Wendy Wright: And it seems that they again want to have people be uneducated so then they do become wards of the state. They’re dependent on the government to provide everything for them.
溫迪∙萊特：他們似乎想再次讓人們變成愚民，這樣他們就會被國家監管看護，依賴於政府為他們提供一切。
Janet(Folger) Porter: It’s under ten percent of kids[that] believe there’s an absolute right and an absolute wrong. And why are we surprised? We』ve sent our kids into this government system that indoctrinates them, that teaches them about tolerance and diversity and multiculturalism and not about reading, writing, and arithmetic, not about what our Founding Fathers had to say. It’s consequences.
珍妮特（弗爾傑）波特：現在不到10%的學生相信有絕對的對與絕對的錯。我們有什麼可詫異的呢？我們把自己的孩子送到教條式的政府教育系統里，教給他們的都是所謂容忍、多元化和多文化這些東西，而不是閱讀、寫作和算術、也不是建國先父的話語，那就會有相應的後果。
Narrator: Few would argue that the education that children are receiving in the public schools is pathetic at best. But with the amount of tax dollars we spend each year, over twice as much as it would cost to send the students to private school, why do we allow this to continue? The group that my investigation led me to that seems dedicated to making sure the children don’t get a good education who was a real shocker.
旁白：大多數人都會同意,公立學校的教育水平充其量也只能說可悲。可是我們每年花在公立教育上的納稅人的錢，比把孩子送到私立學校要超出兩倍。為什麼我們仍在縱容這個現狀呢？究竟是誰似乎在竭盡所能阻止孩子受到良好教育呢，我的調查揭露出的始作俑者令人驚訝。
Phyllis Schlafly: The schools are pretty much controlled by teacher’s unions, National Education Association.
費利斯∙雪弗利：公立學校基本上被教師聯合工會與全國教育協會控制。
Mike Smith, ESQ.: If you look at their platform and goals, you would think they’re a socialist or almost communistic organization.
麥克∙史密斯律師：如果你去看這些組織的平台和目標，會以為他們是社會主義甚至共產主義組織。
Phyllis Schlafly: They are for the entire feminist agenda, starting with abortion on demand, tax-funded abortions. They’re for the whole gay rights agenda. They’re for the whole globalism agenda. They are extremely anti-parent, and it is an effort to get the children to abandon the values of their parents.
費利斯∙雪弗利：他們支持女權主義的全部綱領，首先就是按需墮胎，以及用納稅人的錢資助墮胎。他們全盤支持同性戀權利綱領。他們全盤支持全球主義。他們極端反對父母，並且努力使孩子放棄父母的價值觀。
Brannon Howse: National Education Association has no patience, tolerance, or use for traditional teachers. They’re looking for people who want to be agents of change.
布蘭登∙豪斯：全國教育協會對於雇用傳統觀念的老師毫無耐心、也無法容忍。他們要找的是想要帶來改變的人。
Wendy Wright: They want to throw out all the lessons of history, and really it’s an attempt to then impose their own views and ideas onto people, get them to act as activists.
溫迪∙萊特：他們想無視歷史的種種教訓，然後試圖把他們的看法和理念強加給人們，把人們變成激進分子。
M. Stanton Evans: If you control those institutions, then you can control everything else.
M.史丹頓∙艾文斯：如果你控制了那些組織，你就能控制了一切。
Mike Smith, ESQ.: It’s all public schools, all for their jobs, and they have gotten behind all the radical kinds of curriculum that’s being introduced. They’re for it one hundred percent. They』ve had a tremendous effect on public education. It’s not positive.
麥克∙史密斯律師：控制所有的公立學校，占領這些工作職位，推動所有激進的教學大綱—這些他們百分之百支持。他們對公立教育的影響巨大，卻並非正面影響。
[Immorality][道德敗壞]
Wendy Wright: We also see immorality being promoted through our schools. The kind of sex-ed curriculum that is being used and paid for with our tax dollars would shock most parents.
溫迪∙萊特：我們也看到在學校里推行道德敗壞的事情。現在學校教的、由納稅人的錢資助的性教育課程會讓大多數父母都吃驚。
Narrator: I think one of the main problems we face is parents naively thinking that the schools are the same today as they were when they were young. They don’t realize there is a battle going on in this country for the hearts and minds of our children. The game is between fifteen and twenty-five years of age. That’s the whole game. If you’re over twenty-five, the chances are they’re going to put a few pennies toward you to corrupt you. But their game right now is to corrupt the fifteen to twenty-five-year-olds or less. And right now they’re down to the first grade where Heather has two mommies, daddy’s roommate, gay pride parade. And now by eighth grade, they』ll pass out condoms in school colors because that’s so patriotic.
旁白：我認為現在的一個主要問題，是家長天真地以為今天的學校和他們當年的學校是一樣的。家長沒有意識到，現在在美國，有一場爭奪孩子心靈與思想的戰爭正在進行。針對的是十五歲至二十五歲的人—這是這場對抗的主要目標。如果你超過二十五歲，他們可能不會花太多力氣腐化你。他們主要是腐化年齡在十五歲到二十五歲的青少年，甚至更年幼的孩童。現在，他們已經在教一年級學生《海希爾有兩個媽媽》（女同性戀主題的兒童書）、《爸爸的室友》（男同性戀主題的兒童書）、以及同性戀遊行。學校會給八年級學生派發代表學校顏色的保險套，因為他們說這很有愛國精神。
Phyllis Schlafly: And it’s perfectly obvious that[if] you get a hold of the child early, you can change his values away from his parents』 values and get him to follow you. And they’re very open about saying that. National Education Association has passed resolutions saying they want children from birth.
費利斯∙雪弗利：很明顯，如果你能儘早控制孩子的思想，就可以使他/她背離父母的價值觀，並轉而追隨你的價值觀。他們並不掩藏這個意圖。全國教育協會已經通過決議，要從孩子一出生就由他們接管。
Narrator: Isn’t that interesting?「The Communist Manifesto」 also thought the state should take control of children at birth. The Left has always been good at disguising their real agenda by coming up with phrases made from words we’re very familiar with, but then giving them new definitions.「Social justice」 is the current phrase of choice and is being used to teach children the failed Marxist ideas of yesteryear are what they should strive for today.
旁白：這很耐人尋味。「共產主義宣言」同樣說過，國家應該從孩子一出生就控制他們。左派一直很善於偽裝他們真正的計劃，他們會用我們熟知的詞語進行包裝，但是會給這些詞語注入新的含義。目前他們選擇的詞是「社會正義」，通過這個詞，他們把當年失敗的馬克思主義教給今天的孩子，告訴他們這是今天奮鬥的目標。
Brannon Howse: We see「social justice」 curriculum today, which is the buzzword for communism, socialism, Marxism, which Bill Ayers is teaching. It’s in many of our colleges. And the social justice curriculum is being taught in high schools all over the nation.
布蘭登∙豪斯：今天我們在授課大綱里看見「社會正義」一詞，就知道那是共產主義、社會主義和馬克思主義當下的時髦外衣而已。這些是威廉姆．阿耶斯教的。美國很多大學的授課大綱里都有。全國所有高中也把「社會正義」納入其執教大綱。
M. Stanton Evans: Justice is good. If you then start calling it something「blank」 justice then you’re modifying it. And what it really means is, I think, taking from one group of people and giving to another group. So I would call it social「isms.」
M.史丹頓∙艾文斯：正義本身是對的。但是當你在正義前面加上修飾詞，你就在修改正義的含義。我覺得它真正的意思是，從一組人群那裡奪取財富，給予另外一組人群。所以我會把這叫做社會「主義」。
Dr. Robert Chandler: And it’s used to break down the differences between the way things are done and the way it should be done.
羅伯特∙謙德勒博士：它使人們分不清現實與正道之間的差別。
Trevor Loudon: So when they’re teaching social justice in the schools, they’re not talking about free enterprise and capitalism and individual self-responsibility—all the things that made America great. They’re talking about the things that made Europe and the Soviet Union and China so bad.
翠弗爾∙路頓：學校教社會正義時，不講自由企業、資本主義及個人對自我負責等—這些是讓美國偉大的因素。他們講的東西是禍害了歐洲、蘇聯和中國的因素。
Narrator: The longer we allow our schools to teach the children that America has so many faults, it’s not worth saving, instead of the fact that even with its faults, it is the greatest country that has ever existed, the less chance we have of ever turning our people back from the dead-end road we’re currently on—a road that promises to give us a perfect world if we』ll only give up our sovereignty and our freedom.
旁白：學校教的是：美國瘡痍滿目、已經無可救藥；而不是：即便有缺點，美國仍然是歷史上最偉大的國家。如果我們繼續允許學校給孩子灌輸這樣的東西，就越來越難把人們從歧路上喚回來—這條道路告訴人們，只要交出我們的主權和自由，就承諾給我們一個完美的世界。
Dr. David Noebel: You’re going to find more and more of the following. This is now called a world pledge. We no longer want the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America because that is considered nationalistic. And of course, the socialist, the communist, the Marxist, and the extreme Left wing of the country want nothing to do with it.「I pledge allegiance to the world, to care for earth, sea, and air; to honor every living thing, with peace and justice everywhere.」 This came out first of all in Superior, Wisconsin. So Superior, Wisconsin was their guinea pig, and there was very little said against it. And so it would then go to the next, and the next, and the next. Before long you have the whole school system standing up saying「I pledge of allegiance to the world」 instead of「I pledge allegiance to the US.」 The public schools right now, if you read Toward Soviet America, have nearly accepted every item that William Z. Foster said we needed to place into the public school curriculum.
大衛∙諾伯爾博士：以下的情景將越來越常見：現在有個東西叫普世宣誓。我們不再願意向美國國旗宣誓，因為那太民族主義。當然，那些社會主義者、共產主義者、馬克思主義者、還有美國極左派們都想遠離民族主義這個詞。普世宣誓是這樣的：「我宣誓效忠於這個世界，要關愛地球、海洋和空氣；要尊重每一個生命、讓和平與正義遍布天下。」普世宣誓最早是在威斯康辛州的蘇比瑞爾市試用，蘇比瑞爾市成了他們的小白鼠，幾乎無人提出反對。那麼就會在下一個地方採行、然後再下一個、再下一個。很快整個學校系統就會開始採行「我宣誓效忠於這個世界」，而不再是「我宣誓效忠於美國」。如果你去讀《走向蘇維埃美國》，你會發現今天的公立學校幾乎接納了威廉姆∙Z∙福斯特所闡述的，每一個他試圖納入公立學校教學大綱的內容。
Trevor Loudon: And we’re seeing the results, you know? People are not as informed as they once were. They think in different ways, and they think in the way that the Left intends them to think.
翠弗爾∙路頓：我們已經看到後果了：現在人不像以前人那樣了解情況，他們的觀念變了，他們在按照左派想要的方式在思考問題。
Narrator: Antonio Gramsci realized that if you can take over the institutions in a culture, you will be able to use those to influence society to create the socialist man you want. I think the most brilliant part of his plan was that he realized you could not only create a man that wanted big government to take care of him, cradle to grave, but—and this is the genius of Gramsci—you could create a man that needed big government to take care of him, cradle to grave. A man so dumbed down and so minimized in society, he wouldn’t have the intellect or character to take care of himself. The reason this is so deadly for America is that once we have a certain percentage of the population in that category, our limited constitutional form of government is no longer possible because too many people won’t be able to exist in that framework. We are approaching that tipping point rapidly.
旁白：葛蘭西意識到，如果你可以控制一個文化的各方面的制度，你就可以利用它們去創造你想要的社會主義者。我認為他這個計劃最絕妙的一點是：他明白你不但能夠讓人們想要被大政府從搖籃一直管理到墳墓，而且—這也是葛蘭西最天才的地方—你能讓人們不得不需要被大政府從搖籃一直管理到墳墓。當人被愚化到這種程度，變成社會如此渺小的一員時，他已經沒有能力也沒有骨氣來自己當家做主了。這對美國為什麼這麼致命呢？因為一旦我們的人口中，達到一定比例的人屬於那一類，我們有限的憲政體制就不可能再繼續，因為有太多人無法在這個框架里生存。現在我們正在快速朝著那個比例接近。
[Environmentalism][環保主義]
Dr. E. Calvin Beisner: If you can persuade people that government should be in control of the distribution and use of energy, you can persuade them, or rather, you have persuaded them of the necessary and sufficient condition for government control of the most intimate aspects of our lives.
E.凱文∙貝斯納博士：如果你能夠説服人們，能源的分配與使用應該由政府來控制，你就能説服人們，或者說，你已經説服了人們，必須給政府創造這個條件，讓它能充分控制與我們生活最密切相關的方面。
Trevor Loudon: One of the main thrusts of socialism these days is obviously through the environmental movement.
翠弗爾∙路頓：今天社會主義的主要推動力之一顯然是環保運動。
Dr. E. Calvin Beisner: You know, one hates to pick on Al Gore too quickly and easily, but I read the whole of his book, Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit back in1992 when it was first published. And if you know anything about the history of political philosophy, you read the last chapter in that called a「Global Marshall Plan,」 and you understand that there is no way to implement what Al Gore was calling for in1992 in that book except by means of totalitarian world government.
E.凱文∙貝斯納博士：你知道，我很不願意急切又輕率地挑高爾的毛病，不過我在1992年當他的書《瀕臨失衡的地球—生態與人類精神》剛剛出版時就把它讀完了。如果你對政治哲學的歷史有任何了解，那麼你在讀這本書的最後一章名為「全球馬歇爾計劃」時，你就應該明白，要想實現高爾在1992年提出的這個倡議，唯一的辦法就是建立全球範圍的集權政府。
Jim Simpson: Patrick Moore, who was a co-founder of Greenpeace, and he was a very dedicated environmentalist, quit Greenpeace when he realized that it had been captured by radical leftists who were intent on using the environmental movement as a vehicle to destroy capitalism.
吉姆∙辛普森：派翠克∙摩爾這個人曾經是「綠色和平」環保組織的一位共同創建人，非常致力於環保事業。他後來辭退了「綠色和平」的工作，因為他發現這個組織已經陷於極端左派人士之手，他們企圖利用環保運動毀掉資本主義。
Dr. E. Calvin Beisner: How many factories work when there’s a power outage? None. You want to hurt business, you want to drive down industrial production, you just drive up the prices of energy, you just diminish its availability, and the easiest way to do that is to make people scared to death of the cheapest forms of energy, which are fossil fuels—oil, coal, natural gas—and nuclear energy. They had already made people afraid of nuclear because of irrational fears of nuclear reactor meltdowns, which were physically impossible anyway, but then they had to figure out a way to make them afraid of fossil fuels. Well the way to do that was to say they’re going to cause catastrophic global warming.
E.凱文∙貝斯納博士：當不供電時，有幾家工廠能夠運作？沒有。你要想傷害企業，減少工業生產，只需要提高能源價格，讓企業無法獲得足夠能源。怎麼做呢？最簡單的方法就是使人們對價格最低廉的能源產生巨大恐懼，那就是化石燃料—石油、碳、天然氣—以及核能源。他們已經讓人們對核能源產生恐懼，因為人們不理性地擔心會發生核反應堆熔解，其實這種情形是不可能的。然後他們又要想辦法讓人們害怕化石燃料。他們的辦法就是聲稱化石燃料會造成災難性的全球變暖。
Janet(Folger) Porter: So I used to think this was just one great big distraction. If they want to put their energies toward the environment, but now I see that this is now being turned around and used as a tool to further a socialist agenda.
珍妮特（弗爾傑）波特：我原本以為這不過是他們要把能源用於環境事業的干擾舉措。但是現在我明白了，他們在利用這個作為推動社會主義進程的工具。
Dr. E. Calvin Beisner: Charles Rubin, a political scientist who wrote the book, The Green Crusade, has told this story extremely well. Environment comes from a French word meaning「surroundings.」 Well, now what is surroundings? Everything around you, right? And so as Rubin points out, environmentalism is literally「everythingism.」 And so, if you were a socialist committed ideologically to the notion of government having control of everything about our lives, and you saw that you were losing the contest in terms of the creation of wealth and its distribution to capitalism, you had to find some other basis on which to promote your vision of government and to pursue its implementation. Environmentalism or「everythingism」 was the perfect card.
E.凱文∙貝斯納博士：查爾斯∙魯賓是一位政治學家，他在《綠色十字軍東征》（The Green Crusade）一書中極精彩地描繪了這個故事。「環境」一詞（Environment）最早來自於法語的「周圍」（surroundings）。什麼是周圍呢？就是你四周的一切事物，對不對？所以魯賓就指出，環保主義實際上是「一切主義」。所以，如果你是一名社會主義者，你相信政府應該控制人們生活的方方面面，而你看到在創造財富和分配財富這兩方面，你贏不了資本主義，那麼你就不得不尋找另外的基點來推動你心目中的政府模式以及實施你的計劃。而環保主義，或者說「一切主義」，就是你的一張王牌。
Narrator: In December of2009, when the「Climategate」 scandal broke open, and it became public that even the leaders of the movement knew the whole global warming idea was a farce—it wasn’t just them having bad data—we as Americans knew, once and for all, that this movement was simply part of their agenda. It’s my guess that regardless of the evidence that comes out against them, they will not let this tool they have waited for the last hundred years for, go to waste—a tool that gives them the absolute power and control they want, but allows them to get it under the guise of saving the planet.
旁白：2009年12月，「氣候門」醜聞曝光後，公眾獲知連環保運動的領軍人物也知道整個全球變暖的說法是場鬧劇—這不是他們數據有誤這麼簡單—作為美國人，我們徹底知道了這場運動不過是他們行動計劃里的一步棋而已。我估計，雖然有證據對他們不利，但是他們不會白白放棄這個等待了一百年的得力工具—有此利器，他們可以擁有絕對的權力和控制力，而且能夠打著拯救地球的幌子達到他們的目的。
[Have they been successful?]
[他們是否成功？]
Trevor Loudon: He was born of left-wing parents. He was mentored as a young man by a Communist Party member called Frank Marshall Davis. Now Davis joined the Communist Party in Chicago, and he was very well connected there. So young Obama eventually wound up in Chicago, and he started working with the very same people that had been working with his friend Frank Marshall Davis.
翠弗爾∙路頓：他出生在父母都是左派的家庭。在他青年時，一個叫做弗蘭克．馬歇爾．戴維斯的共產黨員是他的導師。戴維斯在芝加哥加入的共產黨，他在那裡人脈很廣。所以，年輕的歐巴馬後來到了芝加哥，與歐巴馬緊密共事的那群人是與他的朋友戴維斯緊密共事的同一群人。
Hon. Steve King: All of his associations have been with people that are way left of center—hardcore left.
尊敬的史蒂夫∙金：所有與他共事的人都與非常左派的人士有聯繫—強硬左派人士。
Hon. H.L. Richardson: And he’s doing nothing more than what is predictable based upon that background.
尊敬的H.L.理察遜：他所做的一切也不過就是我們可以預想到的他這種背景的人會做的事情。
Hon. Steve King: The nicest word for his agenda is a「socialist」 agenda. And we could go on down the line of the other descriptors of the types of an economy and society that he’s building.
尊敬的史蒂夫∙金：他的施政路線，即便用最好的詞形容，也屬於「社會主義」路線。他正在創建的經濟和社會類型，我們可以用其它更靠左的那些詞語來形容。
Trevor Loudon: He’s all the things Gramsci wanted to use for social change. Yeah, he’s the epitome of the movement.
翠弗爾∙路頓：他是葛蘭西想用來推動社會變革的完美人選。沒錯，他就是這個運動的縮影。
Narrator: If you think there’s no way that so few could be so effective, consider this: When the Communist Party USA split in1992, the group that formed was the Committees of Correspondence. And it was their meeting I attended that summer at Berkeley. As I started researching that group, I saw that many of the same people who started or have worked with the Committees of Correspondence and its sister organizations were the same people who were involved with President Obama’s campaign and administration. I found file after file on Trevor Loudon’s website documenting, with footnotes and photographs, these connections. The radical Left has been so successful, they have persuaded the American people to put one of their own in the White House.
旁白：如果你不相信這麼一小群人能做成這麼大一件事，請想一想這點：當美國共產黨在1992年分裂以後，隨後建立了「聯絡委員會」（Committees of Correspondence），我那個夏天在伯克萊大學參加的實際上就是這個委員會的會議。我在展開對該組織的調查之後發現，很多與這個組織及其姐妹組織共事或曾經共事的人都參與了歐巴馬總統的競選與行政團隊。我在翠弗爾∙路頓的網頁上找到很多文件證明這些聯繫，有腳註、有照片。極端左派人士簡直太成功了，他們竟然説服了美國民眾讓他們的人入主了白宮。
Dr. David Noebel: Socialism and Marxism go together like Mary and Mary’s little lamb.
大衛∙諾伯爾博士：社會主義和馬克思主義是如影隨形的，就像瑪麗和瑪麗的小綿羊一般契合。
Trevor Loudon: The general populace knows very little about what the socialists are up to.
翠弗爾∙路頓：一般大眾對這些社會主義者的企圖知之甚少。
Dr. David Noebel: If you’re going to find socialism, you’re going to find the hardcore communists right behind it.
大衛∙諾伯爾博士：哪裡有社會主義，哪裡就有強硬派的共產主義人士站在他們後面。
Trevor Loudon: One of the main avenues has been through what they call the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Twenty percent of the US Congress are members of this organization. They have chairmanships of most of the major House committees and are easily the single most powerful bloc in the US Congress, and virtually all of them are tied to either Democratic Socialists of America, the Communist Party USA, or other radical organizations.
翠弗爾∙路頓：他們達成目的的一個主要途徑是通過「國會進步黨團」。美國國會20%的人屬於該黨團成員。大多數眾院委員會的主席都由該黨團成員擔任，所以它毫無疑問是國會實力最強的一個團體，這個團體幾乎所有人都與「美國民主社會主義者」（DSA）、「美國共產黨」或其它極端激進組織有關。
Dr. David Noebel: We’re literally, at this very time, watching what’s transpiring and has been going on, from the Fabian Socialist point of view, from1883 to the present. So these guys don’t give up.
大衛∙諾伯爾博士：此時此刻，按費邊社的觀點，我們毫不誇張地正在目睹著從1883年一直演變到現在，一步步發生的變化。所以這群人從來就沒有放棄過。
Trevor Loudon: And they’re going at breakneck speed because they know they』ve got an opportunity now to change America in a way that can never be changed back. And they’re going for broke.
翠弗爾∙路頓：而且他們在一日千里地推動他們的計劃，因為他們看到了這個千載難逢的機會，可以把美國推向一條不歸路。所以他們毫無保留地放手一搏。
Dr. David Noebel: The Bolsheviks, they’re just waiting in the woods, and they’re just smiling like you can’t believe. You just read the Communist Party USA blog, and they just can’t believe their good fortune. Every time they turn around, they just can’t believe this is happening. They’re like me. I’m a Christian conservative, and I can’t believe they』ve been so successful in doing this.
大衛∙諾伯爾博士：那些布爾什維克人躲在暗處簡直樂開了花。你去讀美國共產黨的博客，他們簡直不敢相信自己的好運，無法相信這竟然是真的。就跟我一樣，我是一名保守派基督徒，我也簡直無法相信他們能這麼成功。
Narrator: The Left has started multitudes of foundations and nonprofit organizations, many of which are using our tax dollars to grind America down.
旁白：左派們成立了一大堆基金會和非盈利組織，其中許多是用納稅人的錢在蠶食美國。
Hon. Ed Meese, III: They use all kinds of patriotic words to masquerade an extreme Leftist orientation, which, if anything, would enslave the people in the same kinds of things with the same kind of ultimate results as communism had.
尊敬的埃德文∙米斯III：他們用各種各樣的愛國詞藻掩飾極端左派傾向的意圖。可以確定的是，極端左派會同共產黨一樣，以同樣的方式奴役人民，造成同樣的終極後果。
Dr. David Noebel: The communist will let the socialist go so far, and then ultimately, the communists will really turn on their fellow socialists, and they』ll wipe them out too. And their attitude I think is really, probably, pretty close. They figure, look, if these socialists betrayed their own country, the chances are once we get in power, they』ll betray us too. So they』ll figure, let’s just rub them out right now. And at a given point, you』ll see in the history of communism that they』ve been very effective in rubbing out their fellow socialists who brought about their socialism before the Bolsheviks and the hardcore Communists—with a capital「C」—took them over.
大衛∙諾伯爾博士：當社會主義者們走到一定程度以後，最終，共產黨人就會跟他們反目，把他們也一併除掉。我猜測他們的心態應該是：如果這群社會主義者可以背叛自己的國家，那麼一旦我們掌權，難保他們不背叛我們。所以他們就想乾脆我們現在就把這群人除掉。通過共產主義的歷史我們看到，當社會主義實現時，一旦時機成熟，這群布爾什維克人和強硬的共產黨們-大寫「C」的這群人（Communists）-就會非常有效地一舉除掉他們的社會主義同胞。
Jim Simpson: One thing we do really have to recognize is this is a domestic enemy. This is not just people with different ideas. These are not just nice folks who have funny, silly ideas that they will eventually figure out are just not very mature. No, these people are dangerous, dangerous enemies. And they are intent on overthrowing this country and imposing the socialist system that will mean extreme hardship for the vast majority of people in this country.
吉姆∙辛普森：我們必須要清醒的認識一點：他們是我們國內的敵人，而不僅是一群擁有不同理念的人。他們不是一群本質善良、想法天真而最終會面對現實會成熟起來的人。不，這是一群極端危險的敵人。他們的意圖是推翻這個國家，把社會主義制度施加給美國，這意味著美國將來絕大部分人將陷入極度困苦之中。
Hon. Steve King: That’s true with them constantly seeking to re-engineer society, so they reach this level of utopian perfection. Where[as] we on the other side, we advance the idea that this is about the cause of freedom, and if it hadn’t been for Jesus Christ, there never would have been any United States of America, because the inspiration for freedom drove our Founding Fathers. They were informed by their faith, and, I believe, guided by the hand of God.
尊敬的史蒂夫∙金：比如他們不斷在尋求重新改造這個社會，以期達到烏托邦程度的完美。而我們推行的理念是：我們自由的緣由來自於基督耶穌，如果不是耶穌，就根本不會有美利堅合眾國，因為我們的建國先父被自由的啟示所驅使，才創建了美國。是信仰為他們指路，我相信，是上帝指引著他們。
[Is it too late?]
[我們還來得及回頭嗎？]
Hon. H.L. Richardson: No.
尊敬的H.L.理察遜：來得及。
M. Stanton Evans: No.
M.史丹頓∙艾文斯：來得及。
Hon. Ed Meese, III: Perhaps, treacherously close.
尊敬的埃德文∙米斯III：或許是千鈞一髮的時候。
Dr. David Noebel: It is never over until it’s over. When the fat lady sings—isn’t that the slogan—when the fat lady sings, it’s over. Now, she might be clearing her throat.
大衛∙諾伯爾博士：只要還沒結束，就有機會。不是有句俗語：當胖女人唱歌時，歌劇才將落幕嘛？現在那個胖女人可能已經在清喉嚨了。
Trevor Loudon: We saw the great country of Germany in the1920s brought to its knees. Hitler came to power and destroyed the country. We see countries like Zimbabwe in Africa, which was once a prosperous breadbasket, now just wreaked. Argentina was destroyed by the socialist[Juan] Perón in the50s. It was one of the richest countries in the world. So no we’re not at the point of no return. But it’s getting pretty late in the day. There’s no time to be casual. That’s for sure.
翠弗爾∙路頓：在1920年代，我們看到德國這麼偉大的國家被屈服了，希特勒掌權後毀掉了德國。還有非洲的辛巴威，曾經是富足的產糧大國，後來也滿目瘡痍。阿根廷在1950年代被庇隆這個社會黨人搞垮了，它本來是世界上最富的國家之一。不，我們回頭還來得及。但是，時間真的已經不多了，我們不能再繼續掉以輕心，這是肯定的。
Narrator: We』ve spent too many years thinking because we have Republicans in office or the stock market is doing well that everything is okay. This is why the Left has gained so much ground. It doesn’t matter who’s been in office. They』ve just continued pushing forward with their agenda. Well, I believe this is our last chance to push back.
旁白：這麼多年來，我們一直以為只要共和黨掌權，或者股票市場健康發展，就萬事無妨。這種思路恰恰是為什麼左派能一直發展壯大。無論哪個黨掌權，左派都在一如既往地推進他們的計劃。我覺得，我們已經到了背水一戰的時刻了。
[What must be done?]
[什麼是當務之急？]
Dr. David Noebel: If people are looking for something to do, we have our work cut out for us.
大衛∙諾伯爾博士：想要有所作為的人們，我們的工作是十分艱巨的。
Dr. David Gibbs, Jr.: I believe one of the things that we can do that will have a profound impact in changing America is praying.
小大衛∙吉伯斯博士：我相信，有一件事情可以對改變美國發生深遠的影響，那就是祈禱。
Janet(Folger) Porter: Soon as we get off our knees, we need to get on our feet.
珍妮特（弗爾傑）波特：祈禱之後，我們要儘快行動。
Tim Woldmon: Become educated about what’s going on in the country.
蒂姆∙渥德蒙：主動去了解這個國家正在發生什麼。
Hon. Howard Phillips: Spend time reading.
尊敬的霍華德∙菲利普斯：花時間去閲讀。
John Stormer: Understand their philosophy and their goals.
約翰∙斯多莫：要懂得他們的理念與目標。
Dr. David Noebel: They have to master this documentary. They have to go over it a dozen times.
大衛∙諾伯爾博士：人們必須要熟知這部紀錄片，要看個十幾遍。
Narrator: It might be having a monthly movie night with family and friends watching one of the many great documentaries out there about what is going on in our country.
旁白：全家和朋友間可以每個月組織一次看電影活動，大家一起選一部優秀的紀錄片，有很多這樣的片子，通過這種方法了解我們國家在發生什麼。
Hon. Ed Meese, III: One of the things that I think people in the United States who believe in our country, believe in our values, can do, quite frankly, is stand up for those values, to make their views known.
尊敬的埃德文∙米斯III：我覺得對於相信美國、相信美國價值的美國人民，簡單地說，大家可以做的一件事，是為自己相信的事情去辯護，說出自己的看法。
Hon. H.L. Richardson: And there are times that you』ve got to speak up. And you』ve got to call things what they are.
尊敬的H.L.理察遜：有些時候你必須要發出聲音。你必須要說出事情的本來面目。
Wendy Wright: We need to be willing to be criticized, and to not be silent because of the criticism.
溫迪∙萊特：我們不能怕別人批評，也不能因為別人批評就保持沉默。
Janet(Folger) Porter: It was Martin Luther who said if we’re faithful on all battlefronts besides precisely where the battle is the hottest, then we’re traitors to the cause.
珍妮特（弗爾傑）波特：馬丁∙路德說過，如果我們在所有的戰場都保持忠貞信念，但是卻偏偏在戰況最激烈的戰場失去信念，那麼我們就背叛了我們的宗旨。
Brandon Howse: I like to quote by Abraham Lincoln, who said silence makes cowards out of the best of men. And we』ve got a lot of people who need to be speaking up right now.
布蘭登∙豪斯：我想引述林肯的一句話，他說即便是最優秀的人，如果保持沉默，也與懦夫無異。而現在很多人需要站出來發聲。
Janet(Folger) Porter: We have an obligation to speak the truth about the policies that are taking us a hundred and eighty degrees from God’s will.
珍妮特（弗爾傑）波特：這些政策使我們180度的偏離了上帝的意志，我們有責任說出它們的真相。
Hon. H.L. Richardson: Expand within your Church. Expand within the people that you have contact[with]. Bring them up to speed in knowledge on what’s going on.
尊敬的H.L.理察遜：在你的教堂傳播真相，在你周圍的人當中傳播真相，讓他們了解現在正在發生什麼。
Narrator: We need to organize those around us. By simply mobilizing the unique groups of people we are in contact with and being their source of information, we can have an extraordinary effect.
旁白：我們需要把周圍的人組織起來。只是簡單地把我們社交圈裡的人們動員起來，並為他們提供訊息，我們就能產生巨大的影響。
Jim Simpson: Lenin said that the organized minority will beat the disorganized majority every time.
吉姆∙辛普森：列寧說，無論何時，有組織的少數都會戰勝無組織的大多數。
Tim Woldmon: Why should we be buying products from companies that are going to fund organizations that attack our values?
蒂姆∙渥德蒙：對於那些給攻擊我們價值觀的組織提供資金的企業，我們為什麼還要買他們的產品呢？
Dr. David Noebel: They need to be really smart in using the mass media. They might want to blog.
大衛∙諾伯爾博士：在使用大眾媒體時要特別有智慧，或許可以選擇博客這個途徑。
Trevor Loudon: Using the power of Youtube and that sort of thing to educate as many people as possible. A good Youtube video can reach millions of people. And if Susan Boyle can do it, why can’t we?
翠弗爾∙路頓：利用Youtube等這類工具的威力，儘可能把信息告訴更多人。一個好的Youtube視頻可以讓數百萬人看到。如果Susan Boyle能成功，為什麼我們不可以？
Narrator: If you do the right kinds of things on Youtube that are creative, and do them frequently, you can drive a message through society, influencing millions at almost no cost.
旁白：如果你在Youtube上做得好、有創意、堅持做，就可以讓社會聽到你的聲音，幾乎不用什麼本錢就可以影響數以百萬的人。
Dr. David Gibbs, Jr.: We need to be the people who graciously, but consistently, make contact.
小大衛∙吉伯斯博士：我們應該大方禮貌、始終如一地與周圍人接觸聯繫。
Mike Smith, ESQ.: And express to those folks we elected what we want them to do, and what we believe in, and what we think is right. And if they don’t follow those things, then we need to make efforts to get them out and get other people in that will.
麥克∙史密斯律師：告訴我們選舉出的官員，我們對他們有哪些訴求，我們相信什麼，我們認為什麼是對的。如果他們做不到我們的訴求，我們就需要把他們撤換下來，另選能做到的他人。
Trevor Loudon: Take the good ones and stick to them. Don’t waste the time on people who won’t stand up for their country.
翠弗爾∙路頓：對那些好的人講明真相，不要把時間浪費在那些不為自己國家説話的人身上。
Dr. David Gibbs, Jr.: All the others are making contact. The people who really want to honor America need to make contact.
小大衛∙吉伯斯博士：其他那些人都在四處活動聯絡，而真正想為美國帶來榮譽的人才最應該與周圍人廣為聯絡。
Narrator: We also need to be influencing our own families. We』ve got to teach our own children and grandchildren the difference between truth and error, why they believe the things they do, and the true source of America’s greatness.
旁白：我們還要影響自己的家人。我們必須要讓子孫明白真理與錯誤之間的差別，為什麼我們相信我們所相信的，以及美國偉大的真正源泉。
Dr. David Noebel: If what we’re talking about is true, the most important thing we can do is protect our young because that is where all of this is leading. They need to get that younger generation under their belt.
大衛∙諾伯爾博士：如果我們所說的是真實的，那麼我們要做的最重要的事是保護我們的孩子，因為他們才是最終的目標。我們需要把年輕一代爭取過來。
Mike Smith, ESQ.: And more and more parents are going to have to say that they’re just going to have to sacrifice and take responsibility for their kid’s education because that’s really where it starts—to impart that belief. The southern baptist, we’re seeing that eighty five percent of their kids, after they get out of their home, are essentially rejecting their faith, rejecting what they were taught. And of course, I think the reason for that is because their parents didn’t have a lot of influence over them.
麥克∙史密斯律師：越來越多的家長不得不說，他們必須要做出更多犧牲來負責教育自己的子女，因為教育是一切的開始—把信念注入孩子心中。現在南方浸禮教的情形是，85%的孩子在離開家之後基本就放棄自己的信仰，排斥他們從小所學的內容。當然我覺得這是因為他們的父母對他們並沒有產生很深的影響。
Phyllis Schlafly: I believe the public schools are the greatest cultural influence in this country.
費利斯∙雪弗利：我認為，公立學校是這個國家對文化影響最大的。
Dr. David Noebel: You homeschool your kids or get them into Christian day school.
大衛∙諾伯爾博士：你可以在家裡教育孩子，或者送孩子去基督教日間學校。
Janet(Folger) Porter: If there is any way at all, homeschool your children. Homeschoolers out test everybody.
珍妮特（弗爾傑）波特：只要有任何可能，你就應該讓孩子留在家裡上學。在家裡讀書的孩子考試成績比別人都好。
Dr. E. Calvin Beisner: Our children need to be taught from Scripture a properly Biblical worldview.
E∙凱文∙貝斯納博士：我們需要通過《聖經》教給孩子們一個正確的世界觀。
Mike Smith, ESQ.: That requires time. It requires effort. It requires purpose.
麥克∙史密斯律師：這需要時間，這需要努力，這需要信念。
Dr. E. Calvin Beisner: Our minds should be the sharpest minds in the world.
E∙凱文∙貝斯納博士：我們的思維應該比所有人都敏銳。
Mike Smith, ESQ.: We need to work within our family to educate our children on what kind of country they live in and build their faith and then get involved.
麥克∙史密斯律師：我們需要從自己家庭開始，教育孩子他們生活的國家是什麼樣的國家，培養他們的信念，然後參與對的事情。
Narrator: The Left has been working for decades to push us away from God and His laws, and we need to be willing to sacrifice whatever it takes to turn our country back to Him. Throughout our history as Americans though, there has always been a great price to be paid for preserving, protecting, and defending this great land.
旁白：數十年以來，左派一直在努力讓我們遠離上帝、遠離上帝的法則，我們需要作出一切犧牲來讓我們的國家回到上帝身邊。在美國的歷史上，為了維繫、保護和捍衛這片偉大的土地，人們一直在復出巨大的代價。
Dr. David Gibbs, Jr.: The people who built America paid a great price. The people who went to war for our nation, boy, did they pay a price. And one of the American values was we will pay a price for what is right. We will give of ourselves even if it requires the giving of our lives. That was an American value. That’s why it is such a heroic and honorable thing when a soldier defending us pays that price. That’s like when you go to Arlington Cemetery in Washington and the Tomb of the Unknown[Soldier]. You stand there and you say this is America. We were the people who so believed in these values that it’s an honor to stand for even if it can cost you your very life.
小大衛∙吉伯斯博士：我們的建國先父們付出了巨大的代價。為我國而戰的人們，天啊，他們付出了多麼沉重的代價。美國的價值觀之一就是，我們為正義而付出代價。我們會犧牲自己，哪怕這意味著奉獻自己的生命。這曾是美國的價值觀。所以當一位軍人為國捐軀時，那是英雄又充滿榮譽的事。當你站在華盛頓的阿靈頓公墓和無名戰士墓前，你會說，這才是美國。曾幾何時，我們是如此相信美國的這些價值觀，即便以身殉國，都引以為榮耀。
Wendy Wright: One thing I think we do need to remember though is that as we look at those we consider to be heroes in the past, they weren’t people who just went along with the status quo. They weren’t people who were just saying what was accepted at that time in history. They were people who were rising up above the evil that was being committed in their culture at that time. That’s why they were heroes because they weren’t like everyone else.
溫迪∙萊特：我們需要記住的一點是，我們今天視為英雄的人們，他們在有生之年並非隨波逐流之輩，也並非人云亦云迎合當時大眾口味的人。他們是敢於面對當年敗壞文化的邪惡之流的人。所以他們是英雄，因為他們與眾不同。
Hon. H.L. Richardson: Never, ever lose sight of the power of one individual American. They can have an unbelievable magnifying effect just by the very fact they make up their mind to do so.
尊敬的H.L.理察遜：永遠不要小看哪怕是一個美國人的力量。只要他們信念堅定，他們就會產生難以置信的影響力。
Janet(Folger) Porter: I believe that’s the only chance, the only hope we have as a nation. Hope is not found in rhetoric. Hope is found in God, the God of Creation. And you know what? Our Founders were in covenant with that God.
珍妮特（弗爾傑）波特：我相信這是這個國家唯一的機會、唯一的希望。希望不能通過華麗的詞藻實現。希望來自於上帝—造物之主。大家知道嗎？我們的建國先父就曾與主簽過神聖的契約。
Dr. Jim Bowers: You need a dedicated, informed, praying Christian making things happening and being determined to do so.
吉姆∙保爾博士：我們需要的是堅持不懈、明達知情、虔誠祈禱的基督信徒來實現這件事，通過頑強的信念來實現。
Narrator: Time has only allowed me to present a fraction of what I found. The reason I call this film「Agenda」 is because I wanted to make a clear distinction between what I was researching and all the conspiracy theories out there. The dictionary says a conspiracy is an evil plan formulated in secret by two or more persons, but an agenda is simply a list of things to be done. At every turn of my investigation, I found agendas by people and groups of the Left outlining their plan in their own words. They』ve been doing most of this right out in the open. Some of you might be thinking these Marxist ideas aren’t the most serious threat we face. What about militant Islam, our open borders, the national debt, or even China? Well, I agree. America is facing so many serious threats right now. But the reason I believe this is the most dire is because it’s destroying us on the inside. Through the political correctness and dumbing down, it’s causing us to lose our ability to call evil evil and stand against it. I fear for our country. If we go along business as usual, not informed, not aware of what’s going on, then the very small minority, that have a plan and are great at organizing the uninformed and misguided, will make sure their plan is carried out. I hope you realize it won’t just be your children and grandchildren that pay the horrific price of living in the society they’re trying to create. No, it will be far worse than that.
旁白：由於時間關係，我只能把發現的一小部分內容在這裡分享。我把這部影片叫作「行動計劃」，因為我想將我的調查與其它那些陰謀論明確區分開。字典上說，「陰謀」是指兩人以上秘密制定的一個邪惡計劃。而「行動計劃」只不過就是要逐一完成的一個清單。我在調查中一再發現，左派的人士與團體用他們自己的言詞制定出他們自己的行動計劃，而且大部分都是公開的。有的人可能會想，美國面對的燃眉之急不是這些馬克思主義理念，而是例如武裝伊斯蘭教派者、開放邊境、國債、甚至中共等等。怎麼說呢，我同意。當今的美國正面臨著重重威脅。但是我之所以認為本片所述才是美國的心腹大患，是因為它在從美國的內部瓦解我們。通過政治正確和思想愚化，它讓我們已經喪失了稱邪惡為邪惡並抵禦它的能力。我為我們的國家擔憂。如果我們繼續這麼下去，不去了解實情，不知道正在發生什麼，那麼極少數的這部分有計劃有組織能力的人就能利用無知又被誤導的大眾，確保他們的計劃一定會實現。我希望大家能明白，我們要承受的巨大代價不僅是我們的子孫要生活在他們企圖創造的可怕的世界裡，真正等待著我們的還要比這可怕得多。
Trevor Loudon: Every time a civilization goes down or a country goes down, militarily or economically, somebody else fills the gap. Now, if you look around the world now, it’s going to be China, which is massively arming. You』ve got Russia, which is becoming increasingly belligerent. You』ve got the radical Islamic world, which works hand in glove with Russians and the Chinese all the time. You』ve got a virtually red Latin America. You』ve got a neutral, socialist Europe. So America hasn’t got a lot of friends left in the world. Now, that’s not just going to affect America. That’s going to affect every single remaining country in the free world. Who’s going to stand up to China if America doesn’t? Who’s going to stand up to the Russians? Is Europe going to do it? Australia? New Zealand? Canada? Not a chance. If America—and this is the point I think Americans need to comprehend—if America goes down economically, it will go down militarily. If America goes down militarily, we all go down. The free world is finished. And it will be finished for a very, very long time.
翠弗爾∙路頓：每當一個文明或一個國家隕落時，無論是從武力上還是經濟上，它的位置就會被他人取代。放眼世界，這個取代者將是中國（共），中國（共）正在大力發展軍力。還有俄羅斯，它正變得越來越好戰。還有極端伊斯蘭教派，他們與俄羅斯和中國也有千絲萬縷的關係。拉丁美洲基本上已經赤化。還有一個中立的，社會主義化的歐洲。所以美國在世界上剩下的朋友不多了。這不僅是美國會受到影響，自由世界每一個剩下的國家都會受到影響。如果美國不直面中國（共），誰又可以呢？誰又能夠與俄羅斯對抗呢？歐洲？澳大利亞？紐西蘭？加拿大？根本不可能。如果美國垮了—我覺得這是美國人要搞明白的一點—如果美國的經濟垮了，它的軍事就會跟著垮。如果美國的軍事垮了，我們全跟著一起下沉。自由世界就完了。而且會滅亡很久很久。
