Alinsky-ites at the Gates of Talk Radio

You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done.
President Barack Obama to Republican Lawmakers

Fellow citizens, if you like what ACORN did to the home mortgage industry, then you're going to just plum love what the Democrats have in mind for talk radio.  For the past few years, hardly a week goes without some Democratic Party Senator or Representative throwing out the term, "Fairness Doctrine."  Hardly a month passes without a Democrat spurning the so-called "dangers" of conservative talk radio, often invoking Rush Limbaugh by name. 

Why, if I didn't know better, I might think there's a vast left-wing conspiracy afoot, an evil conspiracy to storm the gates of talk radio.

Actually, that might not be a far stretch.  After extensive studies of Alinsky and how and where his infamous revolutionary tactics are currently at play within the once-august Democratic Party, I must conclude that this is precisely the case. 

Alinsky-ites are indeed at the gates of talk radio. 

Get ready to rumble if you want to save your right to free speech.

Rush is the New Bush

First, it helps to know the tactics being used.  One would need to be a complete ninny not to understand that polarizing our former President was a calculated, well-financed, nearly ubiquitous effort played out in concert by various left-wing 527s and mainstream media useful idiots for the past eight years.

This tactic is becoming well-known and understood, and came straight from Alinsky:

Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

Alinsky, in his Rules for Radicals, emphasized the importance of getting-in-their-faces personal attacks.  Blaming an organization, a government or a big, fuzzy corporation just would not do, Alinsky admonished his acolytes.  A proper target needed to be an individual, not a legal entity. 

One of the primary objectives in picking a target for polarization is to bring the target's supporters out of the woodwork where they can be seen and identified as adversaries.  Picking a President for polarization may have seemed a bit over the top, but in this, the leftist guerilla operatives were counting on several pertinent modifiers:  (1)  The President has his hands full and cannot adequately do his job and defend himself from scurrilous attacks; (2)  The Presidency demands certain protocol, which prevents him from stooping to the level of his adversaries; and (3)  When the Nation is at war with foreign enemies, the President cannot be overly concerned with domestic enemies. 

These rather simple elements provided the Alinsky-ites, well-funded by their shadow general George Soros, to flood American media outlets with the polarization of one man for every single problem under the sun.  And presto -- just like that -- it became an act of supreme courage to even utter a single positive word about President George W. Bush, and predictably the stain of ostracism spread like a cancer to his entire political party.   The Republican brand has been so tarnished in the minds of most Americans, and in the minds of Europeans to boot, that Saul Alinsky is laughing with his role model for radicalism:  Lucifer.

Alinsky-ites may have a bit more of a problem polarizing Rush Limbaugh.  As Alinsky emphasized to his acolytes, vulnerability is the most essential quality in picking a target.  Rush Limbaugh is anything but vulnerable.  He does not have the problems with retaliation that a President has. 

When Harry Reid attempted to begin the polarization process against Rush as the new Bush, Reid got his plow cleaned in quick order.  Surely, readers here recall the famous letter, signed by 41 members of our esteemed Congress, sent by Harry Reid to Clear Channel.  The letter, intended to chasten Rush for seeming "unpatriotic" (Oh, puh-lease.) for deeming those soldiers lying about events in Iraq to be "phony soldiers," ended up becoming a cause celebre for Rush instead, and bringing in $2.1 million, every penny donated by Rush to worthy charities.

In his response, Rush made mincemeat of the Alinsky-ites. 

That was then; this is now.

Our new Alinsky-ite in Chief has dropped the gauntlet himself and has signaled to his ready-set-go forces that the battle is on, Rush is the new Bush, and the goal is, in Marx's words, "the absence of opposition to socialism."  As Rush Limbaugh raises the most hellacious opposition to socialism in current-day America, he gives no "peace" whatsoever to the Alinsky-ite Administration.   

This may be a miscalculation, however.  The math wizards in this Administration seem not to understand that Obama's 13.5 million email addresses are eclipsed by Rush's 15-20 million listeners every single week throughout the year, and not just at election time.  Nevertheless, it's clear that the target has been picked; it's Rush.  And the process of identifying his supporters has begun. 

From this point forward, paid watchers on the Soros-supported 527 payrolls will be recording every word spoken in public in defense of Rush; then these defenders' names will be added to the rhetorical hit list.  As soon as possible, a Democrat Senator or Representative will call for the hearings, then the legislation commanding "community input" to radio formats will follow, and prepared Alinsky-ites will storm the gates of talk radio, a la ACORN style.

Understanding the Attack on Talk Radio

We can learn all we need to know about the already-underway attack on talk radio by looking at the way our lending institutions were attacked by ACORN, using the Community Reinvestment Act as justification.

ACORN, with its influence in the Democratic Black Congressional Caucus, pushed, pulled, threatened, boycotted and lambasted lenders into making loans to unqualified people who would never be able to pay back the money.  The result:  NINJA loans - No income, No job, No assets.  The consequence:  the mortgage-industry house built on sand that just collapsed last September.

The same sort of tactics will now be used to bring down conservative talk radio.  The words, "Fairness Doctrine," have become charged, and are most likely being bandied about now the way a matador waves a red scarf when teasing a bull.  In all likelihood, the Democrat Alinsky-ites will rely on the thing that worked so well with the housing and lending industries.

Euphemisms, such as "community input," "community standards," and "common good for the community" will, I predict, be the code words for ACORN intervention and eventual attempted strangulation of talk radio. Just make it more troublesome and costly for radio stations to broadcast talk shows, and the format will be replaced. But the thug tactics ACORN and the Democrats use will not be billed as "takeover" tactics.  No, this fight will be labeled as a worthy effort aimed at "the democratization of radio," just as the Community Reinvestment Act was hailed as the "democratization of lending."

So, what would ACORN-style involvement in radio look like?  First, there is the idea of setting up "community advisory boards" to make decisions about radio formats.  Those trained in get-in-their-faces Alinsky tactics will gain appointments to these advisory boards and proceed to make strenuous demands on the stations' content.  If these tactics meet resistance, then there are the threats of picketing and lawsuits and ruinous rabble-rousing against the station's owners, just as we saw perpetrated against banks and other lending institutions, using the CRA as justification.

The groundwork for this concerted move to silence conservative radio has been accomplished.  In 2007, the third National Media Reform Conference was held in Memphis, Tennessee.  The main sponsor of the Conference was a Soros-funded outfit, called "Free Press."

Speakers at the 2007 conference, as denoted by Discover the Networks:

Featured speakers and panelists at the 2007 Conference included the socialist Senator Bernie Sanders (who called for the implementation of a "fairness doctrine" in the media); Rep. Maurice Hinchey (who said that "neo-fascist" and "neo-con" talk show hosts had helped create the national climate that led to the "illegal" war in Iraq); Bill Moyers; Jesse Jackson (who insisted that the major media habitually turn a blind eye the widespread suffering that is allegedly the hallmark of George W. Bush's America); Danny Glover; Geena Davis; Jane Fonda; Jeff Cohen; David Brock (who characterized the Bush administration's foreign policy as "criminally insane"); and Norman Solomon (who suggested that U.S. foreign policy was immoral and aggressive). At a panel discussion moderated by Paul Waldman of Media Matters for America, participants argued that the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections had been "stolen" on behalf of Bush.

In this decidedly scurrilous campaign, the Alinsky-ites may be taking on a project whose opponents are simply too numerous and too well-informed for ultimate success, namely the listeners of conservative talk radio.  Nevertheless, one thing is certain.  The goal of silencing conservatives in talk radio has been set.  Rush Limbaugh has been picked as the target singled out for polarization, and the Alinsky-ites in our Democrat-controlled Congress are set to let the show trials begin. 

But remember, too, this Alinsky axiom:  "The real action is the enemy's reaction."  Alinsky-ites in Congress will do well to remember Harry Reid's ignominious letter and the huge coup it was for the target.  This target -- Rush Limbaugh--- fights back. 

Let's all hope he fights to win.  No less than the free speech rights of every American are on the line with Rush Limbaugh.  If he loses this fight, we all lose, and I, for one, think the First Amendment is worth a sizeable rumble.  "Democratization"?  Who are these folks kidding?

Kyle-Anne Shiver is a frequent contributor to American Thinker.  She welcomes your comments at