Breitbart Rule 4: Don't let the Complex use its PC lexicon to characterize you and shape the narrative

Andrew Breitbart was a lightning rod to the left, and he reveled in it so much that he made it Rule 4 in his Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Revolutionaries:

4.) Don't let the Complex use its PC lexicon to characterize you and shape the narrative: If you've got a big story, the Complex will do what it always dies: attack you personally using the PC lexicon. You immediately become a racist, sexist, homophobic, jingoistic nativist. Don't let them do it. The fact is this: if you refuse to buy into their lexicon, if you refuse to back down in the face of those intimidation tactics, they can't harm you. You're Neo in the hallway with Agent Smith after he figures out that the Complex is a sham - the spoon isn't bending, he's bending. Once it hits him that he's not bound by the rules of the game, he can literally stop bullets. You can stop their bullets because their bullets aren't real.
Leftist assassins like Max Blumenthal, a one-trick hit man, have tried to label me and many of my allies as racists. I don't let them get away with it. I don't just call them out. I make sure that my righteous indignation registers on the Richter scale. I don't pull out my record on civil rights or my black friends. I simply point out that what they're doing is pure Alinsky and that it has no basis in fact or reality, and that they're showing themselves to be racists in their own right by citing race every time they meet someone with whom they disagree.
While I was at the 2010 CPAC, I was confronted by Daryle Jenkins of the One People's Project based on my defense of James O'Keefe - he had been slandered online as a racist by Blumenthal because he had attended a conference at the Georgetown Law Center that included racist Jared Taylor, John Derbyshire of NATIONAL REVIEW (who ripped into Taylor for his racism during the forum), and African-American conservative Kevin Martin. At the event, O'Keefe sided with Derbyshire and Martin against Taylor.
Anyway, here's how the incident went down:

Andrew Breitbart v. Daryle Jenkins at CPAC 2010

Breitbart: Max Blumenthal is a political hit man. What he does is he rapes the reputation of people mercilessly. He makes scurrilous, unsupportable accusations against people and he smears them using the political correctness he learned so well in the post-modern academy and the politics of personal destruction he learned firsthand from his father, Sid "Vicious" Blumenthal. He destroys people. He isolates threats to the reign of the far left and the reign of his father's cabal of Clinton/Podesta and the organized left. He's a vicious guy. He falsely slandered James O'Keefe as a racist, we disproved it -
Jenkins: How did you disprove it, sir?
Breitbart: I'm being interviewed right here.
Jenkins: I'm the one who put that story out there first.
Breitbart: Well, then, you suck.
Jenkins: You're lying. You're lying ... He was at that white supremacist forum.
Breitbart: It wasn't a white supremacist forum.
Jenkins: Yes it was!
Breitbart: Then why was Kevin Martin there?

At this point, Jenkins started pointing his finger inches from my face and moving his face close to mine. It then devolved into a series of accusations regarding details of the event. Finally, Jenkins got to his point:

Breitbart: Are you accusing me of being a white supremacist?
Jenkins: I'm accusing you of being a racist, yes I am.
Breitbart: Okay, have a nice day, buddy. Will somebody please take this guy out of here? You punk.

That was it. Jenkins walked away.
The key to the conversation was that I didn't start defending myself against his baseless charge of racism. I dismissed it out of hand as ridiculous because it was ridiculous. He was a punk for leveling that kind of charge without any basis whatsoever. I don't let my enemies characterize me without any evidence, and you shouldn't let them characterize you. Name-calling is their best strategy, and if you don't lend it credence, and instead force them to back up their charges with specifics, you win. Revel in the name calling - it means you've got them reduced to their lowest, basest tactic, and the one that carries the least weight if you refuse to abide by their definition of you.

There had been many times I was called racist or un-American for posting articles against Obama. The reason (according to those who called me racist) is because I do not like Obama because he is black. As Martin Luther King Jr. said during his famous “I have a Dream” speech, there should be a day when people are judged not on the color of their skin but on the content of their character. And judging on Obama’s past, it is clear that the content of his character is bad for America. However, many people only see skin color and as such they do not see the content of the character.
Currently I am battling many who say Marco Rubio (and now even Ted Cruz) are not eligible for president because they are not a natural-born citizen, and have even been accused of being an O-bot or an Obama supporter. Those people are even accusing me of using Saul Alinsky tactics. I tell them to back up their claim and some of them do, but on the majority many are held silent because they realized they had been forced to using low, base tactics to back up their claims.
When I am called names because I do not support Obama or any liberal for that matter, I calmly (at first) let them know that they have no specific claim to back up their charge. Then I move on to saying that they really have no claim if they resort to name-calling. Then and only then do we win and put the Complex on their heels, thereby owning the narrative which they tried to shape on us.