The 13 Main Alinsky Tactics

1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
2. Never go outside the experience of your people.
3. Whenever possible go outside the experience of the enemy.
4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
5. Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
8. Keep the pressure on with different tactics, and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.
12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

Works Cited

Alinsky, Saul Rules for Radicals. Toronto: Vintage Publishing 1971

Scott Brown – the 41st Vote?

Update…See Scott Brown – Running down Elitism and the Obama Agenda in a Pickup Truck!

What’s going on in Massachusetts? In one of the most Liberal states in the country a Senate seat vacated by one of the most Liberal Senators of our time is up for grabs. Less than a week away from the special Senate election in Massachusetts, it is a Republican who is making all the noise. If the Democrats can’t hold on to the Senate seat vacated by Ted Kennedy, or if the election is even close, what does it say about the nation’s angst with the liberal trifecta of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid?

The campaign of Scott Brown (@ScottBrownMA on twitter) is creating shockwaves throughout the country. If the GOP can somehow grab one more Senate vote they can begin to slow the agenda of a Congress, which appears increasingly out of touch with ‘We the People’.

While I’ll allow Scott Brown to present his own case for why he is the best candidate, it is clear that placing a check on the far-Left agenda of this President is rapidly becoming a top priority for an increasing number of Americans.

The legislative agenda is staggering. Already we’ve seen the abject lack of transparency coupled with the outright bribes involved in trying to pass a Healthcare reform bill that is unpopular, and only continues to become more so as Americans learn what is proposed. That alone would be sufficient cause to elect a 41^st vote that could slow down this out of touch Congress, but wait…there’s more.

Coming down the pipeline are more Bills with thousands of pages of words no one in Congress has even read. The House has already passed a Cap and Trade Bill that would cripple our economy if the Senate were to approve it. Add to that the coming push for some sort of amnesty of illegal aliens, proposed financial regulatory changes, possible limits on free speech, the management of the war on terror, trials for terrorists in the United States, and a myriad of other items yet to be put forth, and it becomes clear that slowing this agenda is of paramount importance to freedom loving Americans.

By November, the damage done may well be irreversible. The Senatorial election in Massachusetts is not only a bellwether for the changing political landscape; it is the last chance to slow the damage this Administration can do with its radical agenda until the November mid-term elections.

Some Resources on the Massachusetts Special Election

Scott Brown online:

The official website of Scott Brown.

Scott Brown on twitter.

Scott Brown on Facebook.

Some relevant articles about the election:

Martha Coakley: Too Immoral for Teddy Kennedy’s Seat by Ann Coulter

Martha Coakley’s Marie Antoinette/Jon Corzine moment by Michelle Malkin

Coakley Buys her Union Support from the Minority Report

Martha Coakley, K Street’s choice for senator from The Washington Examiner

Union plans major ad buy for Coakley from Boston.com

NRO article about OFA importing help from NH

Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty get behind Scott Brown from Politico.com

Rape, She Cried Martha Coakley’s desperate lie from NRO

7 Reasons to NOT vote for Democrat Martha Coakley from The Patriot Room

No Blame Obama

MSNBC continues it’s decent into old Soviet Pravda territory. Recently, as summarized in this video on MyFoxNation, Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann, with help from Richard Wolffe suggested that the intelligence community of the United States may have deliberately misled the President. Had we not all witnessed the blatant partisanship of MSNBC, this might be even more astonishing.

MSNBC is, of course, owned by NBC which is in turn owned by GE. GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt now finds himself in the cozy position of acting as a financial advisor to President Obama. But just how far are they willing to go to carry water for Obama? It appears they are willing to actually suggest that our intelligence community would deliberately allow the slaughter of American citizens in order to besmirch the reputation of The One. And just where does the curious appointment of Leon Panetta to head the CIA figure into this curious equation?

It is becoming increasingly obvious that this President is genetically incapable of accepting blame for anything. The Main Stream Media (I’d say Lame Stream Media, but Bernard Goldberg has taken a phrase I created and made it his own) grilled former President Bush over his seeming inability to admit mistakes. Where are they now?

Recall that during the recent gubernatorial elections in Virginia and particularly New Jersey that President Obama made it clear that the White House position would be:”If you win, it’s because we helped. If you lose, it’s your fault”. This has become the typical refrain of this President. He allows his emissaries to float trial balloons on a regular basis, only to blame them if the idea is unpopular, and claim credit for himself if the idea is well received.

You need look back no further than the Sunday following the Christmas day terror attack aboard Flight 253. Both Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and (perhaps more tellingly) White House spokesman Robert Gibbs were trotted out on two different Sunday political shows to claim that there was nothing to worry about, and that “the system worked”.

Since it is the job of the White House spokesman to speak for the President, it’s a safe bet that what Gibbs was saying represented the position of the President (and the same goes for Napolitano). After Napolitano’s twisted explanation of her remarks, and Gibbs’ typical response, i.e. none, there was a pronounced beeping sound from the Administration as they backed away from those remarks. The President also, with little attention by Main Stream Media, backtracked on his original and completely arbitrary position that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was “an isolated extremist”.

He has followed the same game plan with Legislation. Many have questioned why the President does not offer his own version of what he wants from Congress. The answer is simple. He uses legislators to float his trial balloons and avoid any blame. Anyone and everyone is a possible scapegoat for this narcissistic President.

Now, we reach an entirely new level of denial. MSNBC is protecting the President (likely in response to the demands of Jeffery Immelt) against any blame for breaches in our terror defense. What will it take to awaken America to the Alinsky tactics, and plain lies of this President and the media that ‘has his back’?

The President seems never to be called on it when he is incorrect, and certainly never takes any blame upon himself. Only now is the “blame Bush” refrain starting to diminish somewhat, and whatever the misstep the response is always the same: if it was popular and/or effective then the President was responsible; if it was wrong and/or ineffective it was the fault of someone else.

Such tactics were annoying and unbecoming of the Presidency before Christmas and the terror attack aboard that plane. Now Obama’s inability to take blame is far more than annoying. With the suggestion that the intelligence community of our country would allow our citizens to die just to make the President look bad we have moved from annoying to the border of treason.

Who’s your favorite tweeter?

I’m taking suggestions for people to put on a poll here on the site so you can tell us all who your favorite person to follow on twitter is. You can leave a comment here with names, you can DM me, or you can @ me  @AlinskyDefeater.

My main emphasis is non-celebrity tweeters, but feel free to suggest your favorite celebrity tweeters as well and maybe we’ll have two separate polls.

Remember, this is just step one. We need to gather the top names and then I’ll put up the poll(s) so we can vote.

Nominate as many as you want. Let’s have some fun, and give some people the love they deserve! Thanks.

NOTE: Don’t be fooled by the number of comments.I’m getting a TON by DM. So whatever works best for you.

Towards a Fairer Primary Process

Iowa has taken on a disproportionate power in American politics. It could be argued with some measure of persuasion that Barack Obama would not now be President of the United States if the primaries were held in a different way, or started in more than one state simultaneously. We all recall that Hillary Clinton had a huge lead in all the national polls entering the Iowa Caucus. And then there was the Democratic debacle that resulted when Michigan and Florida attempted to move up their primary dates to gain more influence in the process.

 

Consider also how ethanol has unduly affected candidates and thus has resulted in farmers growing corn for inefficient fuel use at the expense of the world food supply. This is just one example of how one state can have a disproportionate influence on policy. No one state should have such power. It is unseemly and unfair. Additionally, Iowa is a caucus state whereas the majority of states use a popular vote – a process more closely in line with how the Presidential election actually takes place.

I propose that a change be made to the primary process for Presidential elections. My proposal in general is this: five states vote on the same day and the process is repeated with the remaining states for the following 9 weeks (where territories are placed can be dealt with also but I will concern myself only with the states for this general proposal).

It would not be a randomly generated process since that could result in some strange results such as states that are too geographically separated or states that are too politically similar. These are just a few examples of why a random selection could be problematic.

Instead, the process should be thoughtful. For example during the 2012 election 5 states could be selected such as: Indiana, Pennsylvania, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Kansas. This is just an example of course. If these groups of five states are thoughtfully chosen it should be a simple matter to make the groups fair and still make it reasonable for a candidate to campaign effectively within all of the states without undue travel.

Once a list of these groups is generated, the process could then proceed through the list as each successive Presidential election takes place. For example group A is first in 2012 and then group B moves to the front of the list for 2016 while group A moves to the back of the list, and the process continues for ten election cycles until we return again to group A.

Such a process seems easily achievable, much fairer, and provides some additional benefits. No state’s pet projects will have undue influence on American policy. States will not be motivated to attempt to change the date of their primary, and all states will feel as though they will eventually be a meaningful part of the process. Some states now feel that their vote comes so late in the cycle that most primaries are actually settled before they ever get to weigh in.

Why not make the process more egalitarian, and eliminate the pitfalls of our current process? It is not difficult to accomplish, and the benefits would redound to us all.

The Darwinian Paradox of Progressivism

Perhaps no phrase so succinctly, and so famously encapsulates Darwin’s theory as the phrase “survival of the fittest”. And yet, in that small phrase lies not only the birth of Progressivism in America, but also it’s greatest paradox. Progressivism grew out of the Darwinian model. It sought to replace the theocentric view espoused by most Americans.

This trend continues in full force with the so-called “new Progressives”, who many times pay lip-service to the idea of “God”, but are in the main Darwinian, Nietzschean atheists. Man, they would tell us, would have to fix his own ills and so it would take the best and the brightest (i.e. scientists, enlightened and brilliant political and entertainment figures) to right the ship. An oligarchy of  the intelligentsia if you will.

However, there is a problem with the very core of this theory. It conflicts wildly with the Marxist foundation upon which it rests. For if we are to truly believe Darwin, we are compelled to believe that it is through the unique individual that all evolution takes place. Transmutations in nature do not occur, according to Darwinian teaching, en masse, but rather with unique creatures who somehow mutate in ways that end up being beneficial, and result in genes that serve to self-perpetuate a superior creature capable of survival beyond the level of its predecessors.

So how does this create a paradox for Progressives? Simply put, Progressives wish to espouse Marxist or, at least quasi-Marxist, positions that require the superiority of the collective over the individual. Progressives, in Marxist fashion, are constantly promoting the concept of the collective good over the individual.

It then becomes completely inconsistent to claim you espouse “the scientific” approach as opposed to the “hocus pocus” of religion, while simultaneously promoting the collective above the individual. For if you believe the science you claim to believe, it is the individual that leads to the evolution of the species and not some communal arrangement.

So then I leave you with the Darwinian Paradox of Progressivism. Either you believe in science and exalt it above religion or you believe in any form of Progressive collectivism. You cannot, with any logical consistency, embrace both.