Do Democrats Really Believe Biden Is Winning?
Once it was the "big lie." Now it is many little lies — riots are peaceful; he is she is they; Biden is not doddering; Trump will steal 2020. Told often enough and given enough time, little lies become truth.
Today we live in the "age of lies" told to steal an election in November and control a populace who refuses to do as they are told. All Americans should stop at least once before Election Day and take a hard look at the Democrat candidate, "King of Aphasia" Joe Biden. When they do, they will understand what the left is planning.
Ignore his 47 years in elected office without accomplishment, save for the 1994 Crime Bill, which he has since disavowed. Ignore that, as Robert Gates, former defense secretary under Obama, said, he has been wrong on every foreign policy issue facing the United States in the last 40 years. Dismiss the serial corruption of his family as they traded on his political office to become wealthy. Ignore the gaffes and the serial plagiarism. Ignore his long association with politicians associated with the Ku Klux Klan. Ignore his penchant for the unwanted touching of women and children and his creepy fondness for the smell of their hair.
Concentrate on the man and who he is today. Look at the comparison of the Joe Biden who debated Paul Ryan in 2012 with the Biden of today, hoping to trade his basement for the White House cellar. His mumbling and the many times he seems lost even when reading prepared answers off a teleprompter to prearranged questions from reporters pre-picked by his staff should force even the casual observer to admit he has lost much more than a step.
His mental decline from even just a few years ago is pronounced. He did, after all, undergo not one, but two brain surgeries in his life. The blank stares and when he loses his train of thought halfway through sentences along with the bouts of anger and his spontaneous streams of logorrheic gibberish show he is losing the battle to maintain his mental acuity.
What serious voter would pick this man for the most important job on Earth? Who sincerely believes that a man who is losing his faculties should be put in a position where he might control the fate of humanity?
No, in a normal world, the media would have already dispensed with moldering Joe. Yet today, the left controls the Democratic Party, corporate media, social media, Big Tech, and the bureaucracy — and Biden is their candidate. A candidate like Joe, who in a fair and free election would lose by a landslide regardless, of his opponent, combined with the fact that they genuinely believe they deserve the reins of power and thus Trump is illegitimate, makes their coming coup not only predictable, but also inevitable.
The Democrat-media claque have soiled themselves with the soul-staining perfidy of their onanistic pursuit of total and everlasting control of everything in a "fundamentally transformed" United States of America. Constructing a nationwide virtual echo chamber, they have convinced themselves that the "tired old man they elected [their] king" is not only worthy of the presidency, but also actually in the lead in the two-way race for America's executive office.
They seek to create a belief in people that Biden is not only winning, but way ahead because when Trump wins by a landslide on the evening of November 3, they will be justified in deploying their 1,000-lawyer legal team to prevent his win through lawfare while party hacks work in the days and weeks following Election Day to create or find enough ballots to steal Trump's victory.
All this while, Antifa and Black Lives Matter soldiers take to the streets as the "voice of the people" in "organic" riots as they strive to impose the "will of the people" to overthrow a duly re-elected Trump.
Those on the left have convinced themselves that if not for Trump, we would be living in a nation they would diligently be making perfect. Yet Trump is incidental. Leftists have been walking down this path for a long time, and the Obama presidency was the ego boost they needed to progress from theory to action, allowing them to believe that any victory not won by the left must be outright theft and therefore should justifiably be fought and reversed.
They need people to think Biden was robbed. They must convince voters that Trump stole the election. It is the same strategy they used with Hillary but failed. With the benefit of hindsight and almost four years of planning, they have marshaled their forces and are determined to succeed this time.
There is no more honest polling. Biden will always be winning, no matter how bad he is really losing. There are no more unbiased media figures. Talking heads between now and November will constantly explain to people just how much of a guaranteed bet Biden is to win the presidency. When he loses, they will call for, and help organize, the "rebellion." Google will skew search results, and Twitter, always willing to censor conservatives, will suspend Trump's account because that is how he bypasses the left and talks directly to Americans. Facebook will follow suit. Trump must not be allowed to speak to the people, lest he speak the truth.
Democrats are all in on stealing this election. For them to succeed, they need to make people believe that Trump, when he wins, has stolen it first.
Americans do not have to allow this. People need to organize and confront the Democrat-Antifa-BLM tough guys trying to suppress Republican voters at the polls and give Trump a resounding victory. He must win the majority vote and the Electoral College by margins that make the election impossible for the left to steal and give the president a mandate to confront the rioters who will surely surge to violence and destruction to depose the president in the aftermath.
America is the greatest, most successful nation ever to have existed. It is a republic, and only Americans can do what needs to be done to keep it.
The author can be found on Twitter @williamlgensert.
Image: Gage Skidmore via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0.
Virgil: Saul Alinsky on ‘Rules for Radicals’ and the 2020 Election
Editor’s note: Publius Vergilius Maro, the Roman poet known to history as Virgil, died in 19 B.C. Saul Alinsky, the American radical and inspiration to both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, died in 1972. However, for both of these legendary historical figures, their words, and their ideas, abide forever. So our Virgil had no trouble conducting this shade-to-shade interview with Alinsky.
VIRGIL: Saul, please tell us a little bit about yourself.
ALINSKY: I was born in Chicago in 1909, and as a young man I worked for various communist causes. Beginning in the late 1930s, I chose to focus my efforts on the South Side of Chicago; I soon created the Industrial Areas Foundation to further my work as a community organizer. My organizing campaigns then spread, from coast to coast, from California to New York. And along the way, I wrote two books, Reveille for Radicals and Rules for Radicals, which gained me an even larger following among young leftists.
For instance, in 1968, a Wellesley College student, Hillary Rodham, wrote a 92-page senior thesis on me, titled, “There Is Only the Fight . . .” Then, more than a decade after my death in 1972, a recent graduate of Columbia University, Barack Obama, came to Chicago to work in my organization.
Interestingly, in 2007, the Washington Post profiled both Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, then running against each other for the Democratic presidential nomination, viewing them through the prism of their connection to me. The piece quoted progressive activist Marian Wright Edelman as saying, “Both Hillary and Barack reflect that understanding of community-organizing strategy. Both just know how to leverage power.” And of course, one of them was elected president, and the other came close. So as you can see: Even though I’m dead, I rest in power.
VIRGIL: Funny you mention death and the hereafter! In your second book, Rules for Radicals, you include a dedication to … Lucifer:
Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins—or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom—Lucifer.
Kinda radical!
BLOG EDITOR: BARACK OBAMA IS CONSIDERED ONE OF THE MOST DIVISIVE POLITICIANS IN AMERICAN HISTORY. HERE’S WHY:
ALINSKY: That’s me. Deal with it. As I always said, my goal was “to rub raw the sores of discontent” and thereby force “action through agitation.” In fact, just last year, I was pleased to see that The Guardian newspaper reported that the British group Extinction Rebellion, which has staged disruptive protests all over the world on climate change, cites me as an influence. As their co-founder said, “The essential element here is disruption. Without disruption, no one is going to give you their eyeballs.” And I think plenty of other groups follow my teachings, even if they don’t give me credit. Not bad for being dead these five decades!
In fact, this year, 2020, I think it’s fair to say that you’ve seen a lot of my influence. Maybe you could write an epic poem about me, like The Aeneid that you wrote 2,000 years ago. You could call it the The Alinsky-eid.
VIRGIL: I’ll have to think about that. In the meantime, do you see your influence as seen in, say, Portland? And Seattle? You were never known for violence in your lifetime.
ALINSKY: Yes, but the Radical has to be ready to meet the moment, on the terms that seem appropriate for the moment. And sometimes, that might mean, uh, liveliness. As I also wrote, the organizer must “fan the latent hostilities.” I added that he—okay, now, maybe, she or they—“must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them.”
I must say, this pronoun stuff is new to me, along with all this Cultural Marxism, but I do try to keep up.
VIRGIL: Speaking of keeping up, are you in favor of Antifa and its tactics?
ALINSKY: As I wrote in 1946, “America was begun by its Radicals. America was built by its Radicals. The hope and future of America lies with its Radicals.”
VIRGIL: Got it. So what do you expect to see happen in November 2020?
ALINSKY: As I also wrote, the American people are forever divided between Revolutionaries and Tories. Joe Biden might not be much of a Revolutionary, although maybe Kamala Harris is a bit more of one; I loved it, this past June, when she said of the George Floyd protests:
They’re not going to stop. This is a movement. They’re not going to stop before Election Day in November, and they’re not going to stop after Election Day. Everyone should take note of that on both levels, that they’re not going to let up and they should not and we should not.
That’s the spirit of permanent revolution that we need!
In the meantime, without a doubt, Trump is a Tory. Yes, he’s different from the conservative stereotype in some ways, but still, he’s a Republican. So I know which side my people will be on. And no matter what happens in the balloting on November 3, I expect that the struggle will continue well past Election Day—as Radicals and Revolutionaries take to the streets in greater numbers than they have already. As you know, since you’ve read my work, I laid out some principles, or rules, for this sort of direct action.
VIRGIL: Yes. In fact, I looked up your “Rules” and found that you listed 13 of them. So let’s go through these Rules, one by one.
ALINSKY: Glad to.
VIRGIL: Number One: “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.”
ALINSKY: That’s a good one, because you want to keep the enemy guessing. Just on September 17, I saw this headline in Breitbart: “Soros-Backed Coalition Preparing for Post-Election Day Chaos—‘We’re Going to Fight Like Hell.’”
VIRGIL: You read Breitbart?
ALINSKY: Sure. As I said, if you’re going to outthink, and out-psych, the enemy, you have to know what the enemy is thinking. So when we throw around the name of George Soros, we are sure that Soros evokes fears on the right, because he has, after all, donated at least $32 billion to left-wing causes. So you get, you know, right-wing memes such as the Eye of Soros, and all that, straight from Sauron in Lord of the Rings. Now the truth is that, just as Sauron was defeated in the Tolkien story, so, too, Soros has been defeated, many times, including in the U.S. in 2016. And yet if right-wingers are afraid of him, good. Hell, Soros has even spooked Fox News into censoring Newt Gingrich when he mentioned Soros’s name. So if Republicans are spooked by a phantom menace, well, good—let them be spooked.
VIRGIL: Oh my, you’re being pretty candid.
ALINSKY: Actually, you don’t know whether or not I’m lying to you, because the need to tell the truth to imperialists such as yourself—you were, after all, a tool of the Emperor Augustus Caesar—is hardly a part of the Revolutionary credo. But I like talking, so continue.
VIRGIL: Hmmm, all right then. Let’s go to Number Two: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”
ALINSKY: Fortunately, we have lots of expertise, and not just in the streets. We have lawyers, and we have money. And crazy as it might seem, every time I look around, I see a new seven-figure front group—I mean group—dedicated to undermining Trump. Just on the 17th, I read about a group that I’d never heard of, American Oversight, which has gotten all the files and e-mails from the U.S. Postal Service, especially as they relate to that fascist, Louis DeJoy. Conveniently enough, all the information ended up with the Washington Post. I’m sure more dope will come spilling out soon.
So you see, we have the streets—and we also have the suites. We have Al Sharpton and Soros, together, on the same side. Actually, I saw a little bit of that high-low alliance when I was alive, when Marshall Field, the Chicago department-store magnate, funded my early work, but I never thought I’d see this much overclass money flowing to the underclass—I wish I’d lived longer to really enjoy it.
VIRGIL: Ah, yes, Saul, you did come to enjoy life, didn’t you? After all, you passed away in Carmel, California, overlooking the Pacific Ocean. Not bad!
ALINSKY: My mission was to afflict the comfortable. I never said that I, myself, should be afflicted. I worked hard for my comfort. But that’s enough about how I practiced my life—let’s get back to what I preached.
VIRGIL: Got it. Here’s Number Three: “Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy.”
ALINSKY: That one’s interesting, because our legal armada has clearly bested Trump in the courtrooms.
To cite just one of many examples in this election year, Biden and the Democrats have gone to court and just gotten the Green Party knocked off the ballot in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. What does that mean? It means no more situations such as in 2000, and 2016, when Green Party candidates siphoned off popular votes, and thus electoral votes, in key states for the Democrats. Now it looks like the Green Party will be on the ballot in only about half the states, most of which aren’t in contention this November. So good work, legal comrades!
Furthermore, at the same time, our media partners have launched a campaign to persuade people that the Green Party is in the pocket of Putin—and it’s working! The Greens are always on the defensive now.
Meanwhile, the crypto-Republican effort to get Kanye West on the ballot has been pitiful; as of now, he’s only on the ballot in five states. The Republicans were obviously hoping to get West on the ballot in more states, so as to steal away black votes from Biden, but it’s not happening.
Yet even as Republicans were failing to bolster fringe parties that might drain away votes from Biden, they weren’t paying attention to the fringe party positioned to drain away votes from Trump.
VIRGIL: What party is that?
ALINSKY: The Libertarian Party, of course. For most libertarian voters, their second choice is the Republican Party, so it makes a difference whether the L.P. is on the ballot, or not. And in fact, the Libertarian Party is on the ballot in 45 states, with hopes to get on the ballot in all 50 this year. That has to hurt Trump.
VIRGIL: Number Four is “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
ALINSKY: This is a good one, because it shows how important it is to pay attention to everything. That is, all the fine print that goes into the rulebook. Let me illustrate: Back in 2011, President Obama signed Executive Order 13583, aimed at “Establishing a Coordinated Government-wide Initiative to Promote Diversity and Inclusion in the Federal Workforce.” As he put it in that EO—I love reading about left-wing victories:
I am directing executive departments and agencies to develop and implement a more comprehensive, integrated, and strategic focus on diversity and inclusion as a key component of their human resources strategies.
Translated, that means providing funding for all the equity and social justice programs that right-wingers hate so much. And yet here’s the funny thing: The federal government has been funding all these programs for the better part of a decade, when Republicans had control of Congress, and, as well, including most of the Trump presidency. And yet Republicans never noticed!
VIRGIL: Ah, yes, this issue of funding for “anti-racism” education blew up only in the last few weeks, mostly thanks to whistle-blowing by a smart young conservative, Chris Rufo.
ALINSKY: But the fact that the issue has blown up only recently means, again, that all this was going on, unnoticed, for the past three-and-a-half years! During that time, how many millions of dollars went into the war chests of the left? So the Trump people were, in effect, operating according to the Obama playbook— fattening up all my allies, and those blockheads didn’t even know it!
VIRGIL: But they’ve stopped it now.
ALINSKY: Maybe. On September 4, Trump’s director of the Office of Management and Budget issued a memorandum ordering federal agencies to “cease and desist” from funding “divisive, un-American propaganda training sessions.” Heh heh. A bit late for these right-wingers to notice.
Yet still, even now, Trump has not issued an Executive Order repealing Obama’s Executive Order. So what will happen when some bureaucrat somewhere keeps funding the same anti-racism curricula? Will the Trump people be on their toes? Will they have the legal standing, and the mojo, to stop career civil servants—what you might call the Deep State—from doing what they wish? There are rules and laws and procedures concerning how funding works, contracts and so forth, and it’s obvious that the left has a handle on how to move these levers of power and funding—and the right doesn’t. So we’ll have to see if anything is truly, actually, defunded, at least anytime soon. My bet is “no.”
VIRGIL: Hmmm. Here’s Number Five of your Rules: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. There is no defense. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.”
ALINSKY: One word: Trump. Two words: Stephen Colbert. Three words: Saturday Night Live. Four words: Orange Man Bad Hitler. Five words: The rest of the memes.
VIRGIL: Okay, but the anti-Trump onslaught is so relentless and, frankly, so not funny, that I wonder if it’s working. Sounds like these leftists are just preaching, with little actual humor, to the choir—a choir that never liked Trump anyway.
ALINSKY: Yes, you might be right about that, but I’ll jump ahead to Number Six of my Rules: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” My people enjoy bashing Trump. So let ’em have their fun.
VIRGIL: Okay, but then there’s Rule Seven, which states, “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”
ALINSKY: Yes, and in that same paragraph, I added that the Radical must be “constantly inventing new and better tactics.” So there’s a challenge there. I think you’ll see a lot more creativity in the next few months, as we take the Trump people by surprise.
VIRGIL: Like what?
ALINSKY: Well, look, just on Friday night, the 18th, when the news broke that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had died, thousands of people converged on the steps of the Supreme Court building in D.C. to light candles, say prayers, and otherwise mourn her passing. There was a bit too much sacredness and religion there for my taste, but the show of force was only potential force—it was entirely peaceful. See? The activist left can surprise people. And in the meantime, I see that both Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are saying that “nothing is off the table,” action-wise. Oh, to be a fly on the wall in their meetings! I think I’d like a lot of what I’d be hearing.
Of course, the next protest could be, uh, livelier, as Michael Moore is calling for–I read that, too, in Breitbart. We’ll just have to see. Stay tuned, as they say, because you never know what will happen. That’s how you stay fresh.
VIRGIL: Yes, I was just reading in Breitbart about how “blue check” tweeters were threatening violence if Trump and Mitch McConnell try to fill Ginsburg’s seat.
ALINSKY: See? We contain multitudes—always something new! Keep ’em guessing! Look, even when I was active in life, there was always more than one game to be played. It wasn’t as if the poor people in Chicago who I was working with didn’t have the right to vote—they did. But I gave them another venue for power, namely, taking it to the streets. It was a dual-track thing: political action, and direct action. We could see both in re: Ginsburg.
VIRGIL: Now to Rule Eight: “Keep the pressure on.”
ALINSKY: As the Romans said, Res Ipsa Loquitur—“The thing speaks for itself.”
VIRGIL: Got it. Now to Nine: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
ALINSKY: Ask yourself: How many Republicans have caved because they’re afraid of being called a name by the New York Times? Or because they fear being ostracized from polite society, especially in Washington, DC? Many, that’s how many. In particular, how many Republican judges turn liberal as they spend more time on the bench, especially inside the Washington Beltway? That’s the effect of keeping the pressure on.
For instance, when Linda Greenhouse was the Supreme Court reporter for the Times, always pushing the justices to move left, they used to joke about the “Greenhouse Effect,” as in, at least some of the Republican appointees wouldn’t want to antagonize her, so they’d vote liberal. Yet the truth is, Linda didn’t have any real power, other than a word or two—and words don’t break bones—and yet words were enough. That is, it was enough to bluff many conservatives.
VIRGIL: This one, Rule Ten, is similar to Rule Eight: “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”
ALINSKY: Yes, but it helps to have a coordinated operation, so that the pressure never lets up. I’ll bet the Biden people, the Democratic Party, and the left have a dozen war rooms in Washington alone, always making sure that Trump and the Republicans are feeling the pressure.
VIRGIL: That takes money.
ALINSKY: Yes, and we’ve got plenty. As I said, there’s always a new NGO—the Center for this, the Democracy Alliance for that—being funded by some Trump-hating fatcat. Little do they know…
VIRGIL: What’s that? Know what?
ALINSKY: Uh, nothing. Let’s keep going. My Number Eleven is, “If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counter-side; this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative.” And that means, we must realize that the real action is your opponent’s reaction. So keep probing and pushing! And be ready, if something breaks, to pick up the pieces.
VIRGIL: Okay, and Number Twelve is, “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”
Alinsky: That means have a plan for what to do when you win. And I’ll admit: When I think of Biden, I worry about that one. Of course, Harris…
VIRGIL: Lastly, we come to Number Thirteen: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
ALINSKY: That’s easy. Trump. For the next two months, he’s all we need. And if the election turns into a mess, as we all think it will, then Trump’ll be the rallying cry for the left—the man the left loves to hate.
VIRGIL: Of course, Trump has plenty of supporters, too.
ALINSKY: That’s true. So we could see some pretty wild times, as we prepare to storm the Winter Palace—oops, I mean, surround the White House.
VIRGIL: Wild times, indeed.
ALINSKY: We’re ready. Are you?
The Alinsky-ization of Brett Kavanaugh
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/09/the_alinskyization_of_brett_kavanaugh.html
By Rich Logis
Republicans and conservatives are fond of referencing Chicago community organizer Saul Alinsky, but how many have read his body of work? I've always referred to Alinsky's secular agitator bible, Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals, as the sequel to The Communist Manifesto. Published in 1972, shortly before Alinsky's death, Rules was a significant part of President Obama's and Hillary Clinton's political upbringings – although he more influenced Obama, who followed in Alinsky's community organizing footsteps in Chicago in the '80s.
Alinsky's thirteen rules are effective. The first step to challenging them is actually recognizing them.
Here's how Democrats and the DMIC (Democrat Media Industrial Complex) Alinsky-ized Brett Kavanaugh, in the lead up to, during, and after his U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearings.
1: "Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have."
Outnumbered 51-49, Senate Democrats know that the arithmetic isn't on their side. If the Democrats and Republicans each hold court along party lines, Kavanaugh is our next justice, thanks to the nuclear option employed by Kentucky senator Mitch McConnell last year to get Justice Neil Gorsuch confirmed.
But a two-senator lead means the tie-breaking voter, Vice President Mike Pence, had better be on call when the roll call vote to confirm Kavanaugh is held. Democrats undoubtedly consider Republican senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, of Maine and Alaska, respectively, to be free agents, particularly over Roe v. Wade. Kavanaugh was relentlessly questioned by Democrats over abortion; the goal was to create doubt that Collins and Murkowski would vote to confirm him. If uncertainty exists, it's unlikely that Democrats from states President Trump won in 2016 will cross the aisle. If Democrats somehow secure 51 nays, we'll have the modern-day version of Borked: Kavanaughed.
2. "Never go outside the expertise of your people."
Alinsky wrote in Rules that "the issue is never the issue." The reason the Democrats were obsessed with the documents withheld by the president has nothing to do with the documents; it has to do with the fact that the Democrats on the Committee on the Judiciary were unwilling to have substantive legal discussions. Why? Simple: because Kavanaugh would have made the Democrats – several of whom are trained attorneys – look like first-day law school students. Having authored 307 opinions, from 2,700 cases, during his 12 years as a federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals, along with dozens of speeches to law schools and legal groups, Kavanaugh's jurisprudence bona fides are not only rock solid, but also very public. There is zero we don't know about Kavanaugh's interpretive approach and acumen.
3. "Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy."
I suspect that this rule guided The New York Times' and Associated Press's show-me-the-woman-and-I'll-show-you-the-crime expedition two months ago for the work emails of Kavanaugh's wife, Ashley, who was hired earlier this year as town manager of Chevy Chase, Md. The Times requested any emails that contained the words "gun," "abortion," "federalist" or "gay." Perhaps the Times believed that Mrs. Kavanaugh was fond of attending The Federalist Society lectures about concealed carrying lesbians who believe that abortion is creepy. The Times' request was a big dud; 85 pages of emails later, and, I'm sure, much to the newspaper's chagrin, nothing incriminating, and nothing about guns, abortion, gays, or federalists was discovered. The AP requested all of her work emails but hasn't yet reported on its findings.
4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."
Though there weren't explicit questions about Kavanaugh's Catholic faith, he noted his work with Catholic Charities. This rule was the basis for California senator Cuckoo Kamala Harris's lie that Kavanaugh called birth control abortion-inducing drugs (have you noticed how often I've already written about abortion?). And here's the ACLU's predictable fear-mongering that Kavanaugh would usher in a theocratic oligarchy. In fairness, I'm not angry at the ACLU, because voting is a lot like any decision or purchase: it's done based on fear or greed.
5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon."
Kavanaugh has been in Washington for decades; he's what many of us would call an "establishment" figure. This has provided an opportunity for the DMIC toattack his establishment "elitism," which President Trump swore to reject by draining the swamp. The median household income of Kavanugh's ZIP code is $12,000 a month, his house cost $1.2 million to purchase, and Kavanaugh racked up tens of thousands of dollars in credit debt to buy Washington Nationals season tickets. As coach of one of his daughters' basketball teams, his moniker is "Coach K." If the nickname Coach K doesn't smack of elitism, I don't know what does. The DMIC showed no qualms in portraying Kavanaugh as an out-of-touch Beltway insider. Oh, yeah, and people will die if he's confirmed.
6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy."
Democrats know that most of their voters are out for blood, and a "good tactic" was to inextricably link Kavanaugh to President Trump, an "unindicted co-conspirator," according to Harris and Connecticut senator Richard Blumenthal, due to the plea deal of Trump's former personal attorney, Michael Cohen.
In the old days, Democrats weren't quite as politically loony as they currently are and were definitely more likable. Unlikability is a good tactic for the Democrats; the temperament of a justice is important, and the more unlikeable Democrats were in their questioning, the better the chances Kavanaugh would lose his cool. But alas, he kept his cool, especially during Harris's entrapping questionsabout possible conversations he had with Trump's lawyer's firm regarding the Mueller investigation. The Democrats tried to force Kavanaugh into the role of de facto spokesman for the president, but he was ready for them.
7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag."
I didn't watch every second of the hearings, but I watched more than 75 percent, and Democrats said Trump's name dozens of times. New Jersey senator Cory Booker handled Trump fatigue by putting on a theatrical production worthy of Broadway: Booker, whose claim to fame was interrogating Mike Pompeo about sodomy during his secretary of state confirmation hearings, dared his Republican colleagues to expel him from the Senate. As was expected, President George W. Bush's name popped up. Kavanaugh worked for Bush, and the implication is that Kavanaugh has always been associated with illegitimate presidents.
8. "Keep the pressure on."
This is one of the easier rules to follow, because specifics aren't necessary. Attorneys who litigate before the Supreme Court know to expect random barrages of questions, and the Democrats kept up the pressure by interrupting Kavanaugh dozens of times, not including the interruptions from protesters. The interruptions failed in knocking Kavanaugh off his game – same for the objections to the hearings, coordinated by Democrats.
9. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."
If I had to pick one rule sold the hardest by Democrats, it's this one. The "threats" posed by Kavanaugh sound a lot like the threats posed by Robert Bork, nominated by President Reagan in 1982. Said Massachusetts senator Edward Kennedy:
Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution[.]
Of course, had Bork been confirmed, none of those things would have occurred. But that wasn't important; it was the "what if?" threat of those things. In Kavanaugh's case, workers will have zero rights, felons will own machine guns, and women will be forced into back-alley abortions and die.
10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition."
If Kavanaugh is confirmed, the Democrats will have lost the battle, but they will consider the larger war still winnable – especially considering that he's expected to be confirmed a month before the midterm elections. It was quite apparent which Democrats were thinking about running for president in 2020 (Harris and Booker) and which weren't (Partrick Leahy of Vermont). Those positioning themselves for a White House run will incorporate their self-aggrandizing "resistance" to Kavanaugh into their campaigns.
11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside."
In the case of Kavanaugh, this is a slight overlap of Rule 1. Trump has gotten 60 federal judges confirmed, is reforming the Supreme Court to how the Founders envisioned it, and has 100 pending federal judicial appointments. These realities are red-meat selling points to Democrat voters: "Look at the havoc Trump has wrought! We must prevent him from further destruction!" Just how deep it will break into the counterside remains to be seen, but desperation is all Democrats have left (although projected demographics, if not engaged, don't bode well for America First).
12. "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."
To have a chance of winning long-term political battles, there must be self-immolation and sacrificial lambs within the Democratic Party ranks. Adaptation is key. This is already underway, as evidenced by the rise of "democratic socialist" primary winners nationwide. In America, Leninism has always been implemented in creeping doses, until one day, it's mainstream. The constructive alternative will continue to be the message that overt, out-in-the-open socialism is necessary to prevent future Brett Kavanaughs.
13. "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
In Clintonian fashion, the Democrats will persist. Remember: Kavanaugh can't prove he's not racist, or that he won't vote to send abortion battles back to the states, where they belonged in the first place. The Democrats will continue to color Kavanaugh identically to how we describe Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor: as an untrustworthy judge who legislates from the bench.
My prediction: Kavanaugh will receive 54 votes to confirm, with Collins and Murkowski unlikely to defect.
Rich Logis is host of The Rich Logis Show at TheRichLogisShow.com and author of the upcoming book 10 Warning Signs Your Child Is Becoming a Democrat. He can be found on Twitter at @RichLogis.
Black Lives Matter: Marxist Hate
Dressed Up As Racial Justice
A new investigative report from the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
Tue Sep 1, 2020
Editor's note: In this just-released report on Black Lives Matter, author John Perazzo exposes the BLM movement as a racist, anti-Semitic, anti-family and anti-capitalist attack on the very foundations of American democracy.
Read the report below - and order hard copies HERE.
BLM’s False Claims About the Police and White-on-Black Crime
Depicting America as a veritable cesspool of “state-sanctioned violence and anti-Black racism,” BLM claims that blacks in the U.S. today are routinely targeted for “extrajudicial killings … by police and vigilantes.” And although this claim has been widely and passionately echoed by supporters of BLM, it is in fact a monstrous lie, as has been demonstrated consistently by decades of hard empirical evidence. Some examples:
A 2011 Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) study reports that between 2003 and 2009, whites accounted for 41% of all suspects known to have been killed by police during that 7-year time frame. By contrast, blacks and Hispanics accounted for 31.7% and 20.3%, respectively. It is also worth noting that during this same period—when blacks were 31.7% of all suspects killed by an officer—blacks accounted for about 38.5% of all arrests for violent crimes, which are the types of crimes most likely to trigger potentially deadly confrontations with police.
This trend has continued unabated during more recent years. In 2017, for example, blacks were just 23.6% of all people shot dead by police, even though they were arrested for 37.5% of all violent crimes. The following year, blacks were 26.3% of those fatally shot by police, even as they were arrested for fully 37.4% of violent crimes.
In a 2018 working paper titled “An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force,” Harvard economist Roland Fryer, who is African American, reported that: (a) police officers were 47% less likely to discharge their weapon without first being attacked if the suspect was black, than if the suspect was white, and (b) white officers were no more likely to shoot unarmed blacks than unarmed whites.
A 2019 study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows that white officers are no more likely than black or Hispanic officers to shoot black civilians. “In fact,” writes Manhattan Institute scholar Heather Mac Donald, the study found that “if there is a bias in police shootings after crime rates are taken into account, it is against white civilians.” Specifically, Mac Donald adds, the authors of the study compiled a database of 917 officer-involved fatal shootings in 2015 and found that 55% of the victims were white, 27% were black, and 19% were Hispanic.
Each and every year, without exception, whites who are shot and killed by police officers in the U.S. far outnumber blacks and Hispanics who meet that same fate. In 2017, for instance, 457 whites, 223 blacks, and 179 Hispanics were killed by police officers in the line of duty. In 2018, the corresponding figures were 399 whites, 209 blacks, and 148 Hispanics. And in 2019, the totals were 370 whites, 235 blacks, and 158 Hispanics.
According to Heather Mac Donald: “The per capita rate of officers being feloniously killed [by anyone] is 45 times higher than the rate at which unarmed black males are killed by cops. And an officer’s chance of getting killed by a black assailant is 18.5 times higher than the chance of an unarmed black getting killed by a cop.”
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2018 there were 593,598 interracial violent victimizations (excluding homicide) between black and white civilians in the United States. Blacks committed 537,204 of those interracial felonies, or 90.4%, while whites committed just 56,394 of them, or about 9.5%.
When white civilian offenders committed crimes of violence against either whites or blacks in 2018, they targeted white victims approximately 97.3% of the time, and they went after black victims about 2.6% of the time. By contrast, when black civilian offenders committed crimes of violence against either whites or blacks during that same year, they targeted white victims 58% of the time, and they went after black victims 42% of the time.
City Journal reports that according to Justice Department data, blacks in 2018 were overrepresented among the perpetrators of offenses classified as “hate crimes” by a whopping 50%—while whites were underrepresented by 24%.
There is not even the slightest hint of anti-black racism anywhere in these figures. But when BLMers are confronted with such incontrovertible facts, they simply do not care. Indeed, they invariably react with the intellectual equivalent of a collective yawn.
Saul Alinsky’s Influence on BLM
At a Black Lives Matter conference in Cleveland on July 24, 2015, BLM presented a workshop for radical agitators titled “There’s A Method To The Movement: Examining Community Organizing Methods and Methodologies”. Those in attendance were instructed in the tactics and philosophy of the late Saul Alinsky. Known as the godfather of “community organizing”—a term that serves as a euphemism for fomenting public discontent—Alinsky was a communist fellow traveler who laid out a set of basic strategies designed to help leftist radicals destroy their enemies and transform society into a socialist paradise.
If such radicals were to be successful in remaking society, said Alinsky, they “must first rub raw the resentments of the people” by identifying a particular “personification” of evil and “publicly attack[ing]” it as a “dangerous enemy” of all that is decent. The chief “personification” in BLM’s cross hairs today, of course, is the white police officer.
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it,” Alinsky taught, asserting that the primary task of radicals is to cultivate, in people’s hearts, a visceral revulsion to the mere sight of the target’s face. “The organizer who forgets the significance of personal identification,” said Alinsky, “will attempt to answer all objections on the basis of logic and merit. With few exceptions this is a futile procedure.” That is why BLM and its apologists invariably avoid addressing even the most glaring errors in the anti-police, anti-white narratives they seek to advance, and why they turn a deaf ear to anyone who tries to engage them with logic, reason, or empirical data.
Alinsky taught that in order to cast themselves as noble defenders of high moral principles, radical activists should take pains to react dramatically—with greatly exaggerated displays of “shock, horror, and moral outrage”—whenever their targeted enemy errs, or can be depicted as having erred, in any way at all. Thus, even though American police officers annually have some 375 million civilian contacts in which they behave entirely within the bounds of legality and ethics, BLM chooses to magnify—with choreographed indignation—the significance of a tiny handful of questionable cases, and to characterize those as emblems of supposedly widespread police misconduct.
Alinsky advised radical activists to avoid the temptation to concede that their opponents are not “100 percent devil,” or that they may possess certain admirable qualities. Such concessions, he said, would “dilut[e] the impact of the attack” and would thus amount to “political idiocy.” That is why we never hear BLM praising the police for anything. Instead, it is 100% attack, 100% of the time, against a 100% devil.
Given that the enemy is to be portrayed as the very personification of evil—against whom the use of any and all tactics is fair game—Alinsky taught that an effective radical activist should never give the appearance of being satisfied with any compromise proposed by the opposition. After all, any bargain with the “devil” is, by definition, morally tainted. The ultimate goal, said Alinsky, is not to arrive at peaceful coexistence, but rather, to completely “crush the opposition” by remaining vigilantly “dedicated to eternal war.” “A war is not an intellectual debate,” Alinsky elaborated, “and in the war against social evils there are no rules of fair play.… When you have war, it means that neither side can agree on anything…. [T]here can be no compromise. It is life or death.” In perfect fidelity to these principles, BLM’s foot soldiers make it quite clear that they are constantly aggrieved and never satisfied.
Alinsky advised the radical activist to be ever on guard against the possibility that the enemy might someday propose “a constructive alternative” aimed at resolving some particular conflict. “You cannot risk being trapped by the enemy in his sudden agreement with your demand,” said Alinsky, for such a turn of events would have the effect of diffusing the righteous indignation of the radical, whose very identity is inextricably woven into the “struggle” for long-denied justice. If the perceived oppressor extends a hand of friendship in an effort to end the conflict, the crusade of the radical is jeopardized. This cannot be permitted, because “eternal war,” by definition, must never end.
Alinsky also exhorted radical activists to be entirely unpredictable and unmistakably willing—for the sake of their crusade—to plunge society at large into chaos and anarchy. They must be prepared, Alinsky explained, to “go into a state of complete confusion and draw [their] opponent into the vortex of the same confusion.”
One way in which radicals and their disciples could signal their preparedness for this possibility, Alinsky taught, was by staging loud, angry, massive demonstrations denouncing their political adversaries. Such events—like BLM’s signature protests and riots—can give onlookers the impression that an already large movement is in the process of shifting into an even higher gear. A “mass impression,” said Alinsky, can be lasting and intimidating: “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.” “The threat,” he added, “is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Putting it yet another way, Alinsky advised: “Wherever possible, go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.”
That is exactly what BLM seeks to cultivate in the hearts of its adversaries
Patrisse Cullors, protégé of Eric Mann, spoke the truth when she famously described herself and her fellow BLM co-founder, Alicia Garza, as “trained Marxists” who are “super versed on ideological theories.” Among the most significant of those theories are the teachings of Saul Alinsky, whose call for relentless, uncompromising, “eternal war”—geared toward the destruction of America and the creation of a Marxist utopia—is the spirit that beats in the very heart of the BLM movement.
Support for BLM from President Obama and the Demo-cratic Party
In August 2015, the Democratic National Committee approved a resolution stating that “the DNC joins with Americans across the country in affirming ‘Black Lives Matter’” and its quest to “condemn extrajudicial killings of unarmed African American men, women and children.” “The American Dream,” added the statement, “... is a nightmare for too many young people stripped of their dignity under the vestiges of slavery, Jim Crow and White Supremacy.”
On September 16, 2015, five BLM activists met at the White House with President Barack Obama as well as senior advisor Valerie Jarrett and other administration officials. For one of the activists, Brittany Packnett, this was her seventh visit to the Obama White House. Afterward, Packnett told reporters that the president had “offered us a lot of encouragement,” “told us that even incremental changes were progress,” and exhorted Packnett to “keep speaking truth to power.”
In October 2015, President Obama publicly articulated his support for BLM’s agenda by saying: “I think the reason that the organizers [of BLM] used the phrase ‘Black Lives Matter’ was not because they were suggesting nobody else’s lives matter. Rather, what they were suggesting was there is a specific problem that’s happening in the African-American community that’s not happening in other communities. And that is a legitimate issue that we’ve got to address.”
That same month, the DNC invited activists from BLM to help organize and host a town hall forum where the Democratic Party’s presidential candidates could discuss and debate matters related to racial justice. In a letter addressed to BLM leaders, DNC chief executive officer Amy Dacey wrote: “We believe that your organization would be an ideal host for a presidential candidate forum—where all of the Democratic candidates can … address racism in America.”
In a December 2015 interview on National Public Radio, President Obama lauded BLM for shining “sunlight” on the lamentable fact that “there’s no black family that hasn’t had a conversation around the kitchen table about driving while black and being profiled or being stopped” by police.
In January 2016, BLM co-founder Alicia Garza was a special guest of Democratic Rep. Barbara Lee at President Obama’s final State of the Union address.
In February 2016, President Obama welcomed BLM leaders DeRay McKesson and Brittany Packnett to a Black History Month event at the White House. In the course of his remarks, Obama lauded the BLMers for their “outstanding work” which was “making history as we speak” and would eventually “take America to new heights.”
On July 10, 2016, President Obama likened BLM to the abolition, suffrage, civil rights, and other landmark movements of yesteryear, saying: “The abolition movement was contentious. The effort for women to get the right to vote was contentious and messy. There were times when activists might have engaged in rhetoric that was overheated and occasionally counterproductive. But the point was to raise issues so that we, as a society, could grapple with it. The same was true with the Civil Rights Movement, the union movement, the environmental movement, the antiwar movement during Vietnam. And I think what you’re seeing now is part of that longstanding tradition.”
On July 13, 2016—six days after a BLM supporter in Dallas had shot and killed five police officers and wounded seven others—President Obama hosted BLM leaders DeRay Mckesson, Brittany Packnett, and Mica Grimm at a four-and-a-half-hour meeting at the White House. Also invited were such notables as Al Sharpton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
