This text will be replaced
Frank Salvato is the Executive Director
and Director of Terrorism Research for
a non-profit, non-partisan, 501(c)(3) research and education initiative. His
writing has been recognized by the US House International Relations Committee
and the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention. His organization,
BasicsProject.org, partnered in producing the original national symposium series
addressing the root causes of radical Islamist terrorism. He is a member of the
International Analyst Network
and has been a featured guest on al Jazeera's
He also serves as the managing editor for
The New Media Journal.
Mr. Salvato has appeared on The O'Reilly Factor on FOX News Channel, and is a
regular guest on talk radio including on The Captain's America Radio Show,
nationally syndicated by the Phoenix Broadcasting Network and on NetTalkWorld
Global Talk Radio catering to the US Armed Forces around the world. Mr. Salvato
is also heard weekly on The Roth Show with Dr. Laurie Roth syndicated nationally
on the USA Radio Network. His opinion-editorials have been published by The
American Enterprise Institute, The Washington Times & Human Events and are
syndicated nationally. He is a featured political writer for
EducationNews.org and is occasionally quoted in The
Federalist. Mr. Salvato is available for public speaking engagements.
Constructing the Buzzword ‘Extreme’: Alinsky Rules 11 & 13
Issues vs. The Mainstream Media
Locked, Loaded & Aiming for Its Own Foot
September 11, 2001: Nine Years On
Ground Zero Mosque & The War of Ideas
All Means, Ms. Pelosi, Let’s Examine the Funding
Consequences of Park51: The Cordoba House
United States, 2010: A Rogue Government
Obama, Words Do Matter
Justice Serves an Ideology Instead of a Nation
Justice Department Has a Racism Issue
President Is Not Due ‘His Due’
Should Be Our Honor to Honor
Simply Cannot Return to the Status Quo
to Talk About Elena Kagan
First, He Was a Community Organizer
Reality Brings Us Closer to Nuclear Midnight
Demonizing the Tea Party the Chicago Way
Constitutional Crisis Started Long Ago
Will Support and Defend the Constitution’
Simply Can’t Afford Another Entitlement Program
Quick the Message Fades
Medicine for Getting Back to Good
Federal Government’s Basic Purpose
Party Movement, The GOP & Making It Work
Time Is Ripe for Divide & Conquer
Janus Face of the Progressive Democrats
At This Point It’s About Defining the
Liberty v. Obama’s Social Engineering
Constitution Just a Grand Suggestion?
Dems Been Marginalized within Their Own Party
the Spin on the Fort Hood Massacre
to Speak for an Entire Culture
Ideology Masks Ignorance
to Pay Close Attention to the Politicians
Real Strategy for Afghanistan
Will Throw ACORN Under the Bus
God, No...It's So Hot, I'm Burning Up"
Larger Point on the Public Option
the Status Quo
You Say You
Want a Real Solution
Awakened the Sleeping Giant'
Label Overshadows a Real Issue
Legislation...It’s Your Job!
Government Run by Mrs. Kravitz
a Safeguard Against Political &...Tyranny
the Celebrity Deaths, A Reality Check
When In The
Course of Human Events...
Massacre, US Repeating Mistakes...
The Path to
the Future Requires a Return to the Roots
Things, Facts & Truth Matter
Liberals, Politics & Deceit
Obama, Cheney & The Bright Shiny Thing
Nancy Pelosi: Damaged Beyond Repair
Radical Islam By Any Other Name...
Celebrating the Exit of a RINO, Cheering as Rome...
Specter: An Opportunist Guilty of Political Treason
A Week for the Earth; A Day for the Constitution
Left Is Making a Mistake in Ridiculing the Tea Parties
Obama’s European Tour: Arrogance, Ineptness &...
The Two-Faced Brutality of Hope & Change
Constructing the Buzzword ‘Extreme’: Alinsky Rules 11 & 13
October 1, 2010
If you are paying attention to the
politics surrounding the midterm elections – and, for the good of the
country, you should be – then you have, no doubt, heard almost everyone from
the Left side of the aisle using the word "extreme” where the Tea Party is
concerned. To a lesser extent they use it to describe the Conservative
movement as a whole but without doubt, it is the descriptor of choice when
anyone of the Liberal or Progressive persuasion talks about the Tea Party.
This tactic comes straight from the Progressive playbook.
I have been saying since before Barack Obama was elected president that if
you want to understand the tactics being used by the Progressive Left you
have to read two books: Boss by Mike Royko and Rules for Radicals
by Saul Alinsky.
The first, Boss, examines the genesis of the Chicago Machine – Mayor
Richard J. "The King Maker” Daley’s Chicago Democrat Machine – and Chicago
style politics. It is important because it not only sheds light on how "The
Machine” came to be, but how it operates. Barack Obama, Dick Durbin, Rahm
Emanuel, Luis Gutierrez and Jan Schakowsky, to name but a few, are all
products of "The Machine.” "The Machine” has been responsible for the
election of every Democrat president since John F. Kennedy.
The latter, Rules for Radicals, outlines the guidelines for growing
and advancing the agenda of the Progressive Left. It outlines thirteen
specific rules that the Progressives commit themselves to from birth, at
least that’s the way it seems. They are:
1. Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.
2. Never go outside the expertise of your people.
3. Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.
4. Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.
5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.
6. A good tactic is one your people enjoy.
7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
8. Keep the pressure on.
9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
10. Develop operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the
11. Push the negative...every positive has its negative.
12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.
Combined, these two books not only define the "game plan” used by the Obama
campaign team to attain the White House – and the game plan they will no
doubt employ during the midterm elections and the 2012 General Election, but
provide an ideological window through which we can understand how the
Progressives have moved everything from healthcare to the Great Society and
before that the New Deal.
Two rules that are coming into play this midterm election cycle are rules
eleven and thirteen, what many would consider the most effective of
11. Push the negative...every positive has its negative; and
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.
In pushing the negative and personalizing a target – in this case the Tea
Party movement – Progressive and Liberal operatives employ the tools of
buzzwords and talking points. To be fair, both sides of the aisle use these
tools, but a quick look at "the rules,” a book written before Lee Atwater
arrived on the scene, provides conclusive evidence – in rules five and
eleven – that Progressives not only own their birthright, but refined the
tactic of deploying them to a level of potency not seen before in American
The word Progressives and Liberal Democrats are employing in an attempt to
not only shock and frighten independent and undecided voters but to
misinform and deceive the total of the American electorate, is, "extreme.”
The Republicans running in the 2010 midterm elections – and especially the
Tea Party-backed candidates – are, they say, "extreme.” Progressives and
Liberals are banking on the probability that many will hear the label enough
times that it will be believed without examination. They do so with the
added benefit of having a mainstream media that is extremely (no pun
intended) reluctant to questioning the claim.
The word "extreme” is
"...exceeding what is usual or
reasonable; immoderate; very strict, rigid, or severe; drastic...”
The word "extreme” defined, let’s
take a look at what the Tea Party stands for; what its platform is:
1) Limited government
2) Limited and equitable taxation
3) Fiscal responsibility
4) Adherence to the constitutional process in the crafting of legislation
Where the "Young
Guns” of the GOP have done a commendable job of putting together a "Pledge
to America,” and whereas many Tea Party groups
include addition items, almost each of the planks can be a subheading
for these four general tenets.
That said, even a cursory comparison of the definition of "extreme” and the
tenets of the Tea Party reveals that something isn’t quite right where
calling the Tea Party "extreme” is concerned.
The question begs to be asked,
which is more "extreme,” a larger government that employs a greater number
of regulations on personal choice and the free market system; which requires
an ever increasing amount of taxes for the purpose of administering programs
for which they make the rules – rules that can exclude certain demographics
based on race, religion or economic status, or a smaller constitutional
government that provides limited but potent oversight over the citizenry and
the private sector while facilitating a maximum opportunity for each and
A larger more intrusive government has the ability to, among a plethora of
▪ Limit what you can do and say
▪ Limit and control what the private sector can produce and sell
▪ Limit what you will receive in return for your taxation, i.e. Medicare,
Social Security, national defense and, now, healthcare
▪ Mandate how much you will pay to the government in taxes to support
entitlement programs for which you may not even be eligible
▪ Limit your protection under the law based on an ever changing set of
criteria, i.e. equal protection under the law in general and equal
protection under Civil Rights law to be specific.
Limited government, or government that recognizes the Charters of Freedom –
The Declaration of Independence, The US Constitution and The Bill of Rights
– as being created to limit the powers of government to those enumerated,
avoids the frailty of the human element that allows for the creation of
elitist factions, the elevation of despots and the egotism and narcissism of
tyrants. It protects the people from government by limiting what
government can inflict on the people.
So, which is more "extreme”?
Limited and Equitable Taxation &
Again, which is more "extreme,” a
government that can recklessly impose a financial burden on its citizenry
(read: taxation) that, in turn, facilitates the bringing about of a societal
catastrophe that until now only existed in the fiction of Ayn Rand’s
Atlas Shrugged, or a government that is committed to operating
inside a set of boundaries; the boundaries of a balanced budget derived from
honest and equitable taxation of the citizenry?
A government allowed to expand beyond the boundaries of a fiscally
responsible balanced budget; that can borrow from foreign nations to the
point of no return; and which can expand and extend debt beyond the
boundaries of future generations, is a government that possess the ability
to tax the citizenry into government dependence; that can create an economic
catastrophe that could damage the nation beyond recovery.
A limited government, that derives its fiscal mandate from the enumerated
powers of the Constitution; that operates within the constraint of a
fiscally responsible budgetary process; and that, essentially, "cuts up the
credit cards,” allows for the citizenry to keep more of what they earn,
which, in turn, allows the citizenry to spend, to purchase, to engage the
private sector market place, thus creating competition and value in
the marketplace, while fulfilling the
constitutional obligation to "provide for the common defense” and
"promote the general Welfare.”
Again, which position is more "extreme”?
The Constitutional Process
My wife Nancy, who literally
cherishes the American Constitution and the whole of the Charters of
Freedom, has said on any number of occasions that the United States
Constitution is the tool, the instrument, by which opportunity for all –
every man, woman and child of every race, religion and background – is
possible; it is what we all have in common; the noble mechanism that binds
us together and at the same time makes us unique, not only as a people, but
as a system of government. To that almost perfect statement I add that it is
only when we deviate from the Constitution that we affect inequity,
favoritism, bias and the dangers of factionalism, corruption and tyranny of
the elite.; only when politics usurps constitutional government do we get
If we all quest for a maximum amount of freedom, if we all value liberty and
the right to remain free in our choices and actions, in our lives, do we not
want a government free from inequity, favoritism, bias and the dangers of
factionalism, corruption and tyranny of the elite? If we recognize that man
is flawed, that human nature does not always find our fellow man and/or our
elected officials doing what is right, what is honest, what "promotes the
general Welfare,” then our government must have boundaries that they cannot
usurp. These boundaries are established in the US Constitution.
If we jettison the Constitution and the limitations it mandates for our
Republican form of government we literally invite the deterioration of our
government by virtue of the frailties of man and human nature. If we allow
elected officials to change the rules without the consent of the governed,
to abandon good government for self-absorbed political opportunism, to
ignore the constitutional process when it benefits their own motives and the
motives of special interest factions, then are we not facilitating a
catalyst for establishing legislation that promotes inequity, favoritism and
bias while courting the dangers of factionalism, corruption and tyranny of
I ask, yet again, which is more "extreme,” adhering to our constitutional
process or gambling with our children’s future by allowing for even the
slightest possibility of tyranny in government?
The Progressives, Liberal Democrats and the operatives that work on their
behalf – and even some liberal and establishment Republicans – are doing
everything in their power to
demonize the Tea Party. They are attempting to smear a group of people
who vow to enact limited government, limited and equitable taxation, fiscal
responsibility and adherence to the constitutional process, should they be
elected to office. And to what end? So that we can experience more of the
same tax-and-spend generated debt, more divisive and opportunistic special
interest politics and more out-of-control government expansion?
The smearing of the Tea Party as "extreme” isn’t a Democrat v. Republican
issue. It isn’t a Conservative v. Liberal issue. This is an issue that pits
forces that would "fundamentally transform the United States of America”
into a government based on Democratic Socialism, against those of us who
believe that the system of government best suited to preserve individual
freedoms; that preserves liberty and justice for all –regardless of race,
religion or economic demographic, is found in the limited government that
only the United States Constitution and the Charters of Freedom can
My argument made, please, ask yourself, honestly and selflessly, which
position is actually more "extreme?”