation of the industry, [who] controls that, and so forth.

But they also have very strong beliefs about marriage. They believe that marriage is a system imposed by a patriarchal, capitalistic system, by men, onto women. And that it's something that is used by men, against women, by force.

VALENTINE: So you're using "Marxist" as "those who have taken the ideas of Karl Marx and others, and put them together to centralize things and to break down standard traditions, such as the basic, nuclear family, for the purposes of the State or the people in charge at that central headquarters running everything."
PEARSON: Well not only do these people want to have power over us. They want to destroy the American economy. They want to destroy our borders. They want to make restrictions about who can own property and about how industry is regulated.
VALENTINE: Well that's what our government's doing now. And we don't have any Marxists in the American government -- ha, ha, ha.
PEARSON: We certainly do. And they are also doing very severe damage, through legislation, to the American family. And to, also, our belief systems, our culture. When you think about America, you think about its culture and its rituals [CN -- also its colorful colloquialisms, so verboten now in our major universities]. And in terms of gender politics, what you might think of is, in the 1950s, the way a man would tip his hat to a lady or open a door for her. Or the way daddy felt about his little girl. And how boys, or children, inter-related with each other in terms of sex roles.

Well the U.N. has an interest in that. And they have an interest and it's very strong. There's a Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women. And we, as a nation, have had a Congress and President who have decided that they want to impose that, as the force of law, upon the American people. And what my contention is, is that the basic premise of Feminism is faulty. And that women were never discriminated against in America. And that they actually chose a different role: That they preferred to live in marriages. And they preferred to raise their own children. And they preferred this in an equal relationship before God -- although their role was different.

VALENTINE: All right. That's a very fair beginning.

Now you say legislation had something to do with this. How about giving me an example.

PEARSON: Well, let me just read you a short list of some of the more severe ones: Affirmative Action for Women (which is preference for employment for women), Campus Security Act, the Gender Equity in Education Act, the Violence Against Women Act, the Fair Pay Act (which is now pending, before Congress), and the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women. That, uh U.N. Convention, is something that all of these previous laws that I mentioned, are... those things are mentioned in the [U.N.] Convention. And what our Congress is doing is bringing us into accordance with global law concerning men and women.
VALENTINE: Do you think that this movement is the reason that the man can't make enough money to support a family anymore; that both the man and the wife have to work to make ends meet today?
PEARSON: I think that the destruction of the economy was deliberate, in order to create a crisis whereby they could lure first the man, and then the woman, away from the children. Because a basic part of Communism and people who believe in Communism is that the children belong in the care of the State.
VALENTINE: All right. Let's take this: The Gender Equity Act. You mentioned that before.
PEARSON: Well this is a monstrous piece of legislation. And just to begin with, with that: If you look at the studies which preceded the Gender Equity in Education Act and you find out what kind of research was done to justify this massive piece of intrusive legislation, what you find is that the statistics were grossly distorted in order to achieve the answers that the radical Marxist-Feminists wanted. And so, what we ended up with was a study that said, "Girls suffer greatly in our school system and in our culture. They have terrible blows to their self-esteem." And that, in areas like math and science, "they're greatly damaged and hindered by the American system" -- when, in fact, that's really not true.

TOM VALENTINE:
I can tell ya, being a student in high school in '49, '50, '51, '52, that that wasn't true.

ANDREA PEARSON:
Oh it certainly isn't true...

VALENTINE: Our class valedictorian was a girl! [i.e., young wommon; cf. Politically Correct Bedtime Stories by James Finn Garner.]
PEARSON: Oh yes, absolutely. There is no gender inequity in education. And yet, in the Gender Equity in Education Act what we end up with is a massive system -- not only re-writing of history, textbooks intended to create certain opinions in children regarding gender roles, but really disgusting things like parent education about gender roles and their influence on learning.
VALENTINE: All right. I want to take this up in more detail when we come back.

My guest is Andrea Pearson. And we're talking about the gender war, and Marxism. I'm Tom Valentine. This is Radio Free America.

[...break...]

We are live, again. And on the other end of the telephone is Andrea Pearson. And we're gonna be continuing to talk about the Gender Equity in Education Act. I profess a great deal of ignorance here on this subject.

Andrea, I believe you put out a little newsletter or something on this, don't you?

PEARSON: Yeah, I sure do.
VALENTINE: Tell me about that, too.
PEARSON: Well, anyone who's interested in obtaining the newsletter can either write to me or call me. The address is: Americans in Exile, P.O. Box 2636, Pittsfield, Massachusetts, 01202. And my phone number is (413) 499-3593.
VALENTINE: Oh, I have that number! I thought maybe you had a different number for that. O.K. It's "Americans in Exile". Ah-hah! Are you an "American in exile"?
PEARSON: I think that most people who have the traditional belief systems about what marriage is, what the parents' role is towards their children, and so forth and so on, are "exiled" in America today.
VALENTINE: O.K. Andrea, will you send out a sample if people write to you and say that they'd like to see it?
PEARSON: Yeah, I sure will!
VALENTINE: O.K. Good. We got that done.

Now, this Gender Equity in Education Act. (I should know all about it.) I don't know a thing about it. When'd they pass this?

PEARSON: It was passed in 1993.
VALENTINE: Oh, last year!
PEARSON: Yeah. And what it does is, it allows, first of all, for the connection of major government systems: Health and Human Services, uh there's... They call it "The Link-up for Learning". And what it does is, it puts together a huge federal-level method for tabulating where students are: their socio-economic status, their race, their sex, and so forth...
VALENTINE: Oh, is this the thing that Beverly Eckman has helped uncover in her book about education?
PEARSON: It's very likely that it may be related to that. I don't know if she's aware of this or not. But one thing that it says here (I'm reading), it says, "improve inter-agency communications and information sharing, including developing local-area telecommunication networks, software development, database integration and management." And this is with major areas of the federal government. There's a federal inter-agency task force that's been set up "consisting of the Secretary of Education, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, and heads of other federal agencies, as appropriate." This is a huge bill. It's $360 million in the first year.
VALENTINE: All right, now, this is strange. Most Americans, including myself, would think that's awfully innocuous -- telling the bureaucrats of our government to get together and computerize. But what you're saying is, by having government bureaucrats get together and computerize, they are micro-managing lives in a way that is detrimental to our traditional society.
PEARSON: Well it is invasive to the family. But it's also particularly disturbing that the kind of things that they're paying attention to are the gender role socialization within a particular student's family. And also, you know this bill provides for so much, it's difficult to talk about all of it. But...
VALENTINE: Well, wait a minute: gender role socialization inside a particular family??
PEARSON: That's right.
VALENTINE: How do they go about doing this? What do they do?
PEARSON: Well, one thing is to change the textbooks so they're considered to be "gender equitable". Another thing that they do is, they put monies into different parts of the country: "At least one grant," (and I'm quoting here), "in each of the ten federal regions." That's their words.

Also, in the U.N. [United Nations] treaty, they talk about this same sort of thing being put into the education system. We're getting into conformity with U.N. law here.

VALENTINE: All right, does that mean... I'm trying to get this in a practical, down-to-earth, 1950s mentality -- which I'm stuck with when it comes to education and school. That means that boys don't go to wood shop anymore, and girls don't go to "home ec." [i.e., home economics]
PEARSON: Uh...
VALENTINE: They all go to sex education.
PEARSON: Well... It's not that simple. There's "set-asides" for pregnant teenagers. It allows for the erection of day-care centers -- either next to the school or nearby the school, with transportation provided. It provides for all kinds of special privileges for girls...
VALENTINE: I got ya. All right.

Andrea is my guest, Andrea Pearson and the American in Exile. And we're gonna open up the phone lines to you.

I'm Tom Valentine. This is Radio Free America.

[...break...]

All right. We are back, live. My guest is Andrea. Andrea Pearson, the producer of "Americans in Exile" newsletter, out of Post Office Box 2636, in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, 01202.

And Andrea, this Gender Equity in Education Act sounds like a massive thing, sort of like the crime bill. And it slipped through in 1993. There wasn't a lot of fanfare, was there?

PEARSON: There wasn't a lot of fanfare. I'd be surprised if most Americans knew about it. I think that they'd be horrified if they knew what was in it.
VALENTINE: Well I'm... I don't even fully understand yet. We've been talking about it, but um... It's a big bill, and you say it's horrifying. Yet I don't sense the urgency. Somehow, we're not getting it across, of how bad it is.
PEARSON: Well, one thing that seems to me like a real whopper is, that an "at risk" student is defined here. And this is the definition. (I'd like to read it, 'cause I think it's so serious): "Many 'at risk' students suffer the effects of inadequate nutrition and health care, overcrowded and unsafe living conditions and homelessness, family and gang violence, substance abuse, sexual abuse and child abuse, involuntary migration, and limited English proficiency, that often creates severe barriers to learning" the knowledge and skills, and so forth.

Then it later... This is one thing that they're going to give grants to support, is grants to local education agencies to improve educational performances of "at risk" students by removing barriers to their learning.

The trouble is, is with Bill of Rights, is that what happens is, the government starts stepping in and saying that poverty, and someone who's unemployed, may in fact be... uh, that constitutes "dysfunction" within a family. And you know as well as I do that this monstrous "child protective services" industry that's been set up, [it] gobbles up people.

VALENTINE: They abuse it. I mean, we have had... We've had people (and you've probably heard 'em on this show) that are very concerned about the social welfare abuse system, where a child can actually point a finger at the parents and yell, "Mommy and daddy are treating me bad!" -- and the State's gonna come in and throw mommy and daddy in the slammer and put the kid in a foster home!
PEARSON: Oh sure. And what it does is, it integrates services, regulations, databases, eligibility procedures, and funding sources, "focusing school and community resources on prevention and early intervention strategies, to address student needs holistically."

Now the trouble is, is that what's happening in this country is we are having Marxism imposed with the force of law on the people. And Marxists believe that children should be in the care of the State. Now the forceable removal of children is one thing. But the coercion of the child away from the American culture and values, their Christian, or Judeo-Christian values, is something that I think would disturb a lot of people. And the roles of husband and wife are something that our government has an unhealthy interest in.

VALENTINE: Well frankly, the federal government especially has no business in any of these things, that you're talkin' about. The schools should be run by the local school districts, or the people who are sending their kids to that school oughtta run that district.

If you'd like to join us (my guest is Andrea Pearson), and if you'd like to join us, it's 1-800-878-8255.

Did you know that this Feminism, that she's talking about, had this Marxist agenda? And it's been insidious! You know, they... What was it that somebody said? "You don't lose your freedom in one big fell swoop. You lose it little by little." I think that's what's happening here, Andrea.

ANDREA PEARSON:
Absolutely, I think it is. Also, when Congress considered passing this U.N. treaty, they talk about how "patterns of conduct" is in article five of the treaty.

TOM VALENTINE:
All right. Now this U.N. Convention, this treaty, is this the one that goes clear back to 1957, in establishing the U.N.?

PEARSON: Uh...
VALENTINE: Or is this something new?
PEARSON: Well, actually, it was signed on behalf of the united States in 1980. It has not been ratified yet. But one provision in the document is to say that the different States' parties can bring their own federal laws into compliance.

Now what this treaty does, in lots of ways, is it regulates conduct, it alters culture... It talks about how the State should provide for health care, and women should have equal opportunity for all sorts of things -- that I don't think the American people want women to have equal opportunity, say, for military service. Or we don't necessarily feel that our "patterns of conduct" or our culture are something that we want changed.

What disturbs me the most about this is that there was no public debate about this [e.g. The Gender Equity in Education Act]. And I believe that anyone who's a historian or who has studied American history knows that people like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and so forth, were not "white male dictators" in general, and certainly did not abuse their wives. And yet Marxists believe that they did.

Just this one piece of evidence of that: if you look at the Notes on the State of Virginia by Thomas Jefferson... And he's writing, in this case, about the American Indians. But he's talking about how they relate, in terms of men and women. And he says, "It is civilization alone which places women in the enjoyment of their natural equality."

And I believe that, in America, women were free creatures who were very happy the way they were. And not only that, they worked when they wanted to. There was, in fact, no discrimination against women.

VALENTINE: Well if they wanted to [work], they certainly could.

All right. If you'd like to join us, 1-800-878-8255. Andrea Pearson is my guest. "Feminizing and Marxizing Us". I'm Tom Valentine, Radio Free America.

[...break...]

All right, we are back, live. And a very important part of everyday life is being discussed tonight: the role of women in this here united States of America.

Mark, [in] Sarasota. You're on, with Andrea.

Hello, Mark.

MARK: Yeah. Good evening, Andrea. It's just wonderful and refreshing to hear a woman come on the air with your viewpoints. Actually, today, in the media, that's all you get is the left-wing viewpoint of women -- feminized, feministic views of women today.

I have one point that I want to just clarify with you. You mentioned that it's our Judeo-Christian heritage. Actually, it's really our Christian heritage. And that's an important part and it should be emphasized too. That when we go back and we're talkin' about people like Thomas Jefferson and some of our founding fathers and George Washington, remember that this was a Christian heritage. It wasn't a Judeo-Christian heritage. Many of the Marxist, Communist ideas have been introduced in the Judeo- Christian churches today which are not really our founding, Christian heritage at all.

PEARSON: I understand what you're saying, about our Christian heritage, and I agree with you. But I also believe that there are a number of very honorable and good Jewish people who honor the same principles that I talk about, that you are espousing too. And I don't like to exclude people -- and particularly if you read in the work of St. Paul, in Romans, [chapter] eleven. He talks about how even though some of these Jewish people may have been deceived, that that was for our blessing. And I really don't like to divide things according to religious lines when I'm talking about America.

And I think that the Biblical history as well is something that shows very clearly what the role of women should be. And it's often referred to in the New Testament. Also, those kinds of things are found in the Old Testament, such as the ruling of Appolya(?), or Jezebel, in Judah. I don't think that (even though I sense in many of the Jewish people that they espouse this kind of agenda), I think that many people who are Christians, or who call themselves Christians, often have incorporated the Feminist agenda into their very churches. I hear [of] female ministers and female priests, and I don't believe that that's something that's according to God's law! I think that...

VALENTINE: That's a big fight going on right now, especially in the Lutheran and the Episcopalian church.
PEARSON: Absolutely! And I've watched that. And I'm particularly disturbed at the way that Christianity is being re-written. And I think we, as Christians, need to mind our own business pretty carefully. Because things are gettin' serious out there.
VALENTINE: All right. Mark, I understand where you're coming from also: that there are many people who feel that the traditional, Christian values have been distorted. And one of the things to do is to use language in such a way, and that the Ecumenical movement, which has watered down basic Christianity, utilized that phrase, "Judeo-Christian"...
MARK: That's right.
VALENTINE: ...and people see it for that and... And so you both make a good point, and I appreciate your call very much!
MARK: Thank you.
VALENTINE: Gene, in Savannah, Georgia.
GENE: How are ya doin', Tom?
VALENTINE: Just fine.
GENE: Uh, Andrea. Pleased ta meet ya. You've got a very good, and serious, subject. I think it strikes at the heart of the matter of what's happening in America. If we can strike at this, first, the right to bear arms is second to this. We need to back it up.

But as a man, and someone who tries to exercise their rights over children, it becomes very difficult. And how to attack it: I've done a little research, reaching, uh studying Kent's commentaries and Blackstone's commentaries. I've discovered that even the common law doesn't really help that much. It seems like the common law has been divided into, well, I think it's been traversed. I call it, "the king's common law". And I think the last caller has a pretty good point. I studied Judaism a little bit, and it looks like, in the Jewish religion, that the mother is held up as the head of the family. And under the king's common law, the kind of like, you know, in the old days, about legitimizing a child and all that -- and it has a lot to do with today's "birth certificate". If you don't have a birth certificate, you lose... you know, you almost... You try to retain your rights to your child, but without the birth certificate you're in a paradox and you lose your rights to the child.

And if you look into the law libraries, you can read about using the petition of habeas corpus to bring the child forth. And I think this is evidence that the Biblical common law was where the father was head of the family and, you know, as long as he obeyed God's law. And well, whoever, you know, really disobeyed the law of God was actually the one who should be, you know, punished or what have you. But the child should stay with the father as long as, you know, he obeyed...

VALENTINE: Well the point that seems to be coming out of both of you is that, the traditions that are the glue of our society have been set down in Scripture for a long, long time -- both in the Old and the New Testaments. And if we stopped getting away from that, we wouldn't be doing so badly.
GENE: Yeah. I'm wondering if, when this type of "king's common law", as I call it, has been switched from Biblical common law over... I was wondering if it was when Oliver Cromwell allowed the Jewish people into England. I'm just theorizing.
VALENTINE: That's a, that's a subject for another show some night. And there are a lot of people that go into that particular aspect of the control over the British-speaking [sic] people and the use of the Bible and so on.

Gene, I appreciate your call.

Dan, in Schenectady, New York!

DAN: Yes sir! Well I wanna say two things: one is, it's a privilege to be listening to you, Andrea, and hearing your commentary tonight. And Tom, we've been listening to you for a couple of years, and in the last year or so on shortwave. And it's good to hear you in this area.

First, I wanna say, number one, is the comments with regard to the laws passed and everything: I think the issue that many of us are concerned about is, a lot of times (in the dark of night, so to speak) laws are passed that nobody knows much about. And it really brings us to the question of localism. In not just, you know, laws, but in virtually controlling the community around us. A lot of the things that are mentioned in the law that Andrea raised, or I should say, that was passed, are probably more proper items for a local community. Because a lot of times it depends on that local community -- its mores, their social conditions, and what's involved. And a lot of times, we lose track of the fact that, you know, the whole, the whole issue of our Constitution, etc., invests a lot of power downward. From the federal level, down to the local communities.

VALENTINE: Well Dan, that's what I've thought: that this doesn't belong in the federal government at all. And I'm out of time right now, and I really appreciate your calling. And I'll have Andrea comment on what you had to say, as soon as we get back.

I'm Tom Valentine. This is Radio Free America.

[...break...]

All right, we are back, live. My guest is Andrea Pearson. And she has been pointing out (and I think very nicely) that we have had a creeping Marxism in the feminizing-type laws -- especially one that was passed in 1993, the Gender Equity in Education Act. Hardly any of us knew anything about it; I don't know of anybody here that was really up on that one. And I don't remember the media "beating it to death" [i.e., covering it a lot].

And the other one is that we are under a United Nations Convention that's not yet been ratified, but it started in 1980. And if we do ratify it, it's gonna be worse than the World Trade Organization!

Andrea.

ANDREA PEARSON:
I think it will be far worse, because the people who are trying to destroy us have in mind a way for us to live.

And particularly, for a minute, I would like to bring out that I don't think that the answer at this point is to think about changing the local systems to separate from the federal government. But rather, I think what's important is for the men of this country to realize that, as men, they have a God-given role within the family to be a provider and a protector. And that many men in this country have been deprived of their ability to do that, because of government policy. And thus, this kind of invasion of the family becomes possible.

TOM VALENTINE:
You know, my wife would agree. She says it's the men who have failed to be the head of the houses that have let this country down.

You've had three men callers, and now we have a lady out there. I wonder if she agrees or not.

Doris, [in] Deep Creek, Florida.

DORIS: Yes. Andrea. I wanted to tell you, on what you have said, what it ties in with. It ties in with the United Nations curriculum for the public school children, Goals 2000. All that is spelled out. It's to make the child and mother feel that the State will take care of 'em; they don't need the man around. If they have anything they need, it will be provided for. That is in your Goals 2000, which is going to ruin education.
PEARSON: I agree with you, 100 percent. The "sugar daddies" in Congress sure are luring the women away, aren't they?
DORIS: Yes, and it's planned that way.
PEARSON: Oh it certainly is. This is done by design.
DORIS: Yes. I was on the committee for a full year, before it was implemented in our town. And on the final meeting, they had someone from the state come down, and they asked if they had any questions. And I raised my hand. I said, "Will you admit this is a United Nations curriculum?!" She would not answer, even if I asked it four times. So I went ahead and I told the committee that they can think I'm a "kook", but pay attention. In the future, it's gonna come around that this is a United Nations curriculum. And it's the worst thing they can put in for their child.

And now, they're starting to hear it on different stations; they're starting to read it in the newspaper. And this is all being done undercover, with a lot of parents not even being aware.

Also, the children are on computer data bases! Everything they ask the child, under psychology tests, everything that is programmed with the child -- Outcome Based Education. And there's privacy: parents cannot see it.

VALENTINE: All right. Listen, Doris, you're terrific. From Deep Creek, Florida, with that New York/Massachusetts accent! I love it.

Andrea, we're gonna have to bring you back. Because one hour is not enough time for this. But I wanna plan it again, if you don't mind. And we'll talk about this subject again. Is that all right with you?

PEARSON: Well that's wonderful, Tom. And you have wonderful, intelligent callers.
VALENTINE: I sure do -- the best! Sometimes I even turn them into guests.

Thank you very much for giving up your time tonight. We will be doing it again.

Andrea's newsletter is, "Americans in Exile". And it's Post Office Box 2636. (This is where you write to. She'll send you a sample of her newsletter dealing with this feminizing Marxism behind the scenes, and so forth.) Americans in Exile, Post Office Box 2636, Pittsfield, Massachusetts, 01202. Her telephone is (413) 499-3593. There ya go.

Andrea, thank you very much.

All right! We're gonna take a break for the alleged "news". (I'm almost sorry to take a break; that's a good subject. We'll have to do it again.) We'll return. I have a brand new congressman, the guy that beat Jack Brooks down in Tejas [i.e. Texas]. See ya then.

Brian Francis Redman bigxc@prairienet.org "The Big C"

Coming to you from Illinois -- "The Land of Skolnick"