Matt Lewis Borrows from Alinsky’s Playbook. Tells Three Lies in the Title of Latest Column

Never Trumper Lewis Claims Vance lied, Admitted the Lie, and Then Said it was “Worth it” to Lie. None of that Happened.

In his latest column, “No Immigrants Aren’t Eating Your Pets. But JD Vance Says the Lie Was Worth It.” which ran on the U.S. News and World Report site Daily Beast columnist Matt Lewis reaches into the depts of political depravity and pulls out a play from Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals playbook. The very title of Lewis’s column has three lies in it – just in the tittle alone. A feat that even the great liar and manipulator old Saul would have trouble accomplishing. From there the column reads as pure fiction. Well, that’s being kind it is pure propaganda.

I think Lewis is more than just your run of the mill leftist, or bleeding-heart social justice warrior. He is not the honest leftist, that makes his points with honest evidence. Rather Lewis, is a small-time lefty podcaster and columnist, who gained 15 minutes of fame as a Never Trump Republican during the last administration. But rather than thanking Trump for getting him some attention, Lewis maintains his animosity for Trump to this day.

Now ordinarily he would be dismissed by any thinking person. But he is good to occasionally read if you want the narrative of the left. The fact that he is an unoriginal thinker makes him a better gauge.

For some background Saul Alinksy was a Chicago based community activist. He wrote a book, Rules for Radicals, dedicated to Lucifer, also known as Satan. The book is the training manual for communists, socialists, fellow travels, useful idiots, never Trumpers, CNN employees, U.S. history teachers and others on the left. It teaches ways to shape narratives.

The column Lewis wrote is textbook Alinsky. First his claim that Vance admitted to lying is a lie, that is the pet eating charge, Lewis writes, “Vance admitted that he and Trump had been pushing false tales about Haitian immigrants about eating pets.” They did no such thing. I clicked the link Lewis included to look at his evidence. It was a clip of Vance’s CNN interview with Dana Bash. The clip was titled, “Dana Bash and JD Vance clash over baseless claims about Haitian immigrants”. I watched the clip and guess what. Vance didn’t admit to any lie.

Lewis also pushed the lie that Vance said that the ‘lie’ (Haitian migrants eating pets) was worth it, because it raises the concerns of the open border so for Vance the ends justify the means. This is absurd, the issue of the porous border was on the minds of voters long before the claim that refugees were eating Fido and Fluffy in Springfield.

Actually, I think Lewis may be engaging in a little transference, that is Vance thinks like I do. That is the Alinsky view, I believe that a lie if it advances a good cause is worth it, so Vance must believe that also. I think Vance is the opposite of Lewis and Alinsky. Vance doesn’t not lie, and he does not believe that the ends justify the means.

But why would Lewis make such unsubstantiated claims? Well, he might have assumed few would check out the link. He might realize that the only ones that read his columns are hard core lefties. The left will believe any lie about Trump and Vance, and Lewis is probably willing to satisfy their lust. He may have assumed people would just read his false title and move on. False narrative advanced, mission accomplished. It may be that the text of his article is under a pay wall, so most won’t read past the tittle. However, I am not sure why his editors didn’t read his column.

Now later in the column Lewis seems to qualify his charge describing a “tacit admission” from Vance of lying.

The other lie in the article is Lewis’s claim that the Haitians are “Immigrants.” They are not they are refugees, migrants and in some cases asylum seekers. Twenty thousand immigrants didn’t just arrive in Springfield Ohio, rather the Biden Harris administration sent twenty thousand refugees into the small town. Why does Lewis, and the other leftists call them “immigrants”? Well, probably because they want to promote the false narrative that Trump is anti-immigrant.

The other Alinsky rule that Lewis employes is the use of ridicule. Alinsky in rule number 5 said that “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule.” So, Lewis seizes on the refugees are eating neighborhood pets charge because it is kind of funny. And it is a helpful distraction for Kamala Harris, who has been in charge of our border. Trump and Vance were nominated on July 18th of this year, the talk of refugees eating pets didn’t come up until this week, so Lewis and the mainstream media can seize on that. Trump and Vance have talked about the crime and drugs and murders coming from the open border for years. Why would Lewis want to bring that up. It can only make Kamala look bad.

Lewis, without evidence tries to link Trump and Vance to potential violence in Springfield Ohio. That’s right, they get the blame and not border czar Kamala Harris. He writes, “Does it matter to Vance that amplifying a lie has led to numerous bomb scares..” There were no bombs. The bomb threats were hoxes. And the threats according to Ohio Governor Mike DeWine “probably came from overseas.” Lewis treats hoxes like real bombs. Ironically, its Lewis that claims Vance lied because the “ends justify the means.”

Ironically, Lewis brings up a fake charge that Trump is stirring up violence. His column came out the day before the second attempt on Trump’s life. It is the left that claims Trump is a threat to democracy, they say he is an extremist.

David Shephard is the Author of a new book, “Norton’s Choice; An Inside Politics Expose.”