Micro macro targeting the opposition

Why does the radical left often appear to gain more, faster ground than the right on issues? Well, again, it may have something to do with Alinsky tactics.

Rules for Radicals: rule #12

““Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.“ Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.”

I’m not saying they are more successful as a rule. However, it does seem like the right is constantly caught up in attacking institutions, if by their nature, Yet we know the root of it is the Marxist people. Not like you can go through liberal academia one by one, that would be exhausting. We have. So we focus on the institution they’ve corrupted.

We focus on areas of government they’ve corrupted. But we did have the perfect match with Obama in office — even Holder, Lynch, Rice and Hillary. And guess what? We were told those attacks were off limits, or racist. Republicans frowned on those claiming they did not want it to be personal. Why not though? We ceded the perfect weapon and target. It was successful when they finally held Holder in Contempt.

But we do need to make constant personal examples within the institution. Think about this flag controversy. When we made it about the flag, that was a win, and we used Kaepernick as its poster boy, we saw much more success. Notice how everything the left does is personalized at Trump, even when it doesn’t apply.

Name it and shame it can work. I’ve realized just because Leftists have no shame doesn’t matter. It’s the people who see it who matter. If we concentrate on leaders like Pelosi, Schumer, et al, we are getting more bang for the buck, especially when the Left is also thinking of replacing them. Whenever they stick their heads up we should be zooming in on the opportunity to personalize it.

The same must apply to the RINOs in congress. If they get isolated, they feel it. Sure as heck, those like Corker are going to feel it from home. He can’t even run again. But if he is going scorched earth, then his record and pending scandals are fair game too.

Whether it is tax policy or Obamacare, we have a plethora of personal examples. Just what the left doesn’t want to talk about, real people affected by policy. Besides, the left going after Trump on everything is a tad bit old and stale. Another rule applies there. Rule #7:

““A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.“ Don’t become old news.”

At some point even Trump attacks get old. Media can’t keep them alive on life support. Think of how many things Obama just waited out, scandal after scandal, till finally nothing was done. Remember he called it old news when we never got any answers?

Right Ring | Bullright

Obama to ISIS, the perfect comparison

There is one ultimate comparison which applies well: Obama to ISIS, the Islamic State.

It really fits. The Islamic state are terrorists at heart, engulfed in an ideology that has no options. I wrote about it in “the struggle we must understand”. Obama is a radical ideologue at heart, whatever else anyone thinks he is. It is only a matter of understanding and knowing that. It’s a fool’s mission to try believing otherwise. He’ll prove you wrong; as ISIS will prove you wrong if you term them anything but evil and radical.

But that is not where it stops. The motive of operation for the terrorists is to provoke and attack anything not aligned with it, or anything that threatens it. That is the nature of the beast. That’s why preemption is the only strategy that can work against it.

With Obama he is all about challenging every other form of power. He believes in radicalism that attacks any of its enemies, by Alinsky tactics. It is pure radicalism. The ends justify any means. Ideology rules. He’s shown contempt for our Constitution and he shows contempt for America. He sees us as the problem and he and his cohorts as the answer. Perception is reality to them. They only need to project whatever they choose. (Islamists are creative at that too)

This is why we now have another problem. Our taking the Senate matters not to Obama. He’s as comfortable without it as with it. His radical means are no match for the process. He does not live under the same rules as everyone else. Therefore, it didn’t matter to him whether Republicans controlled congress. It didn’t matter before and doesn’t now.

In fact, we’ve seen how effective Harry and Nancy were in the minority already. He was looking to defy Congress before while he controlled half of it. Don’t you think he will defy it more having lost control? If he acted like a radical before, he has even more reason to act like a radical now. I think we get that. (whether legislators grasp that or not is a question)

With radical Islamists, they don’t care what percentage they are. Actually, the nature of radicalism is to be effective as one or a small group. They don’t have to win elections either, though they do know how to play the game of democracy. (Egypt) The other part is recruitment is not based on ethics or morality, it is just the opposite with radicalism and ideology. So they have no problem with recruitment, it sounds exciting to some.

Just as the message of progressives is a radical ideology, it sounds attractive to some people. It’s a perfect fit and lends itself to identity groups and academia.(group think)

With both types of radicals, percentage or majority do not matter, they are adept at acting in a small minority by design. (Weather Underground) They base their activism on constantly testing and pushing any boundaries. They use an incremental approach that is constantly probing. They apply tactics to subvert the process, challenge or disrupt it.

All that said, now we can see the problems inherent with Obama occupying one of three branches. Also other radicals within the system, think Lois Lerner, can be effective. They share ideology and don’t require orders or communications. Like terrorist cells, they act on their own or in concert. For Islamists, it is all about ideology. Radical is as radical does.

Clinton may have been a master politician, but Obama is a master of radicalism.

RightRing | Bullright

Saul move on over, reformation is coming

In 2008, the conversation was about a post-racial America. Now all anyone can hope for is a post-racial Obama. But that ain’t going to happen. We know that.

Roger Simon, co-founder of PJ media, wrote a piece on just that with just that conclusion. Racism has become the Holy Grail to Democrats — with their fictitious war on women coming in a close second. As he says, next up it is Hispanics.

Liberal Racism: Hispanics Are Next

Roughly ninety-five percent of racism in America today now either emanates from liberals or is generated by them. The Democratic Party relies on racism because, without the perception of serious ongoing racism in our culture, the identity politics on which the party depends would disintegrate. As presently constituted, they wouldn’t win another national or statewide election. This makes the Democratic Party by necessity a virtual racism-manufacturing machine.

The Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons are not anomalies. They are the motor that drives the car. Barack Obama could in no way be a post-racial president as promised, even if he wanted to be (doubtful). He wouldn’t have had a party anymore.

The idea that the chief executive of our country would want to give special privileges to Latinos above and beyond the wishes of their future fellow citizens is not only morally repugnant, it is highly socially damaging. It drives us apart — and apparently deliberately.

My only question is: isn’t all this getting a bit old, even for Libs? So this is where we are.

Their tactics and arguments have become stale — to be kind — and that is what voters are now seeing. Senator Uterus has learned that lesson. Senator Mark Pryor said Obama was a drag on his campaign. Grimes couldn’t endorse Obama. How long can you push phony arguments until they get old, even laughable? (ridicule can be a positive thing)

Alinsky’s RULE #7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)

Liberals can be counted on to do what they always do, when they decide to move on they do so in lockstep. The new thing will be the rage, sucking up all the energy in the room, which backwashes old ideas that are no longer effective. “Don’t become old news.”

RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

Of course, the new ideas will be just as specious as the old but that doesn’t matter because they are new. Leftists will tweak them along the way, the same way Obama revises his statements or the way they tweaked Obamacare. When everything is part of an evolving argument, a lot tends to get lost in the shuffle.

Remember the rules for radicals is geared to opposing typical activists or activism, and overwhelming them. If anything, the rules are about breaking rules, and it is always about what works — the ends justify the means. Hispanics beware.

RightRing | Bullright

Asininity in season

I get pretty offended by the current political strategies of the Left. They don’t make much sense but that was never the objective, was it?

Through all the arguments there is a pattern. They claimed with Obamacare: ‘you don’t like it, then what is your plan?’ You don’t like our open border, amnesty plans, then what is yours?’ Like going to a diner, “what’s yours?”

This is some ridiculous stuff. According to their tactic rule, one cannot criticize their plans or schemes unless one puts forth one in the same mold. Yea, right. Funny for the Party that was criticism central under Bush. It’s an Alinsky tactic.

So by that logic they could not criticize the Iraq war unless Dems advocated a war of their own. Just like we are not allowed to complain about their open border, Executive Order, illegal immigration policies unless we provide an amnesty plan. Only then can we discuss it. Since when did you have to offer a proposal for something you are opposed to? But they keep trotting out these tactics on every issue. By their standard, Dems should not be able to talk about budget cuts without offering real budget cuts. Why not?

The list of examples offenses is endless. The kicker is how many fall for it. Disagreeing with carbon tax schemes, then, means you must offer an alternate carbon scheme or shut up. What rules? If you don’t like a big-government program, you have to advocate a big-government program. Thus, to disapprove of something means you have to write it into law. It goes on and on. The abbreviated answer to “what’s yours” is up yours.

RightRing | Bullright