Category: 2008 Presidential campaign

Could a few Somali votes make the difference in Minnesota Senate race?

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

Update Nov. 16th:   It occurred to me today that since we have learned that 80% of Somalis may have entered the US fraudulently, the contested Senate race in Minnesota could be swung one way or another by really what amounts to illegal aliens.

See mention of Somali “hanky-panky” in this NY Times opinion piece.

Background to readers Nov. 10th:   Since so many readers (likely new readers) are checking out this post, for background on where all the Somalis came from go here.    You might also want to know more about Omar Jamal, we have written about him on a number of occasions here.

We told you previously that Somalis in Minnesota were divided over whether to support Senator Norm Coleman or his challenger Al Franken.  Here is the latest on the controversy involving possible illegal activity at one polling place in Minneapolis.   It’s a bit hard to figure out which side is the side of the good guys mostly because Omar Jamal (check back to the Somali Cyanide Death post to learn more) is in the thick of things.

With Norm Coleman’s lead over Al Franken continuing to slip, allegations about vote-influencing at the Brian Coyle Center — a story the Minnesota Independent broke — has resulted in a complaint filed Friday with the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office. Omar Jamal of the Somali Justice Advocacy Center says interpreters may have tried to influence Somalis on how to vote some 500 times; he says the interpreters urged voters to cast ballots for Franken. MnIndy’s Molly Priesmeyer spoke with witnesses who told a different story — of a Coleman staffer, Mahamoud Wardere, who was allegedly telling Somali community members to vote for his boss. Franken’s campaign used that fact in its defense: no Franken campaigners were present, while this Coleman Senate aide was.

Secretary of State Mark Ritchie says he wants to “hold off” on counting Coyle Center votes until these allegations are sorted out.

Obama’s Aunt Zeituni will fight deportation

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

There is a tiny mention in yesterday’s Washington Post about how Obama’s illegal alien aunt has hired a lawyer and will fight her four-year-old deportation order.   She is presently with friends in Cleveland.  As soon as I find a link I’ll get it to you. 

If you don’t know about Obama’s impoverished Kenyan Aunt, please read Judy’s previous post here.

Radicals love all of humanity, but…..

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

I told you I’m reading Saul Alinsky.  Please, all of you, read the work that reportedly underpins Obama’s thinking—you will laugh till you cry.  

Alinsky maintains that there are three groups in America:   Conservatives, Liberals and Radicals.

In “Reveille for Radicals” he says of radicals:

“America’s radicals are to be found wherever and whenever America moves close to the fulfillment of its democratic dream.  Whenever America’s hearts are breaking, there American radicals were and are.  America was begun by radicals [the founding father’s were radicals?].   America was built by its radicals. The hope and future of America lies with its radicals [Obama?].

What is the American radical? The radical is that unique person who actually believes what he says. He is that person to whom the common good is the greatest personal value.  He is that person who genuinely and completely believes in mankind [well, except maybe rednecks].  The radical is so completely identified with mankind that he personally shares the pain, the injustices, and the suffering of all [all?] his fellow men.”

Earlier in this chapter he had shown utter disdain for those he called ‘Mr. and Mrs. But’—those liberals and conservatives who say for instance, “I’m not racist, but….”   

I nearly fell out of bed laughing as I read this.  Apparently he sees no hypocrisy in his obvious hatred for conservatives and yes, liberals—a large slice of humanity he clearly doesn’t love.

Radicals love all humankind alright, but, they don’t love the small town conservative citizen who doesn’t want change.   To them those folks are unenlightened boobs (radicals, by contrast, are very intelligent people) who need to be shaken up with immigrant diversity and need introduction to the joys of multiculturalism. 

Radicals need to keep importing diversity so they can have all sorts of diverse people to love and fight for.  Afterall, they don’t love this segment of humanity—the gun-toting, Bible-reading, small town redneck.  (By the way, I use the word ‘redneck’ with the greatest affection.)   Not to mention the fact that radicals hate anyone who challenges their notion that “change,” whatever that is, represents the enlightened position on governance.

So, who is really Mr. But?

I suspect conservatives in leadership positions never took any of this hogwash (radicals love everyone) seriously and now look where we are.    This myth, that radicals love all of humanity and we should too, is incredibly dangerous for our security and we must stand up to it—conservatives must fight back.

Diversity is strength? Does that mean witchcraft too?

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

Brenda Walker over at VDARE has a very detailed article (with lots of links) this week about African immigration and witchcraft that raises the question AGAIN, where is the evidence that diversity is strength?  It further challenges this radical cult-like worship of cultural relativism we’ve talked about on other occasions.    Hat tip: Blulitespecial.

This is the end of Walker’s article: 

So it goes in the increasingly borderless world that elites are promoting, in opposition to our old-fashioned nations with unitary cultures.

The advantages of One-Worldism are much-touted. We hear much less about the darker side of human nature with its many dark corners of fear and ignorance.

The social progress we have made in America is threatened by the deluge of immigrants whose customs are incompatible with our values. We have a system of government and society which we run by principles based on reason, not the reading of entrails. And we would like to keep depending on rationality.

Remember this when the new President starts pressing for more African immigration and influence.

More on “change” we can believe in…

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

As I said the day after the election of The One, I’m going to post from time to time on what I learn about the underpinnings of Obama’s “change” driven views.   The passage below is from Saul Alinsky’s introduction written in 1968 to an earlier book entitled “Reveille for Radicals.” 

I’m trying to figure out what the “change” is for, or toward?  Why do we for instance disrupt communities with third world refugees claiming that the diversity is good for the citizens?  This passage gives more credence to the argument I made the other day that Alinsky and his followers are really just angry people who enjoy forcing change on us dull people, and think they are somehow making our lives better, more creative, and happier.

“Each victory will bring a new vision of human happiness for man’s highest end is to create—total fulfillment, total security, would dull the creative drive.  Ours is really the quest for uncertainty, for that continuing change that is life.  The pursuit of happiness is never ending—the happiness lies in the pursuit” [emphasis is the authors].

Well, maybe for Alinksy happiness lies in the “quest for uncertainty” but he has a hell of a lot of nerve shoving the concept down the throats of the rest of us through his radical and authoritarian ethos taken to the next step—community organizing.  I for one have no problem with having a dull Norman Rockwell life in America.  [I just had a funny vision of trying to community organize a Norman Rockwell-type small town, devoid of any grievance group and filled with dullards.]

And, if Barack Obama believes this clap-trap of “happiness is in the pursuit,”  he must have had a sad awakening on Wednesday morning.