Saul Alinsky. Just the mention of his name is enough to raise my blood pressure and make me very 'agitated.' In Alinsky's Rules for Radicals he penned what he thought were the basic building blocks of socialist, radical rules on how to get what is not yours or "for the Have-Nots on how to take it away."
Alinsky, obama, I do not see much difference between the two.
Our LSM is so far in the tank for obama they are looking out their back ends to see any daylight at all. Look for the LSM to ratchet up the use of Rule number five as we go deeper into the election year. obama and his minions, soros, moore have been and will continue to use this rule every chance they get. All of these traitors, who, by the way and VERY WEALTHY have no problem using their money to take from all the rest of us, to give to the have-nots in our society.
Newt Gingrich was 100% correct in going after King during the debate. Conservatives MUST take off the gloves and start fighting back to expose the liberals and traitors for what they truly are; those who want to take from ALL OF US and give it to those poor downtrodden have-nots and ruin our country in the process.
What LBJ started with his 'Great Society' is alive and well in a very sick sort of way. We are paying a steep price for not fighting back and drawing blood at every turn.
"Rule number five of the Alinsky Method includes a premise that says the target will be placed on defense whenever it’s used. When that happens, the rule works. However, when the target effectively goes on offense, the rule backfires. No other candidate has demonstrated this ability. Sarah Palin seemed to have some of it in 2008 but she was muzzled by her running mate, who was clueless and instructed his campaign not to go after Obama over Jeremiah Wright, which was exactly the wrong thing to do.
Barack Obama will have untold amounts of money at his disposal when he faces the eventual nominee. He will spend a great deal of that money implementing Alinsky’s method rule number five; it’s part of his wiring. It’s simply not enough for the Republican Party to nominate a person who can neutralize rule number five; it needs someone who can reverse its intended effect."
From The Western Center Of Journalism.
************************************************************************************************************************
How Gingrich Is “Newtralizing” Alinsky Method Rule Number Five
By Ben Barrack
When Newt Gingrich scolded CNN’s John King at the South Carolina debate, he didn’t just stand up to the media; he smacked down the Saul Alinsky method. When a candidate does that, he can deliver a knockout blow to Barack Obama, Alinsky’s prized ideological protege.
Take a look at Rule number five of the Alinsky method in Rules for Radicals, which states:
Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
This is exactly what King attempted to do by bringing up the charges made by Newt’s ex-wife in an interview with ABC’s Brian Ross. Did King infuriate Gingrich by asking the question right out of the gate? Yes. Did Gingrich react to King’s advantage? Absolutely not. He channeled the fury of conservatives and delivered a counterattack squarely on the jaw of a liberal media bully; King had been stunned in epic fashion.
Conservatives know that the mainstream media is running interference for Barack Obama while attempting to portray objectivity. Gingrich exposed this dynamic thoroughly and with perfect timing, by making the charge as that reality was on full display for all to see. He connected the dots as the offense was being committed. The more King attempted to hit Gingrich, the more forcefully the former was beaten back by the latter.
One day after the debate, another CNN reporter – Erin Burnett – attempted to wound Gingrich with Rule number five of the Alinsky method. She asked him to respond to charges that he was hypocritical by going after president Bill Clinton in the 1990′s during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, while he was committing similar indescretions. The question was intended to trap Gingrich but it did the opposite; his response made Burnett look foolish for not seeing the clear line of distinction. Clinton committed a felony by perjuring himself; Gingrich did no such thing. Burnett wilted and reacted to Gingrich’s advantage.
Read the complete article here.
Tags: ENTER TAGS HERE To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!
1 Comments - Share Yours!:
Gingrich did not criticize Clinton's perjury at the time. He criticized Clinton's behavior, even to the point of calling it "sexual harassment" because, according to Gingrich, he was having the affair with a subordinate. That IS exactly what Gingrich was doing at the very same time.
I would also point out that there was absolutely no crime ever discovered involving White Water or any of the other real estate deals that were the target of Starr's witchhunt. I'll repeat: there was no evidence of a crime. There was a trial without any evidence of a crime at which Clinton was asked about the affair which had nothing whatsoever to do with the proceedings at all.
None of that changes the fact that Gingrich lied to the Republican Congress, used charitable contributions for political purposes in violation of House rules, paid a $300,000 fine that he now calls a "reimbursement" and was forced by his own Party to step down as Speaker.
Post a Comment