[tweetmeme source=AlinskyDefeater only_single=false]
“The fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.” 
What does it mean?
This tactic is genius in its simplicity. The idea is to keep the attention on your opponent by simply peppering them with the ways in which they fail to be perfect. No one is perfect and so the rule is powerful.
In fact, it is one of the most powerful tactics in the Alinsky arsenal. We will see as we go along that this rule, along with the fifth rule and the thirteenth rule are the heart and soul of how the Obama Administration uses Alinsky rules to their benefit.
Alinsky points out the Christian church because it was through the churches in Chicago that he first began to implement his strategies. When he approached Pastors, he found that it was nearly impossible to speak to them about Christianity (or so he says) because they were focused on the church, the people, the money and all that made up the infrastructure of the institution and not on the philosophy or theology that guided that institution. 
Why is this important to understand? It points out a basic flaw. People often profess one thing and then live in complete contradiction to what they profess, or at the very least neglect the things they claim to be most important in favor of the most expedient.
Let us be clear that people being people are generally going to fall short of any expectations they put upon themselves. The key Alinsky found was that this could be used to discredit those making claims they did not live up to. It is a deceptively simple and powerful tactic.
For example, suppose someone you know is encouraging you to stop smoking (oh, I don’t know let’s just say it’s the President of the United States) because they assure you that they are concerned about your health. They know the dangers of tobacco and they care about you. You really need to stop smoking so you can be around to be their friend.
Now let’s suppose you find out that this person (oh, I don’t know let’s just say it’s the President of the United States again) is actually smoking themselves. The next time they tell you that you need to quit smoking, what is the first thing you’re going to say? You are going to say, “Hey, wait a minute. Don’t lecture me about smoking when I happen to know you do it yourself”. You would be telling them to live up to their own book or rules-this is Alinsky’s fourth rule, and it is a strategy against which it is difficult to defend.
How has Obama used it?
Sarah Palin: In an article entitled, “I still hate you, Sarah Palin” the author lays out how Obama eviscerated Palin with Rules for Radicals and finishes by saying this,
“What you clowns need, in other words, is a Rules for Radical Conservatives to explain what you’re up against and teach you how to compete before it’s too late.” 
In essence what I am presenting through these series of articles is the framework of just such a manual for Conservatives (yes, a book on this does exist). While Conservatives are beginning to come around to what Rules for Radicals is all about, I have been screaming about it for way too long now.
[tweetmeme source=AlinskyDefeater only_single=false]
[tweetmeme source=AlinskyDefeater only_single=false]
Please contact Senator Harry Reid – Dems Are Out-tweeting Us!
I typically do not feel that RT ‘ing an identical tweet is effective, but I believe in this case it can be. I am asking you to RT the following tweet to Senator Harry Reid. He is in trouble in Nevada and is in danger of being voted out of office. Hundreds of tweets like this could have at least a small effect. It’s definitely worth a try.
Copy and paste the following:
@SenatorReid If U allow cloture on HC Bill B4 people have adequate time 2 review.We’ll work tirelessly 4 your defeat.
If you choose to include me in the RT I would appreciate it and it would help me track how many tweets we’re getting. If not, at least tweet the above please.
Copy and paste this if you are willing to RT me. Thanks.
RT @alinskydefeater @SenatorReid If U allow cloture on HC Bill B4 people have adequate time 2 review.We’ll work tirelessly 4 your defeat.
This is intended as a starting place. Use your creativity and imagination. Be respectful. Remember to make some time for this each day until the Health Care vote.
[tweetmeme source=AlinskyDefeater only_single=false]
- Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
- Never go outside the experience of your people.
- Whenever possible go outside the experience of the enemy.
- Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
- Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
- A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
- A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
- Keep the pressure on with different tactics, and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
- The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
- The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
- If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.
- The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
- Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
Alinsky, Saul Rules for Radicals. Toronto: Vintage Publishing 1971
[tweetmeme source=AlinskyDefeater only_single=false]
Rules two and three. We will examine the second and third rule together since they are so closely connected. Alinsky states these two rules on page 127 of Rules for Radicals as:
The second rule is: Never go outside the experience of your people. When an action or tactic is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear, and retreat. It also means a collapse of communication, as we have noted.
The third rule is: Whenever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat. 
What the rules mean. Alinsky states that venturing outside of areas where people feel comfortable creates the following problems for the movement: confusion, fear, retreat, and a collapse of communication.
The first three seem to be rather obvious consequences of going outside of one’s comfort zone. For example let’s suppose you were at a teaparty. Everyone around you has generally the same philosophy and concerns that you do. Now suppose instead that you are at a meeting of the Black Panthers and you are the only Conservative there.
How would you behave differently in these two very different situations? It seems obvious that you would feel not only comfortable, but quite bold with those with whom you agree. On the other hand, you would likely feel confused, be a bit fearful and would be anxious to get out of the Black Panther meeting. So the first three responses seem self evident.
But what about the idea of a collapse of communication? Notice Alinsky mentions that it refers to something he has already discussed in the book. Indeed, in the chapter entitled Communication he goes into detail about how going outside of the experience of the group creates a breakdown of communication. Simply put, the idea is that when we behave in ways that are outside of the normal understanding of those with whom we deal it becomes difficult to communicate our ideas and thus to move the organization forward. Don’t worry if this is not clear at this point, it will become obvious.
How Obama has used rules two and three.
Obama as economic expert. Obama’s supposed expertise in financial matters was largely a matter of illusion. He could point to no record of experience in economics, but he was able to cast his opponent as knowing nothing about the subject. In this regard, Senator McCain provided ample ammunition to his opponent.
First, there was the dismissal of his economic adviser, Phil Gramm. Well, technically he said he stepped down, but we all know what that means. In any case, Gramm was forced to step down after saying that the United States had become “a nation of whiners” and for dismissing the economic crisis as a “mental recession”. 
As an important aside, I would highly recommend that you familiarize yourself with Gramm’s role in the deregulation, which many believe lead to the financial crisis, including the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that was signed into law by President Clinton.
The following four Wikipedia articles are a good starting point for those who wish to understand some of the Congressional Acts that lead directly to our current financial crisis, as well as how both Phil Gramm and Larry Summers played parts in the deregulation that lead to it.
This will all be the subject of an article in the near future.
Next, there was the matter of whether McCain had in fact admitted a lack of economic knowledge. Again, he provided nothing but fuel to this fire, as the following video demonstrates. This video not only discredits McCain on the economy, which would be the deciding issue of the election, it also discredits him on foreign affairs, which is supposed to be in his “area of experience”.
Therefore, Obama, with a lot of help from McCain, was able to position himself as an economic expert despite the complete lack of any economic credentials. He did this by simply making his opponent look ignorant. He had used this same negative strategy against Hillary Clinton in the primaries. In that case, it was the war in Iraq instead of the economy. Obama did nothing to prevent the Iraq war, but he benefited from having not yet ascended to the United States Senate by 2002 when Congress voted on the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. 
We should also note here that Barack Obama ran mostly against George Bush and Sarah Palin. His campaign staff spent most of their time tying McCain to the unpopular Bush and personally ridiculing Palin and her family. Again, McCain failed to counter the “McCain as Bush” argument effectively until the last debate. By then it was way too late.
The economy was the central issue of the 2008 election (ironically this was the case because the surge that John McCain had championed had been largely successful in Iraq), and therefor I havecovered these economic aspects of the campaign in a little more depth.
The following are a few very brief synopses of some of the other ways that Barack Obama used the second and third rule during the general campaign in 2008.
Obama as young and brilliant. Obama seized on the comparison of himself as young and hip against that of McCain as old and out of touch. It was commonplace (and still is) for people to refer to Obama as “brilliant” and “a genius”, but there is little evidence given to support this thesis. We don’t have his college transcripts, and he has made many public errors on simple matters. The latter will be a post all unto itself.
What he has been successful in doing, however, is comparing himself to Geroge W. Bush who was widely panned for his public speaking and frequently referred to as stupid (a charge which I submit does not hold up to scrutiny, but that too is for another day), and to John McCain who is not the most thrilling public speaker.
This Obama campaign video is famous for showing McCain as old and out of touch.
Obama as post-racial. During the 2008 Presidential campaign both parties were careful to walk a fine line when it came to race, but Obama held the most advantageous position simply by virtue of the scarred history of America when it comes to race.
He used that advantaged position to launch side-swiping attacks like the following comments he made about McCain:
“He’s spending an awful lot of time talking about me. You notice that?” Obama asked a crowd of just over one thousand seated in a university gym. “I haven’t seen an ad yet where he talks about what he’s going to do. And the reason is because those folks know they don’t have any good answers, they know they’ve had their turn over the last eight years and made a mess of things.”
“They know that you’re not real happy with them and so the only way they figure they’re going to win this election is if they make you scared of me,” Obama continued, repeating an attack from earlier in the day. “What they’re saying is ‘Well, we know we’re not very good but you can’t risk electing Obama. You know, he’s new, he doesn’t look like the other presidents on the currency, he’s a got a funny name.’”
Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama said on Friday he expects Republicans to highlight the fact that he is black as part of an effort to make voters afraid of him.
“It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy,” Obama told a fundraiser in Jacksonville, Florida. “We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid.
“They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?”
Such attacks allowed Obama to use race against his opponent by staying within an area where he held the advantage and experience. He essentially challenged McCain to enter the arena of race knowing that perceptions would never allow for a white man to be seen as a victim of racial politics when he was engaged with an African American. He stayed within his own area of experience and advantage while trying to lure McCain into an area where he would have to fight with a clear disadvantage. This is textbook use of the second and third rules.
There are many other examples to demonstrate how Obama used these rules, but let me mention just two others and move on. John McCain challenged Obama to a series of Townhall events, but Obama never even officially responded. He didn’t say he wouldn’t, he just never did them. The reason? Obama knew that such events are McCain’s forte, and he wasn’t willing to take the chance of being shown up in these events. Obama is now legendary for his use of the teleprompter, so it makes sense that this would have been wondering outside of his “area of experience”.
And finally, Obama constantly spoke in soaring rhetoric with little policy substance. He sought to appear ascendant. By way of contrast, the Obama campaign pointed out McCain’s less effective public speaking skills. Since Sarah Palin was able to stir crowds as effectively as Obama, if not more effectively, they chose to use a different rule on her, and we will discuss that in depth in a future article.
Recognizing and dealing with rules two and three.
The change of subject approach. You will often see people use rules two and three by trying to lure you away from an area where you hold the advantage and into an area where they feel they hold the advantage.
This is quite common on twitter. You may be making a point, and winning an argument, and your opponent will then try to change the subject gradually moving you away from areas where you are strongest. If you recognize this you can use it to your advantage.
Obviously, it is more desirable to use this method as a defensive measure. In other words, you are not intentionally trying to steer people away from their points to yours, but instead you simply demand that they stay on subject.
The failure to communicate. Perhaps the least obvious of the points in the second and third rules is Alinsky’s point that when you venture outside of the expertise of your people it will result in a collapse of communication.
This is covered in a separate chapter by Alinsky in Rules for Radicals and so we will only touch upon its most basic meaning here. The point Alinsky is making is that by going outside of the expertise of your people a breakdown in communication is inevitable. For example, if I start discussing Ohms law with you in the middle of this article, it is likely that you are going to lose interest and become confused unless you have a background in electrical engineering.
The point is that leaders of organizations have to consider the abilities and interests of the people working for them in order to maximize their potential.
The Rules on twitter. Twitter offers an opportunity for different people to use it in different ways. Some are good at engaging with those whose opinions differ from theirs, others are better at presenting information or news. Still others might be good at helping to reinforce and encourage those with whom they agree and others are good at using humor or wit. It is possible to venture out of your safe zone in this regard, but generally speaking you should find your strength(s) and stay within that framework. The converse of this would be to attempt to draw the other side out of their area of expertise and into yours.
What comes next? We will continue with the rules, and after we have covered them all we will double back and cover the book chapter by chapter.
The next rule we will cover is:
· Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
 McCain Co-Chairman, Under Fire, Steps Aside – NYTimes.com. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/us/politics/19mccain.html?_r=1 [Accessed October 11, 2009].
 Gramm quits McCain campaign – The Boston Globe. Available at: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2008/07/19/gramm_quits_mccain_campaign/ [Accessed October 11, 2009].
 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. Available at: http://banking.senate.gov/conf/ [Accessed October 11, 2009].
 Search Results – THOMAS (Library of Congress). Available at: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:H.J.Res114: [Accessed October 11, 2009].
 Hot Air » Blog Archive » Obama: McCain’s message is that I don’t “look like the other presidents on the currency”. Available at: http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/30/obama-mccains-message-is-that-i-dont-look-like-the-other-presidents-on-the-currency/ [Accessed October 11, 2009].
 Hot Air » Blog Archive » Who’s playing the race card? Update: Audio added. Available at: http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/21/whos-playing-the-race-card/ [Accessed October 11, 2009].
[tweetmeme source=AlinskyDefeater only_single=false]
Someone, somewhere had to have written and distributed as a talking point that those who complain about the current proposals in Congress that include a so-called public option are misinformed if they also want, or currently have, Medicare, Medicaid or Medicare Advantage.
I seem to remember a few members of Congress retelling the story that “angry” constituents were complaining that, “we don’t want the Government involved in health care, and keep your hands off of my Medicare.” They retold this story as they condescendingly chortled, and implied that such people were either imbeciles, senile, or both. They then turned it into a handy sound bite and talking point to demonstrate that people who were complaining about the public option were ignorant and misinformed.
However, quite the opposite is true. The ignorance lies not in the people making this statement, but the ridiculous interpretation that it was given. Perhaps this is not the most artful way for seniors or other townhall participants to articulate their frustrations, but it is nonetheless a legitimate point of view.
First, the public option and Medicare are not necessarily equivalent. Even if the intention of the public option is defined to be simply allowing for others to choose Medicare or a Medicare-like system of health insurance it does not necessarily follow that someone who has Medicare coverage under current rules is ignorant for not wanting it jeopardized by extending it to more people. The desire to keep from bankrupting Medicare more quickly is not an unreasonable one.
Second, the desire to keep Government from further intrusion into one’s life is not predicated upon holding a position that all current Government programs are wrong-headed and should be eliminated. We live in a mixed economy. We are not strictly capitalist and we are not socialist. The degree to which we allow Government programs and Government intrusion into the private marketplace define the way in which we tilt the economy, and the direction we are headed. It is not unreasonable for someone to believe that we have tilted far enough in the direction of a more socialistic society, and that to the extent that we continue down the road of more Government entitlement we are moving more towards socialism and away from capitalism.
Third, there is the legitimate argument to be made that now is the worst of all possible times to increase entitlements, and that doing so could jeopardize the viability of the current system. With the economy in such bad shape, so many people unemployed, and the staggering increase of the deficit and debt due to the fiscal irresponsibility of both Parties it would seem that now is the absolute worst time possible to extend a Medicare like program to more people. The stimulus bill alone is testament to many that not only is spending out of control, but it is wasteful and ineffective.
As recently as last week, this talking point was used in the Senate. As Senator Grassley complained about Government control of health care, Senator Baucus interrupted him and said, “So you’d like to eliminate Medicare then?” The argument is specious and should be stopped if anyone on the right is to believe that those on the left are arguing from a position of fairness and logic.
You cannot logically hold up Medicare as a shining example of how Government can administer a program well while simultaneously telling us that in order to pay for the new health care bill some $500 to $600 million dollars can be cut by reducing waste and fraud in the system. You simply can’t have it both ways. Furthermore, seniors are increasingly aware that they are the ones whose care will be reduced under current plans.
[tweetmeme source=AlinskyDefeater only_single=false]
Organized Conservative Resistance Alliance
A Statement of Principles, Goals, and Methodology
To the Left: Before I begin, it is an unfortunate fact of political life in the United States today that you must immediately express in no uncertain terms that you are not an “extremist” if you use the word Conservative. So, let me assure you of a few things:
1. We do not advocate violence of any kind and we soundly renounce and repudiate any who do.
2. We are not racists. This is the first thing that those on the Left of the political scale always throw at Conservative groups, and especially now that we have our first African-American President. We, like so many Americans, celebrate the fact that America has moved so far from the horrible days of slavery that we can have an African-American President. Disagreeing with his policies is not tantamount to racism. We will not even address this spurious charge from here on unless someone who uses our name behaves in a racist manner, in which case we will denounce such words and/or actions.
3. We do not want the President to fail. We do, however want his present policies to fail because we believe they are bad for America.
4. We are not aligned with any political party and we have no sponsors of any kind. We do not explicitly support or endorse any business or corporation. Obviously, we will not deny that the principles of Conservatism have traditionally been the paradigm of the Republican Party, and that most will probably lean towards Republicans over Democrats, but it is the ideas that matter, not the names.
5. We are not advocating anything illegal, immoral, or even disrespectful towards policy makers. It is possible that Alinsky methods could be used against those that use them against us, but we would prefer not to.
6. We are not conspiracy theorists, although we do not try to limit the free exchange of ideas of any kind.
7. We are willing to engage you on policy, but trolls will be blocked, mocked, and/or ridiculed into submission. In our experience, the Left rarely wishes to engage on actual policy and fact checking.
8. On a topical subject: we are not against people having access to healthcare nor are we just opposed to the Administration’s policies just because they are Democrats. We believe improvements can be made to the current system, but that it the limitation of the free market that is causing most of the problems.
A General Statement of Our Beliefs and Vision for America
We believe in Constitutionalism in its strictest sense. We do not espouse a view that the Constitution is a “living” document. We believe our Founding Fathers provided for a way for the Constitution to be changed due to unforeseen times or circumstances, namely Article V of The Constitution of the United States of America. The text of which is shown here:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
We will mention only parts of The Constitution here, but we believe that all of The Constitution MUST be obeyed or changed according to the methodology of Article V. The same holds true for all of the currently valid amendments to The Constitution. Of particular interest are what we perceive to be current violations of Constitutional rights. These include:
• The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
• The Second Amendment states, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
• The fourth Amendment states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
• The Tenth Amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
• that Government, both local and Federal, is the servant of the people, and not the other way around. Governments place is to provide protection of the nation through our military (the finest in the history of the planet), protection of the people through laws, which punish those who commit acts of crime against their fellow man, and to provide those externalities, which cannot be provided by individuals. These would include, but not be limited to, such things as roads, schools, and protection from exploitation.
• that Government, particularly the Federal Government, spends too much, taxes too much, and interjects itself into the personal lives of American far too much. It is not so much what Government can do that is so important; it is what it cannot do. The framers wrote The Constitution as a protection of the people from the Government. According to Encyclopedia Britannica,” The framers were especially concerned with limiting the power of the government and securing the liberty of citizens.” We are for smaller, not larger, Government.
• in life, and that all life is sacred. It is not the place of Government to provide funds for people to abort what is scientifically referred to as a fetus, but is in reality a human being.
• that end of life is sacred as well, and the Government has no right to interfere or interject itself into the proper medical care of elderly people.
• in the free market and we are absolutely opposed to Socialism or any steps towards the Socialization of America. Dictionary.com defines socialism as, “(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.” The Government should place as few limits upon business as is necessary to insure that the marketplace is free and fair.
• in individualism and not collectivism.
• the Government must reduce spending and reduce the deficit.
• America has every right to secure its safety in the world, and that the one area that we should not be cutting expenses is the military – particularly while we are at war and rogue dictators are making menacing threats.
• that the current Administration is acting in accordance with Saul Alinsky’s ‘Rules for Radicals’, and that following a Marxist who advocated the destruction of American society and taught rules that valued the ends and never the means is below the office of President of the United States, and that the President should ceases these tactics immediately. America is not a community to be organized, it is a nation of individual whose rights should be preserved and not ridiculed.
• that illegal immigration is illegal, and our immigration laws should be obeyed and enforced.
WHAT WE DO NOT WANT:
• the Government controlling, attacking, or suppressing the press.
• the Government interfering in the people’s rights to practice their religion as they see fit.
• the Government stopping or disparaging our rights to peaceably assemble online or in real life.
• the Government infringing upon the American people’s right to bear arms.
• the Government violating our privacy online, on the phone, in our homes or in any way.
• that the Federal Government should be dictating anything to the States that is not explicitly allowed by the Constitution.
• the Government interfering in the free market. We do not support bail outs, picking winners and losers in the marketplace, or allowing the Government to interject itself into the private sector. In other words, we espouse creative destruction in a free marketplace.
These do not comprise a complete list of concerns and rights.
Methodology and Approach to Promote these Ideals:
• It is our intent to use the right to peaceably assemble, whether that be online or in real life to organize campaigns to respectfully, but forcefully communicate these Constitutional matters to our policy makers, and press.
• It is our intent to use our right to peaceably assemble to research members of Government and find any who do not follow the Constitution. Such people will be addressed en masse to convey the rights of the people.
• We understand that we live in a Republic, and as such we have a representative form of Government, but we believe that the majority of the members of Congress have stopped listening to the people. We intend to ensure that our voices will be heard.
• The exact methods by which we will do this will not be revealed in this document, but it will be legal, respectful, non-violent, and will not seek to incite hatred, anger, or malicious intent.
For those who choose to work within this grassroots movement, you will be alerted to the exact methodology very soon. This will be done in a way that will not allow “trolls” to preempt our work.
If you have any questions, comments, or criticisms you may post them @AlinskyDefeater on twitter. I do not care if you are for or against what we are trying to accomplish, you are welcome to interact with me personally if you wish to legitimately discuss issues or have legitimate questions. I will make every effort to address every sincere inquiry.
If you are a part of #ocra you can DM me your revisions, comments, or criticisms. If you cannot DM me, then please find someone who can.