Did Alinsky dedicate Democrat bible "Rules for Radicals" to Lucifer? Dem outlet plays word games to deny it.
Naturally you don't believe that, so I'm gonna show you an example. I'm gonna take one of their recent articles (11 days ago) apart, word by word, and show you how cunningly you're being lied to by the highly-coordinated Democrat army of "fact-checkers," editors, talking heads and media elites who purport to tell you what's true and what's not--and thus to shape public opinion.
One of the speakers at the Republican presidential convention was Ben Carson, and one of the things he said was that Hillary Clinton was a big admirer of the communist "community organizer" Saul Alinsky, whose "Rules for Radicals" has become kind of a bible for left-wing Democrats.
Carson said that just inside the front cover of the book, Alinsky included an "acknowledgment" to...Lucifer, whom Alinsky called "the first radical." Alinsky approvingly noted that Lucifer "rebelled against the establishment, and did it so effectively he...won his own kingdom."
The few media outlets that bothered reporting this translated it as "Carson claimed Alinsky dedicated his book to Lucifer." Since many Democrat pols enthusiastically support the "rules" Alinsky described, not surprisingly Carson's speech ignited a firestorm on the net: The story that the author of a popular Democrat strategy-book included an acknowledgement to Lucifer in that book seemed so outrageous to most Americans that most didn't think it couldn't possibly be true. Thousands of people took to the net asking if the story was.
Enter the supposedly impartial "fact-checker," Snopes.com.
Snopes characterizes the claim as "Author Saul Alinsky dedicated his...'Rules for Radicals' to Lucifer," and then rates that claim as "Mostly False." I want to show you how cunningly they did that, so you'll understand how they're basically playing word games to cover for Hillary and the Dems.
The Snopes article starts with two short paragraphs titled "What's True" and "What's False." Here's what they list under "True:"
Saul Alinsky wrote an epigraph describing the rebellious angel Lucifer as 'the first radical known to man' in his book 'Rules for Radicals.'Right under that is what Snopes claims as "False:"
Alinsky dedicated 'Rules for Radicals' to Lucifer.How often have you seen the word "epigraph" used in a general-interest publication? I'll guess never. So right away one suspects there may be some hairsplitting in the works. Sure enough the author uses a semantic dodge: He bases his "mostly false" conclusion on his unsupported assertion that the sentence praising Lucifer is NOT a "dedication" but merely an "epigraph."
Snopes also asserts--without any evidence--that the page on which the alleged "epigraph" is printed is "NOT a dedication page" but merely an "introductory page." Got that? See the difference?
And keep in mind that the author of the Snopes piece doesn't offer any support for this. He simply asserts that it's "not a dedication page" and hopes you'll take his word for it.
So let's take a closer look: Where in the book is the alleged "epigraph" printed? The author at Snopes cunningly says only that it's "on *an* introductory page." Clever. So tell us, please, where is that, exactly?
You say it's right inside the front cover? Uh, isn't that where dedications are typically found? Well, yes, but he immediately asserts that this is "NOT a dedication page." And you should believe that because...unsupported Democrat assertions should be treated as facts--like "humans are causing global warming" or "ISIS--the "Islamic State"-- has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam."
To find out what the "acknowledgment" or "literary allusion" or "epigraph" actually says, you have to go down toward the bottom of the article. (You'd think they'd have led with that, but likely didn't because it was too clear.) Here it is:
Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical from all our legends...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.So the Democrats are trying hard to de-fuse an issue that might otherwise cost their candidate a few votes. In this case they simply claim--without any support--that the above sentence is NOT a "dedication," but rather an "epigraph."
They felt compelled to do this because in case you just arrived on the planet, Ben Carson is a successful neurosurgeon who also happens to be black. Thus if Carson says something that strongly implies that the Democrat candidate admires a guy who dedicated a Democrat bible to Lucifer, blacks will presumably pay more attention to his message. So it looks like the Dems concluded that they needed to discredit the observation that Alinsky "dedicated" the book to Lucifer immediately.
But the author didn't stop at simply *asserting* that the page with the Lucifer reference "wasn't a dedication page" but was simply "an introductory page," but went on to try to assure readers that despite the "allusion" to Lucifer, Alinsky was NOT an admirer of Lucifer or his policies.
For example, Snopes mentions as if it were relevant that the book mentions "Christians" many times, but only mentions Lucifer the one time. The inference is that the dedication/allusion/acknowledgment to Lucifer can't possibly have any significance because Alinsky only mentions him once. Despite Alinsky having placed the clear, unequivocal, impossible-to-make-vanish dedication (or "allusion" or "acknowledgement" to Lucifer before his text starts, you simple folk shouldn't read anything into that.
"We assure you it means absolutely nothing, citizen." Nice work.