Conservatives must raise Cain at Public Events, using Alinsky’s Rules!

By Tom Harris 

The climate change movement has managed to closely associate themselves with the left of the

political spectrum, producing a huge boost for their campaigns. After all, the majority of mainstream media are left of center and so this results in climate alarmists having a massive unpaid communications arm supporting their crusade.

But most “progressives” fail to realize that following climate catastrophists’ agenda results in outcomes that violate causes leftists hold dear, or at least want us to believe they hold dear. This would include support for social justice and environmental protection, issues I dealt with in parts one and two of this three-part series (“To Win the Climate Debate, We Must Use The Same Tools That Were Used To Defeat Science and Common Sense,” Jan 14 and “Catch the left violating their own “book of rules” in the climate debate,” Jan 19). And, by pointing this out to them in front of public forums, we are employing Saul Alinsky’s rule #4 from “Rules for Radicals – A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals,” which is as follows:

“Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.”

Two other ideas the left have historically championed and would be loath to admit they no longer support are:

• Rejection of absolutism (truth) and authority (consensus) 
• Tolerance of alternative lifestyles & opinions

Demonstrating, very publicly, that following the climate alarmist agenda works against both of these ideals would also be an effective application of Alinsky’s rule #4. It will also help sway well-intentioned leftists, at least those who are not also climate change fanatics, to distance themselves from the climate scare.

Historically, liberals have tended to reject absolute authority and often ridiculed conservatives for being inflexible about morals, politics and even science. For example, Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity was supported by the German left, while those on the right opposed it, believing it threatened their cultural worldview (which, ultimately, it did). In fact, the assertion that science discovers truths about nature, not merely opinions based on empirical evidence that is always subject to interpretation, led to the ‘science wars’ of the late 20th century. In that conflict the intellectual left were the skeptics of the idea that we could have absolute knowledge in science. To learn more about this, watch the superb course “Science Wars: What Scientists Know and How They Know It” by Dr. Steven L. Goldman, the Andrew W. Mellon Distinguished Professor in the Humanities at Lehigh University in Chicago.

But this expected approach—relativism and skepticism from liberals and absolutism from conservatives—has been turned upside down in the climate debate. While right-wingers call for open debate about the causes of climate change, the left generally consider such discussion intolerable and behave as if we know the future of climate decades in advance, a position that is indefensible, scientifically and philosophically.

So, climate campaigners try to shut down debate about the causes of climate change, regarding it as a Pandora’s Box they desperately want to keep firmly shut. Why else would they steadfastly refuse invitations from climate realist scientists to engage in public debates? If the public regularly heard about the vast uncertainty in climate change science, arguably the most complex science ever tackled, their patience for the $1.27 trillion USD devoted in 2022/2023 to climate finance would quickly evaporate. So, instead, most of the left ignore the thousands of well-qualified experts who do not support the scare (for example, see World Climate Declaration There is no climate emergency) and enthusiastically support the confident, but nonsensical, climate change forecasts of people like United Nations Secretary General António Guterres and former vice-president Al Gore with his “Inconvenient Truth.” We must regularly call them on this, pointing out that it violates one of the left’s fundamental axioms.

So, we need to bring up forcefully in public sessions, the fact that unquestioning acceptance of ‘truth’ in science—in the sense of fulfilling Plato’s definition that truth is universal, necessary and certain, characteristics impossible in science—has impeded human progress throughout history. For example, when the Greco-Egyptian writer Claudius Ptolemy proposed his Earth-centered system, he did not say it was physical astronomy, a true description of how the universe actually worked. He promoted it as mathematical astronomy, a model that worked well for astronomical observations, astrology and creating calendars.

It was the ultra-conservative Catholic Church that, relying on a literal interpretation of the Bible, specifically Joshua 10:12-14, promoted the Ptolemaic system as truth to be questioned at one’s peril. Here is that Biblical passage:

“Then Joshua spoke to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel: Sun, stand still over Gibeon; and Moon, in the Valley of Aijalon. So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the people had revenge upon their enemies. Is this not written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and did not hastened to go down for about a whole day. And there has been no day like that, before it or after it, that the Lord heeded a voice of a man; for the Lord fought for Israel.”

It is important to understand that Joshua’s army had marched all night the 20 miles from Gilgal to Gibeon to do battle with their enemies, the five strong kings who had pooled their resources to fight the Israelites. Joshua’s army had prevailed in the battle and his enemies were in retreat. But Joshua did not want them to be able to get back to their fortified cities to regroup. More daylight was needed for Joshua’s troops to finish them off. To prevent their return, he asked God to lengthen the day (see painting below). 

 

There are many interesting interpretations of this Biblical passage, some of which can be read here, but, it was clear that the Church wanted the public to believe that it was the Sun that moved, not the Earth about the Sun. According to many writers, this was why Nicolaus Copernicus, a Canon in the Church, waited until he was on his death bed before he allowed his revolutionary book showing the Sun to be the centre of the universe to be published, even though the text was completed 30 years earlier. To read more about this, including an alternative theory about why the book was so delayed, see here.

This is also why Galileo ran into so much trouble when he claimed that the Church was wrong and that Copernicanism was the truth, a position that Galileo could not really know with certainty either (to be fair, it should be noted that the Church was already dealing with the unrest of the Protestant Reformation and the Thirty Years' War, so maintaining doctrinal control was crucial for them. Galileo's opposition to the Church's geocentric teachings was viewed as a threat to their authority and theological doctrines, an understandable position, given the times).

Similarly, the assumed truth of Isaac Newton’s laws of motion and law of universal gravitation eventually acted to slow the advancement of science until Einstein showed them to be incomplete. We need to remind leftists, at least those who are not climate extremists, that when authorities preach truth about science, progress stops. They should welcome, not condemn, questioning of the status quo. Science advances through fearless investigation, not frightened acquiescence to fashionable thinking, let alone the smearing of intellectual opponents as “deniers.”

I did this a few years ago in a Government of Ontario public meeting ostensibly set up to identify obstacles to progress on “climate action.” After several members of the public were roundly booed and harassed for voicing doubt about the science being relied on by the government, I went to the microphone and said:

“We have just seen a demonstration of what I think is the greatest obstacle to progress on this file—it is the intolerance of alternative points of view about this highly complex science. We should welcome and discuss skeptical inquiries, not try to silence them!”

The reaction? Dead silence. You could hear a pin drop. The government representative had nothing to say and the audience recognized that the activists had violated what is supposed to be a fundamental tenant of progressivism, namely keeping an open mind to different perspectives.

And, of course, the reliance on consensus to determine what is truth in science is simply a “bandwagon logical fallacy” when we base the validity of our argument on how many people believe it. A show of hands does not decide the validity of scientific hypotheses. When Albert Einstein was told about a book titled Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein (A Hundred Authors Against Einstein), published in 1931, he replied, “Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.”

The award-winning American author and filmmaker Dr. Michael Crichton also put it well in his January 17, 2003 lecture, “Aliens Cause Global Warming,” presented at California Institute of Technology:

“I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled."

“Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world."

“In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

The left took over many of our institutions by effectively applying Saul Alinsky’s rules. It’s about time conservatives read his Rules for Radicals – A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals",  available for free on the web, and then got out and raised Cain at public events. Our children will never forgive us if we do not.

Catch the left violating their own “book of rules” in the climate debate

By Tom Harris January 19, 2025

 

If those of us who do not believe in the so-called “climate emergency” are to win the day, we need to take a page out of “Rules for Radicals – A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals.” Written in 1971 by Chicago-based community organizer Saul D. Alinsky, “Rules for Radicals” included the crucially important Rule #4:

“Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.”

As discussed in part 1 of this series, progressives say that their “book of rules” includes basing their assertions on the findings of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But alarmists’ fears about increasing floods, extreme rainfall, heat waves, intense storms and forest fires are, in fact, not supported by the UN IPCC. So, making them live up to their own rules, we need to call them on this every time.

I also discussed how we must hold leftists to their own book of rules when it comes to social justice, especially caring for the poor, the elderly and those who are disadvantaged in society. We do this by pointing out that, of the $1.27 trillion USD spent on climate finance in 2022/2023, only a paltry 5% went exclusively to helping poor people adapt to climate change, however caused, a clear social justice violation. Similarly, progressives need to be held to account for the violations in social justice that occur as a result of:

1. The huge increase in electricity rates that is the natural result of the transition to wind and solar power, which hurts the poor and those on fixed incomes the most 
2. The diversion of food crops to the production of biofuels, causing food shortages and soaring prices 
3. The human rights abuses in developing countries that accompany the production of electric vehicle batteries as well as wind and solar power equipment 
4. The ruining of well water on farms in the vicinity of wind turbines.

Another item in climate alarmists’ “book of rules” is the requirement that they are helping protect the environment and wildlife when they promote wind and solar power and grid-scale Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS). Yet nothing could be further from the truth and we should hold them to account for this in public meetings, etc.

In their 2021 book, “‘Clean’ Energy Exploitations: Helping Citizens Understand the Environmental and Humanity Abuses That Support ‘Clean’ Energy,” authors Ronald Stein and Todd Royal explain:

“Green energy uses materials from some of the worst ecological and human rights offenders that exist on Earth… The volume of wind turbine waste is projected to soar in years to come, with mining and manufacturing waste, service waste, and end-of-life waste being the major sources. It is estimated that there will be 43 million metric tons just of [wind turbine] blade waste worldwide by 2050.”

Lithium ion-based batteries used in BESS systems rely on a mix of materials that require massive amounts of energy to mine, transport, process and refine, far greater than the extraction and transport of oil and natural gas. Consequently, while batteries are often portrayed by manufacturers as generating no greenhouse gases, even the left-leaning Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) has pointed out that: “Mining and processing the minerals, plus the battery manufacturing process, involve substantial emissions of carbon.”

The CBC cites Jennifer Dunn at Northwestern University’s Center for Engineering Sustainability and Resilience, who explained: “The material that helps power the battery is produced from a number of different metals, things like nickel and cobalt and lithium.” And of course, China controls most of the lithium and cobalt, which are often produced with no environmental standards, and often employ child labor and near-slave labor and follow practically no health and safety safeguards. University of Houston Professor Larry Bell reports (“China Targets US Weakness for Afghan Rare Earths, Taiwan Chips,” America out Loud, September 25, 2021):

“China has amassed stunning control over 70% of the world’s lithium supplies and 85% of rare earths supply chains to dominate global industries and jobs that depend on them.”

Mining and mineral processing of lithium also requires large volumes of water and can pose contamination risks from mine drainage and wastewater discharge. Readers are encouraged to watch the 2020 documentary film “Planet of the Humans” by left-wing film producer Michael Moore. This 2-minute clip from Moore’s movie demonstrates that, when you consider how these machines are made, and the huge volumes of toxic waste that is released when they are manufactured, wind and solar power may very well be the dirtiest and most environmentally destructive energy sources on the planet.

But perhaps the greatest lie we hear from “green energy” advocates is that the contribution of Industrial Wind Turbines [IWTs] to bird and bat mortality is negligible. In reality, IWTs cause mass slaughter of these animals, especially raptors such as golden eagles, which the Ontario government labeled as “Endangered.”

Here are some statistics:

According to a 2004 study by leading expert, Dr. Shawn Smallwood, financed by the California Energy Commission, an average of 116 Golden Eagles are killed every year by collisions with turbine blades at Altamont Pass Wind Station in California. Extrapolating that number, well over 3,000 eagles have been destroyed since the wind facility was built in the eighties. Other birds killed at Altamont Pass per year include: 

• 300 hawks 
• 333 kestrels 
• 380 owls 
• 2,526 doves 
• 2,557 meadow larks

And the situation is no better in other countries. Mark Duchamp, President, Save the Eagles International Chairman, World Council for Nature, tells us that birds are killed in Spain at a rate of about 200 birds per turbine per year. It is twice that number for bats, which die simply by flying in the low-pressure zone beside the blades which causes their lungs burst.

The slaughter of birds and bats by wind turbines is a powerful issue to bring up in public meetings with politicians. Click here to watch a superb example of a member of the public—retired teacher Karen Bourdeau—confronting candidates for Ottawa mayor with this issue. Note especially the pathetic answer from the leading candidate for mayor, climate activist Catherine McKenney.

Ms. Bourdeau was so effective because she applied, not only rule #4, “Make opponents live up to their own book of rules,” but also rules #2 and #3 which are:

Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people. The result is confusion, fear, and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.

Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty of your opponent.

As one would expect of a teacher, Ms. Bourdeau did her homework before asking her question and so knew far more about the issue than any of the candidates for mayor. Consequently, she came across as strong and confident while McKenney looked hopelessly uninformed. 

 

 

Saul Alinsky must be rolling over in his grave that concerned citizens from the right of the political spectrum are using his rules to defeat the left. Let’s keep doing exactly that!

____________________

Note: In part 3 of this series on the use of Alinsky’s rule #4, I will discuss how to take advantage of the left’s supposed support for:

• Tolerance of alternative lifestyles & opinions • Rejection of authority & absolutism

To Win the Climate Debate, We Must Use The Same Tools That Were Used To Defeat Science and Common Sense

By Tom Harris

 

One of the reasons conservatives have steadily lost power to the left over the past 50 years is because we have not made a proper study of the tools used against us. In an effort to help correct this situation, this is part one of a three-part series that will examine what happened and how we can effectively fight back in the climate change debate.

“What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”

So begins “The Purpose,” the first chapter in “Rules for Radicals – A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals.” Written in 1971 by Chicago-based community organizer Saul D. Alinsky, Rules for Radicals showed leftists, then on the outside of most institutions looking in but wanting very much to run the show, how to acquire the power to control society.

And, boy, did they ever take Alinsky’s rules seriously. In many ways, it became the “progressive” Bible, guiding their actions as they fought tooth and nail for decades until today the left control vast swaths of our universities, schools, corporations, governments, churches and of course mainstream media. Even before Rules was published, Hillary Clinton recognized the importance of Alinsky’s work writing about his methods in her undergraduate thesis at Wellesley College, a private women's liberal arts college in Wellesley, Massachusetts. Her 1969 thesis was titled "There Is Only the Fight: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model" and, after interviewing him, examined his approach and its effectiveness in creating social change. Interestingly, Wellesley sealed Clinton’s thesis at her request during Bill Clinton's presidency.

Today, the roles are reversed from when Alinsky wrote Rules and it is conservatives who are now on the outside looking in at woke institutions that control much of our every day lives. Universities are especially infected. For example, my own alma matter, Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada, is apparently now a politically-correct enforcer of woke group-think when it comes to climate change and COVID policies. If conservatives are to stand any chance of getting back in charge of our schools and the rest of society, then we must learn how we lost control in the first place. And one of the best places to start is to carefully read Rules for Radicals in its entirety. It can be read online for free at Rules For Radicals : Saul Alinsky : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive.

One of Alinsky’s rules that conservatives should take particularly seriously is Rule #4:

“Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.”

So, what are the contents of the “book of rules” of progressives when it comes to climate change and energy? Well, generally speaking, they want everyone to at least think they support:

• The science promoted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
•  Social justice: caring for the poor, the elderly and those who are disadvantaged in society
•  Protection of wildlife and the environment
•  Tolerance of alternative lifestyles & opinions
• Rejection of authority & absolutism

But their blind adherence to the hypothesis that our use of hydrocarbon fuels—coal, oil and natural gas—is causing a climate emergency and only a massive energy transition to so-called green energy will save the planet actually results in a situation where all of these worthy objectives are in fact violated.

Alarmists’ fears about increasing floods, extreme rainfall, heat waves, intense storms and forest fires are not supported by the UN IPCC. In particular, Working Group 1 of the Sixth Assessment Report had “low confidence in the direction of change” of most of the climate impacts that most excite activists, sensational media, and politicians, namely precipitation, drought, fire weather, cyclones, and hurricanes, snow and ice, sea levels, coastal erosion, and ocean acidity, you name it. Generally, it also has “low confidence” that a wider range of detrimental climate impacts will occur beyond 2050, except under “worst case” scenarios.

So, whenever conservatives have the chance to publicly question climate alarmists, be they from government, the press or any other institution that promotes climate fears, we must ask:

“What science are you using to support your claims of climate catastrophe?”

The answer will usually be, “We follow the science of the UN IPCC,” or words to that effect. Then we must say, loud and clear so that everyone in the audience can hear, “The IPCC does not support your claims about x,” where x could be any one of their excited statements about items listed above. You could also add,

“the terms ‘climate emergency’ or ‘climate crisis’ are only mentioned once in the latest IPCC assessment reports, and that is merely with regard to media coverage, not what the IPCC actually says is real.”

And then you could quote the IPCC directly as follows:

“Some media outlets have recently adopted and promoted terms and phrases stronger than the more neutral ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming,’ including ‘climate crisis,’ ‘global heating,’ and ‘climate emergency’ (Zeldin-O’Neill, 2019).”

Few climate alarmists have even read the IPCC reports, relying almost entirely on mainstream media coverage of what is in the reports, so your response will take the wind out of their sails entirely. So it must be done every time they bring up problems with precipitation, drought, fire weather, cyclones, hurricanes, snow and ice, sea levels, coastal erosion, and ocean acidity.

Progressives’ supposed support for “social justice” can also be used against them effectively. After all, the overwhelming focus of the world on climate change “mitigation,” namely attempts to control the climate, is robbing people who actually need help adapting to real world climate change from the funds they need to survive whatever nature throws at them next. Note in the following figure from the San Francisco-based Climate Policy Initiative that roughly 90% of the 1.27 trillion USD dedicated to “climate finance” in 2021/2022 went to mitigation. Only a paltry 5% went exclusively to adaptation.

 

“Is this Social Justice?” conservatives must ask progressives.

Similarly, conservatives need to point out the human rights abuses that accompany the production of electric vehicle batteries as well as wind and solar power. Click on the following image to show an excellent example of someone doing just that—Danielle Maillot, former Ottawa chapter lead for Action4Canada—questioning candidates for mayor about their support for batteries made with cobalt mined by children in the Congo in mines owned and operated by Chinese companies. The answer from the leading candidate for mayor exposed her as completely uninformed about the issue.

Climate alarmists in government, the press, universities, etc. also need to be taken to task for the huge increase in electricity rates that is the natural result of the transition to wind and solar power. After all, it is the poor and those on fixed incomes who most suffer when power rates go through the roof when “green energy” is introduced into the grid.

And of course there are many examples of how renewable energy such as biofuels are seriously violating human rights across the world. Quoting U.N. Special Rapporteur of the right to food, Jean Zeigler makes sense here:

“It is a crime against humanity to convert agricultural productive soil into soil which produces foodstuff that will be burned into biofuel.” (2007)

After citing the above examples of how the climate scare is violating real world “social justice” concerns, conservatives need to ask their opponents point blank in public meetings:

“Is it ethical to enable policies that hurt people today because of the possible benefit to people yet to be born?”

The following editorial cartoon, created on contract for ICSC, sums up the situation perfectly:

 

Note: In part 2 of this series, I will discuss how to apply Alinsky’s rule #4 to take advantage of the left’s supposed support for Protection of wildlife and the environment.

The Puppy Dog Media

By Steve Feinstein 

This is not going to be the article that one might think it is from the title. This is not yet another article in a long line of articles pointing out that the mainstream media are in the back pocket of the progressive Democrat party. We can point out a few recent illustrations of that if you’d like, just to keep things current and fresh, to give everyone some new incidents to draw upon should your barely-aware progressive acquaintances protest your contention that the mainstream media treat President Trump and conservatives differently than “President” Biden and the leftists:

• Project Veritas exposed CNN's lies and anti-Trump bias.
• The fake BLM storyline of police violence against blacks
• The mainstream media’s refusal to cover or even acknowledge the entire Hunter Biden corruption/pay-to-play fandango.

There are countless more examples and it certainly isn’t necessary to list here all the lies and misleading statements with which the leftist media are daily trying to shape the news coverage. Their corruption and double standards are real, irrefutably demonstrable, and incredibly influential on the casually attentive swing voters who are so central to determining close elections.........

The question is, of course, can anything be done about it? No, at least not the way conservatives and Republican politicians are currently reacting........... The key is behavior modification. No entity changes its behavior on its own. No one—not dogs or children or employees or news people—ever changes his behavior without a punishment/reward system in place. Change only occurs in the face of external stimuli, both positive and negative..........

 Conservatives need to get creative and aggressive.........make it personal. Highlight and call out the outrageous, blatantly false utterances............. Personalize it. Embarrass them. Exact a penalty, make it personally humiliating........To Read More...

My Take - This is right out of the Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky.  And it works, the left is doing it and has been doing it for decades.  It's said Super Bowls are won by good defense, and that's true, but without a strong offense the game will be lost.   A war strategy based solely on defense is a lost war strategy,  and this is a war.  

 

The Democrat war against the white middle class

April 1, 2021 By Drew Allen 

On March 16, 2021, a 21-year-old white male named Robert Aaron Long went on a shooting rampage at three separate massage parlors, leaving eight women dead. The Marxist rabble-rousers — a term synonymous with the Democrat party — quickly retreated into their Marxist libraries and thumbed through Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals to find out how to "stir up dissatisfaction and discontent." 

We know that Robert Aaron Long went to rehab twice for sex addiction. Anyone with a rational brain — which exempts all Democrats — understands that Long was a sick and depraved individual whose motivation was not race-based, but induced by his self-loathing and contempt for those women to whom he turned. The killer admitted that there was no racial motivation for the killings. Long killed the women not because they were Asian — two were white — but because they worked at massage parlors, the types of places Long frequented to feed his loathsome addiction.

But the Marxists in the media and in the Democrat party — one and the same — intentionally told a different narrative. A Washington Post headline declared, "Eight killed, including 6 Asian women." Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that Asians "are being targeted unfairly." 

Georgia state rep. Bee Nguyen told CNN's Erin Burnett, "in this particular case, where the victims were Asian women, we see the intersections of racism, xenophobia and gender-based violence." Interestingly, neither Mayor Bottoms nor Rep. Nguyen, nor the Washington Post headline, mentioned the two white women murdered. Why? Because Saul Alinsky instructs them to "create the issues or problems.".........They intentionally ignored the two whites because such an acknowledgment would undermine their effort to "agitate, create disenchantment, and discontent." White lives don't matter, but white votes still do.............Americans are pawns in the Democrats' scheme to wrest power from "we the people" and secure it in perpetuity for themselves. White middle-class Americans remain the greatest impediment to the left's totalitarian ambitions. ...........

The Atlanta spa shootings were attractive to the community organizers on the left. They salivated over their keyboards because they saw it as a rare opportunity to set multiple fires. This too is textbook Marxism. Alinksy instructs, "[A] single issue drastically limits your appeal, where multiple issues would draw in the many potential members essential to the building of a broad, mass-based organization[.] ... [M]any issues means many members."

This is why Rep. Nguyen attached the murders to multiple issues — "racism, xenophobia, and gender based violence." The Democrats are diabolical. Revolution is their goal. They are communists. .................To Read More....

TV Network Standards, Then and Now

Posted on February 7, 2021 by Steven Hayward in Media Bias, Political correctness

Back in 1973, the liberal journalist Nicholas von Hoffman, the first Point-Counterpoint commentator on CBS’s “60 Minutes,” was fired by producer Don Hewitt for an on-air comment that Hewitt deemed offensive and inappropriate. Hoffman referred to President Nixon, then well into the agonies of Watergate, as “the dead mouse on the kitchen floor of America, and the only question now is who’s going to pick him up by his tail and throw him in the garbage.”

Flash forward to CBS’s current “Late Show With Stephen Colbert,” where one of his senior writers, John Thibodeaux, dismissed Washington, Jefferson, and Hamilton because of their slave ownership, and advocated for Harriett Tubman on the $20 bill. He put it this way: “She repeatedly risked her life for other people’s freedom, and now we’re asking her to hang out with those douche nozzles?” Real class, that. Funny, too. (Not.)

Little chance CBS will even reprimand Thibodeaux. Amazing that we’d get to the point of missing Don Hewitt, who was no friend of conservatives.

This is only the latest from late night programs that used to attempt to entertain the broad spectrum of Americans, but now only cater to people suffering from insomnia or dementia from watching too much MSNBC in the evening.........To Read More....

My Take - I really get a kick out of this. Apparently Don Hewitt didn't mind that he was a far left loon who "worked as a community organizer for Saul Alinsky in Chicago for ten years from 1953 to 1963."  It didn't bother Don Hewitt his reporters would lie like dogs as they did with The Alar Story, and then refuse to refute it when it became obvious (and he knew it) the story was all lies, and they were a party to those lies.  But Hoffman said an unkind thing and that was more than Don Hewitt could bear.   The media has always been a sewer, filled with sewer trout just like Hewitt.  They just hid it better, and that's why this guy was fired.  He crude remarks exposed them for the sewer trout they were.

A Hispanic vendor in Tulsa uses Alinsky tactics against a BLM supporter

June 21, 2020 By Andrea Widburg

One of the things conservatives notice whenever leftists flare up is that, subject to a few notable exceptions (Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Dan Crenshaw), our conservative politicians are cowardly. They never call out the leftists; instead, they simply try to soothe leftists' destructiveness while accepting their premises.

Thankfully, politicians are a minority amongst conservatives. Most conservatives are regular folks who live and breathe their principles – as is the case with a Hispanic vendor at the Tulsa rally who got harassed by a couple of white Black Lives Matter protesters. Instead of backing down, the vendor went full, and beautiful, Alinsky on the whole BLM premise.

Saul Alinsky fought for the wrong side, but he was a smart tactician who came up with excellent rules for fighting an ideological opponent. Three of his rules are pertinent here:

• RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” 
• RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” 
• RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”

With those rules in mind, enjoy what happened in Tulsa when a mostly white group of Black Lives Matter protesters showed up at the Trump rally. The video begins when a white guy wearing the de rigueur leftist virtue mask (his has “BLM” emblazoned across it), and a t-shirt saying “I know words. I have the best words – Stable Genius,” spots a man who looks Hispanic. The white guy seems shocked that a Hispanic man is selling Trump merchandise while wearing a Trump hat and a t-shirt with a “God Guns and Trump” logo.

The white guy opens with a classic white person microaggression question: “Where’s your daddy from?” The vendor answers, “America.”..........To Read More....

Social Engineering America to Death

Apr 3, 2019Posted by George McClellan, Historian, Political Observer

Social engineering schemes, such as the Progressive followers of Saul Alinsky (Democrats), keep applying by following his Rules for Radicals, constitute the deliberate and illegal attempt to change our society and our culture to meet societal norms that lay far outside the guidelines of the US Constitution. Indeed, Progressives firmly believe America is the center of all the world’s evils and the US Constitution that supports it, stands as an impediment to world social justice and must be done away with, one amendment at at time, if necessary.

Case in point, the constant progressive attack against the 2nd Amendment. It is the one defense Americans possess that can prevent the radical takeover of America. We also see a vigorous attack on our 1st Amendment rights coming from several fronts. Look at the first line”: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

That’s it, yet Progressives scream government(s) cannot recognize prayer, posting of the Ten Commandments or support Christian based activities because of some non-existent “Separation of Church and State” nonsense that’s not in there. As often as I have read that sentence, I’m still unable to lay my finger on any word that prohibits government from supporting or participating in any religious activity, not monetarily of course, but morally. Yet the “Left” persists on insisting that the ‘separation of church and state’ is a point of law not to be violated and we believe ‘em!.........

Finally, I want to know by what measure illegals are entitled to my Social Security money, my medicare benefits and our tax money for their education and housing. That was a Progressive Democrat idea, because “we’re good people and mean well.”  Turn off the money spigot at all levels and the invasion(s) will cease. We owe these people nothing! ...........To Read More....

Robert Mueller vs. Saul Alinsky, Bullshit, no matter how loud or eloquent, is still Bullshit.

Mar 25, 2019 Posted by Dennis Santiago, Global Risk and Financial Analyst

There’s no smoking gun; that would have surfaced a long time ago if it existed. There are no major Indictments; and many abandoned minor ones. Mostly, in the grand scheme of things, it’s much to do about nothing.  I’ve been saying for months that nothing would come of the Mueller investigation. At long last, we have a report that says exactly that.

About the only thing the Mueller investigation did prove is that President Donald Trump had some oddball personalities who orbited him. What man of means doesn’t?

 

Mr. Muller was certainly methodical and thorough. Thorough to the point that there aren’t really any stones left worth turning. Despite what some people may hope, there’s nothing worth looking into further. And don’t give me any of that Southern District of New York double speak.

 

Any investigation that squeezes stool pigeon after stool pigeon granting immunity to obtain accusations is another dead end. The wait for the shoe to drop game is over. The fat lady is singing.

 

I suspect Mr. Mueller wanted it that way. To have a conclusion that an Attorney General would have overwhelming guidance to either pursue an indictment or let it go. In this case, US Attorney General William Barr quickly determined the conclusion is the latter.........To Read More....    

Propaganda: The Bread and Butter of the Progressive Left

January 25, 2019 By Jeffrey Folks

I've just googled "Russian collusion" and come up with 24 million results. This despite the fact that no credible evidence exists of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian agents. How is it possible that nearly 60% of Americans doubt the president's innocence when the Special Counsel himself has come up with no proof of collusion? The answer is propaganda.

Twentieth-century totalitarian regimes were masters of propaganda. Lenin set the tone when he said, "A lie told often enough becomes the truth." Stalin's rewriting of history is well known and factually documented. Stalin ordered the Katyn massacre, in which 22,000 Polish officers and other prominent Poles were executed, and it was covered up and denied until 1990. In these denials, the Soviets employed every sort of propaganda, including the claim that the massacre was carried out by German troops.

Joseph Goebbels, Nazi propaganda chief, was quoted as saying, "A lie told once remains a lie, but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth." That was Stalin's approach to the Katyn massacre, and it was Goebbels's approach as well. Hitler wrote in Mein Kamp that propaganda "must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over."

Present-day extremists rely on Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, and Alinsky's tactics differ little from those of his predecessors. Focus on "a few points and repeat them over and over."

 That is Alinsky's key lesson, and it is one that every progressive follows today, even if some may be unaware that Alinsky was paraphrasing Hitler. Alinsky's 13th "rule" summarized his technique: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

 Hitler picked his target, froze it, personalized it, and polarized it." That target was "the Jews." So did Stalin, Mao, Castro, and every other radical on the left or right..............Read more

Barack the Brick-Thrower

By Jeannie DeAngelis February 11, 2018

 The same Saul Alinsky-style community organizing methods that served Barack Obama well on the Southside of Chicago became indispensable tools in his quest to "fundamentally transform" the whole world from "what it is" into "the world as it should be."

It was Barack Obama's friend and former chief campaign strategist, David Axelrod, who confessed to NPR that community organizers in Chicago would throw bricks through the window of Democrat campaign headquarters and call a press conference to blame the opposition.  So when Obama accused Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin of colluding to steal an election, the brick that landed on the accuser's toe was one he planted there himself.

 Let's not forget that although the International Court of Justice deems interfering in a foreign election a violation of international law, and notwithstanding the fact that U.S. regulations ban the use of tax dollars to sway foreign elections, it was brick-throwing Barack, not Donald Trump, who repeatedly defied the law on behalf of a larger global agenda.......To Read More....