Powerline’s Scott Johnson's On "Minnesotan" Terrorists (Somalis) And Their "Imperfectly Understood" Muslim Faith
Print Friendly and PDF
It appeared as if Powerline’s Scott Johnson would utter an unhappy truth about all the ”Minnesota” men indicted for terrorism, but then he got cold feet and and burbled the usual falsehood.

In a post titled ”Those Damn Minnesotans,” he explains what we all know. The”Minnesotans” arrested for terrorism are really Somalis. They aren’t lutefisk-eating Gundersons, after all. That truth noted, he even tied the terror to Islam.

Then he chickened out, inserting the usual qualifier about the moon-god religion one sees from officialdom at Conservatism, Inc.

When you read that men from Minnesota have been indicted for aiding the Islamic State — as in the Hill headline “Two Minnesota men charged with aiding ISIS,” or in the Star Tribune headline “2 Minneapolis men charged with attempting to aid terrorists,” or in the local FOX News affiliate headline “2 Minnesota men charged with ISIS support” — you can be pretty sure that we’re talking about first or second generation Somali immigrants to Minnesota who have yet to adjust their loyalties to the United States.

I’m going to go out on a limb and say it has something to do with the (imperfectly understood, of course) Islamic faith of our fellow “Minnesotans.” It’s almost enough to make you rethink the continuing flow of immigration supported by our insane 1965 immigration law and the reigning cliches about the beauties of “diversity.” Almost.[Emphasis added.]

Wrong. Muslims perfectly understand what they’re doing, and that Islam calls for doing it.

Note also the confusion in Johnson’s last line. The criminality of these African savages is “almost enough” to make one reconsider the “insane” 1965 immigration act, which opened U.S. borders to the Third World. Then, Johnson emphatically adds, “almost.”

If the act is ”insane,” why is the Somali situation it helped create only “almost enough” to make one reconsider it? If the act is truly “insane,” we must repeal it now.

But Johnson can’t say that without risking his position in Conservatism, Inc.

Print Friendly and PDF