Month: August 2009

They are all finally catching on to Alinsky, but there is one understanding they haven’t come to, yet!

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

Thanks to reader Paul, I see that across the conservative spectrum the powers-that-be are catching on to the Alinsky strategy and how his strategy powered Obama’s rise to the Presidency of the United States of America.    I’m not saying I was the first to catch on, not by any stretch, others tipped me off, but we have been writing about Alinsky since last November.

It seems that next week Glenn Beck is going to do some more work exposing Alinsky and here David Horowitz says he will be doing a series on his blog about Rules for Radicals in advance of being a guest on Beck’s show.   Because Horowitz himself was a radical leftist in the 1960’s this surely isn’t the first time he has delved into the strategy.  Alinksy travelled from university to university during those turbulent times teaching community organizing  and surely Horowitz would have been aware of him, maybe even met him.

This is what Horowitz said yesterday:

Glenn Beck will be on vacation this week but when he returns on the 24th he has invited me to come to New York to talk to him on camera about Saul Alinsky, the strategy guru of the Obama era. For the Hillary-Soros generation of johnny-come-lately radicals and their ACORN footsoldiers Alinsky is their Sun-Tzu and his book Rules for Radicals is the field manual for their struggle. I thought while I’m refreshing my acquaintance with this destructive fellow and re-reading his text, I would share my thoughts with readers of NewsrealBlog serially over the next week.

For this first post (which I am also posting here), let’s just focus on the dedication of the book—to Satan.

Read on.

Andrew Breitbart has a column today on Alinsky, Bush and Obama  also. (Read Breitbart before proceeding)

Horowitz notes that he will serialize about Alinsky on his blog this week.  We did a serialization I called Alinskyism starting in early November 2008.   My model was one of the supposedly humorous calendars with Bushisms (you know quotes in which he misspoke) that one of my kids gave me just to annoy me.  Little did I know that that sort of calendar was following Alinsky’s Rule #5—destroy your enemy with ridicule.   See our whole category on Community Destabilization here.  There are 70 posts; so scroll back to November and start at the beginning as each builds on the previous one and our ability to spot Alinsky matured as we went along.

So what haven’t the conservatives figured out yet?   In order for there to be a community to organize, one needs angry poor people.   One needs “Have-nots!”  The chaos that leads to change, requires the “Have-nots” to fight the “Haves.”   The American poor I heard so much about in the 1950’s from my very Leftist father were the people living in places like Appalachia.  But, those people mostly joined the middle class, sent their kids off to the city, to the military and many off to college.  The ethnic groups Alinsky organized in Chicago also joined the middle class and became proud and patriotic Americans.  So where would the army of “have-nots” come from asked the radical left?   Obviously—immigration!  

Leaders of the Democratic Party (Senator Ted Kennedy!), some of them Alinsky radicals themselves, knew the only way to continue to march toward socialism was to import ethnically diverse, angry, demanding poor people and to keep them that way as long as possible.

I know anyone with any sense of decency would dismiss this concept as downright evil—this idea of using poor angry people as pawns and hiding what they are doing under a patina of humanitarianism.   But, don’t forget, as Horowitz tells us above, Alinsky dedicated his book to Satan.

Endnote:  Where the radicals, including Obama, have misjudged badly is with their enthusiastic encouragement of Muslim immigration and the importation of radical Islamists seeking to get their own form of control — Shariah law.   They are working side-by-side now, but in the end the Islamists will destroy the radical Leftists.  If we let it get that far!

More news from the Islamic Republic of Maine

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

This is about an article sent to me by reader Susan at the end of last week.  I didn’t get to it right away and then my cable was out, and it is just as well I didn’t post it earlier because it is a perfect example of what we just learned in Janet Levy’s excellent review in American Thinker this morning.   This is precisely what she describes as the M.O. for how the Islamic doctrine of Al Hijra is practiced.     If you didn’t see it, read Janet’s piece and read my previous post on Mark Steyn too, then come back and learn how Islamic accommodation is being practiced in a state that has been welcoming Muslim immigrants of all stripes for some time now.

From the Portland Press Herald:

PORTLAND — The Maine Civil Liberties Union has filed a federal lawsuit against Portland, claiming the city violated the rights of a group of Afghan Muslims who want to use a building on Washington Avenue as a mosque.

According to the lawsuit filed Thursday in U.S. District Court, Portland denied the use of 978 Washington Ave. as a “church or other place of worship” under its zoning ordinances.

The one-third-acre property, formerly the Dick Waterhouse TV repair shop, is zoned commercial. Conditional uses for religious purposes are permitted in that zone, but city rules require that such properties be at least an acre. In addition, the city found that the property doesn’t have enough parking spots to get a variance.

The MCLU argued in its filing that federal laws protecting religious rights supersede local zoning. The plaintiffs are the Portland Masjid and Islamic Center, the building’s owner, Sadri Shir, and her husband, Nawad Shir, of Cape Elizabeth.

“The city of Portland is sacrificing constitutional principle for bureaucratic rule,” the MCLU’s executive director, Shenna Bellows, said in a prepared statement. “You shouldn’t need a permit to pray.”

This concept of whether religion trumps environmental and public safety concerns is one I wondered about in the Walkersville, MD case where a Muslim group was stopped from building a conference center because it would violate the zoning.   That case is in court too, but I don’t know on what grounds exactly it was filed, maybe the same grounds.

So, if the MCLU should win its argument, it would mean that any Muslim religious facility (any religion?) would take precedence over any zoning law, right?   I wonder how the leftwing environmentalists will take that news since, up till now, most are on the same side as those promoting Muslim immigration.  Looks to me like there will have to be a day of reckoning for professional environmentalists on immigration generally.

Back to the Maine story.  The drumbeat picks up as Ramadan approaches which is just what we told you would happen with the meatpackers and religious accommodation in those plants that hire extensively from the Somali community.

The Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins Aug. 21, and the plaintiffs would like to gather in the building on Washington Avenue for their observances, said Zachary Heiden, legal director for the MCLU.

Heiden said he wants to know whether the city would allow his clients use of the building during Ramadan. If it doesn’t, he said, the MCLU will consider asking for an emergency court injunction to allow it.

And then get this!   Muslim Afghanis cannot worship with Muslim Somalis!

There are perhaps several hundred Afghan Muslims in the Portland area, he said. Although there are two small prayer center-type mosques in the area, they are used primarily by the Somali community, Heiden noted in the filing, which is “linguistically and culturally dissimilar from the Afghani community.”

I was going to post a couple of the 148 comments this article generated, but this is getting too long.   One of those was a commenter from Lewiston who said the Somalis disapprove of  dogs.  That is because dogs are just like pigs, feces and dead bodies—dirty in Islam.   Trying to find something humorous here I’ll harken back to a post yesterday.  Shariah law forbids dogs and bras.   Is this what we are welcoming to Maine and America.

For more on Maine, just type ‘Maine’ into our search function and see how many times it comes up—a whole lot!

Writer takes Mark Steyn to task over avoiding the question of what to do about Muslim immigration

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

Although I received this from Paul this morning just before I saw Janet Levy’s brilliant piece at American Thinker, I think it’s a good follow-up to Levy’s article.  (Read Levy before proceeding)   I admit I’ve been a great admirer of Steyn.  I read “America Alone” and recommend it to people new to the movement, but it never occurred to me that Steyn really doesn’t ever call for a halt to Muslim immigration, although he clearly sees the writing on the wall.

Indeed as we have noted on many occasions at RRW, most people on the established rightwing of American politics are scared to death to even mention the subject and others are actively promoting Muslim immigration—notably Grover Norquist of the Americans for Tax Reform.

Lawrence Auster writing at his blog View from the Right, the politically incorrect right, had this to say yesterday about Steyn.  I’ve been meaning to tell you about Christopher Caldwell’s book anyway and so this post will kill two birds with one stone.  Go read what Steyn says about Caldwell’s book (links below) then read Auster who begins:

For the last several years I have taken Mark Steyn to task for remaining stone-cold silent about Muslim immigration into the West even as he was writing dozens of articles and a book on the Islam threat inside the West, a threat that could not exist without Muslim immigration. I’ve also pointed out that Steyn has never advocated doing anything about the Islam threat, except for his pet notion that Westerners should strive to replicate Muslim birthrates. But now, in an article about Christopher Caldwell’s new book, Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West, Steyn at long last addresses the issue he has assiduously and silently avoided for so long. Evidently this “brilliant” leader of “conservative” opinion couldn’t broach the issue of Muslim immigration, until a respectable member of the conservative mainstream had done it first, thus making it ok, or, rather, unavoidable, for Steyn to talk about it as well. 

In some ways the article is remarkable, with Steyn admitting things about immigration, and about his past evasion of the issue, that he’s never admitted before.

However, according to Auster, Steyn squishes out at the end going back to his old saw about birthrates.  And, oh well (wringing of hands), what’s to be done about that?  No answer from Steyn.

Read it all.

The Hijra: the Islamic doctrine of immigration

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

I can’t emphasize enough the importance of reading this brilliant article by Janet Levy today at the American Thinker.  It is without a doubt the most significant and concise description I have ever read to describe the expansion of Islam throughout the western world and why it is happening.

Levy begins her review of  “Modern Day Trojan Horse: The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration” by Sam Solomon and Elias Al Maqdisi as follows.  Does this sound familiar?

Within the past few decades, mosques have increasingly dotted the landscapes of American and European cities and towns, with mega mosques often overshadowing adjacent, centuries-old churches in predominantly Christian regions. Islamic schools or academies and a host of Muslim organizations have become omnipresent across the West.

Meanwhile, Americans and Europeans have made countless accommodations to Muslim demands. They have included footbaths; high-decibel, five-times-daily calls to prayer; segregated male-female gym and swimming pool hours; halal food; workplace dispensations for handling pork products and for female head and face coverings; and special, public prayer rooms. Also, shari’ah-compliant financial transactions, the expunging of offensive likenesses of Mohammed or imagined depictions of Arabic characters that connote “Allah,” official swearings-in on Korans in place of customary Bibles, the neutralizing of official descriptive language about Islamists and the jihad, the revision of so-called offensive content in movies and television programs, the removal of representations of pigs from the public sphere, and many other acculturations to Muslim entreaties have all been made in the service of respecting Muslim religious beliefs and practices.

To those in Western democracies, these accommodating actions appear, on the surface, to be little more than harmless civil gestures, respecting the needs of a growing religion in their midst and welcoming a new addition to their proud, multicultural tradition. Many Westerners pat themselves on the back for their liberal bent, their tolerance and their open-mindedness.

Little do they realize that this strategic pattern of demands is part of an insidious, 1,400-year-old proscription for Muslims that originates in the Koran and the Sunnah, the deeds of Mohammed. It is the Hijra or doctrine of immigration. Modeled by Mohammed’s migration from Mecca to Medina, this immigration is not to a romanticized melting pot wherein newcomers gratefully search for opportunities for a better life in liberty and freely offer their talents and loyalty to benefit their new homeland. This is immigration for Islamic expansionism employing ethnic separatism to gain special status and privileges within the host country. Hijra is immigration designed to subvert and subdue non-Muslim societies and pave the way for eventual, total Islamization.

Please continue reading at American Thinker.

Update:   Here is an article from Maine that demonstrates exactly what Janet is saying.