Minnesota Vikings are not changing their name to the Minnesota Somali Pirates – yet

The Babylon Bee – America’s unofficial newspaper of record – said they are indeed, but it turns out to be satire.

I think.

The Bee’s piece was in the heavy wake of a story that Somalis in Minnesota bilked the government out of something like a billion dollars. I say “billion” not in the way I say “gazillion.” The figure is actually, literally – and by “literally” I don’t mean figuratively – something like . . . a billion dollars.

Their scheme was to send bills to the Minnesota state government for providing various forms of welfare relief to the public. It took off during Covid when the government all but legalized fraud because the best way to defeat a pandemic is to close the schools, print money, and drop it from helicopters.

Somali groups would set up phony organizations pretending to provide whatnot, from affordable housing to food for children, and send the government fake invoices for it.

Which the government happily paid.

There were lots of clues for a long time that the whole thing was a scam. The Wall Street Journal reports “The massive fraud was an open secret. Merrick Garland, who served as U.S. attorney general under Joe Biden, called it the largest pandemic-relief hustle in the nation” (emphasis added).

But this was Minnesota, full of “nice” Minnesotans and especially full of a governor who was very full of himself and fulsome aspirations. His name was Tim Walz, aka the 2024 Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate.

Rather than pursuing the abundant clues and whispers – nay, the smoking guns and shouts – of fraud, Walz waltzed on, out of deference to a key Democrat constituency – Somalis.  

Today’s Somalis in America, you see, are the descendants of Somalians who were enslaved in America three hundred years ago and discriminated against ever since and so they deserve special favors like legalized fraud.

Well, no, that’s not quite right. Today’s Somalis in America arrived in just the last decade or two. They fled a bloody war-torn Somalia to come to American in order to earn a piece of the American Dream.

Well, no, that’s not quite right either. They fled a bloody war-torn Somalia, alright, but they came to America to be beneficiaries of the modern American welfare state which flowers in nice Minnesota.

Well, no, even that’s not quite right. They fled a bloody war-torn Somalia and came to America to rip us off – while accusing us of racism all the while.

Two lessons can be learned from this. The obvious one is that the modern welfare state is out of control. It all but begs to be ripped off. The people paying for the rip-off are you and me, and it’s not pennies – it’s billions.

The second lesson is more controversial. Here’s a good summary of it:

[R]adical Islam has shown that their desire is not simply to occupy one part of the world and be happy with their own little caliphate; they want to expand.  It is a – it’s revolutionary in its nature.  It seeks to expand and control more territories and more people. 

And radical Islam has designs, openly, on the West – on the United States, on Europe.  We’ve seen that progress there as well.  And they are prepared to conduct acts of terrorism – in the case of Iran, nation-state actions, assassinations, murders, you name it.  Whatever it takes for them to gain their influence and ultimately their domination of different cultures and societies. 

That’s a clear and imminent threat to the world and to the broader West, but especially to the United States, who they identify as the chief source of evil on the planet.  

That statement was by Secretary of State Marco Rubio (whose parents were legal Cuban immigrants) in a recent interview.

Americans like to think that their diversity is a strength, and, up to a point, it is. But that strong diversity consists of groups such as Protestants from England, Catholics from Italy, Huguenots from France, Amish from Switzerland, and Jews from Poland. It even consists of Buddhists from China and Hindus from India.

Something that all those groups have in common is tolerance for other religions and, mostly, tolerance for other cultures. The concept of “infidel” is foreign to these groups.

Muslims are often different. The concept of “infidel” is alive and strong in Islam. They’ve sought to conquer Europe since the seventh century, and nearly succeeded several times. Even now – maybe especially now – many publicly name-call America “the Great Satan.”

Even Nazi Germany, imperial Japan, the Soviet Union and today’s communist China never called us “the Great Satan.” We Americans are semi-amused by that moniker, but the Muslims flinging it are dead serious.

They see the indigenous religions and culture of their adopted nation as evil. That’s a clever feat since, after all, their culture and religion failed in the place they fled, they came here voluntarily, and we welcomed them – complete with their religion and culture that looks down on us. But that’s how they see our cultures, our religions, and us.

Maybe part of the reason for their contempt for us is that they see us as suckers.

Muslims therefore tend not to seek assimilation into American culture, a culture they despise. They seek, more than the Irish, more than the Asians, more than the Jews, to maintain their particular identity and distinct culture.

And to impose it on us.

We’ve already seen what happens when Islam reaches a critical mass in a Western nation, as it has in France and is nearing in England. Within our lifetimes, it is likely that the Notre Dame and St. Paul’s will be converted into mosques.

You think that’s ridiculous? Bear in mind that the first great Christian cathedral was in Constantinople – the incredible Hagia Sophia. When Constantinople fell to the Muslims, they eventually changed the name of the city to Istanbul but they immediately mutilated the Hagia Sophia into a mosque by ripping out the altar and burning the Christian crosses and all other Christian symbols and art. The Hagia Sophia remains a mosque to this day. (BTW, where’s the Pope on this?)

Muslims conquer and they convert, at the point of a sword if necessary, and sometimes even if not.

Like most Americans, it goes against my grain to think we should discriminate against a particular religion and particular regions of the world in deciding who can immigrate into our nation. But this is an exception, and a very important one.

Rubio is right. We ignore him at our peril.

Democrats’ naïve view of Islamists: “They’re just like me! They hate America!”

Democrats have gone full Islam. On the surface, that’s a bit peculiar. When you dig deeper, it’s downright weird. But as always, there’s a cause for this particular effect.

Let’s start with the peculiar part. Islamists tend to be religious, much as Christians, Buddhists and Hindus (and, for that matter, atheists, who often disbelieve with a blind religious fervor). 

In contrast, Democrats tend not to be religious. They’re simple vanilla agnostics. Go down to Starbucks. Ask one whether he believes in God. His response would be along the lines of, “Umm, I’m kinda in-between . . . it all depends . . . what I do know is I don’t believe in America . . .” And then he’d drift back to his double latte sprinkled with fresh pumpkin seeds.

Now, try to imagine that wishy-washy but unwashed and wish-less agnosticating procrastinating prognosticator with the man-bun sipping a double latte sprinkled with pumpkin seeds . . . embracing Islam.

Well, not exactly embracing Islam, with which there’s not necessarily anything wrong, but embracing Islamists, with whom there is.

You see, I distinguish between Islam and Islamists. About Islam, I know very little. I do know that, like most religions, it was invented by barbarians and so there’s undoubtedly some rough spots in its scriptures. I’m sure there’s eye-for-an-eye stuff, animal sacrifice rituals, and cruel tests of torment.

In most religions, the barbaric stuff got watered down over time. As people advanced, the believers shifted their focus toward the kinder, gentler aspects of their religion. They shifted toward loving thy neighbor, and away from goat sacrifices.

That could have been the path of Islam, if only we’d had different Islamists. The Islamists we do have seem stuck in the 9th century – which was not a particularly enlightened time.

That brings us to the weird part. The beliefs of these Islamists stuck in the 9th century are, by today’s mostly-civilized standards, downright weird.

They believe shoplifters should have their hands cut off. They believe adulterous women should be stoned to death. They believe gays should be thrown off rooftops. They believe infidels (meaning non-Muslims) should be beheaded, raped, tortured, burned alive, murdered and taken hostage to use as currency to free terrorists.  

They believe it is right, joyful and heroic to fly airplanes into tall buildings.

I know Democrats have fallen far in the last generation but they still didn’t have those things in their party platform, even in 2024 when they ran a half-baked, half-assed, half-wit.

That’s why it’s downright weird that the Democrats have embraced not Islam, about which they know nothing, but Islamists, about which they know quite a lot – and none of it is good.

But it all makes sense. Despite the peculiarity and weirdness of this outcome, it all makes sense in a perverted sort of way.

Democrats perceive, correctly, that Islamists see America as their enemy. Indeed, Islamists see all of Western culture as their enemy.

And so do Democrats.

If America is the enemy of Islamists, and is also the enemy of Democrats, that makes Islamists the friends of Democrats – or at least the allies.

Of course, Islamists and Democrats hate America for entirely different reasons. Islamists hate America because it’s not an Islamist theocracy, while Democrats hate America because it’s not a communist dictatorship.

But that’s just a detail, say the Democrats. They’ll figure out how to share the spoils of this war against America once they win it.

That’s the part where Democrats might not have thought things through. Islamists will be in no mood for sharing.

The death of Europe is greatly exaggerated

You hear that Europe is:

*Overrun with jihading Muslims;

*Running out of energy;

*Violent; and

*Dysfunctional.

I spent the last month hiking and trekking in France, Austria and Germany. This was the latest of my many escapades off the beaten track – and on the Beaton track – for my favorite activity that’s done standing up. Namely, walking. (See, e.g. HERE)

I concluded in a non-scientific sort of way that the death of Europe has been greatly exaggerated. It’s something like the Notre Dame. It caught fire, and might have been a goner, but it’s still with us and will be for a very long time.

More specifically:

French women are very friendly but not very hot. German women are very hot but not very friendly. (Those respective attributes and liabilities make sense when you think about it.) Scottish women are neither.

German men are large.

Europeans don’t refrigerate eggs. We don’t have to refrigerate them either, and grocery stores know that, but American consumers don’t.

Muslims are certainly in Europe. In France in particular, it’s common to see Muslim women. You know they are Muslim because they want you to know. They are in long dresses and scarves. They tend to be overweight. A great many are pushing baby carriages.

I assume that for each Muslim woman there is a Muslim man, but they are not easily identifiable because they apparently don’t wear any particular identifying clothing.

The Muslim women are nothing extraordinary apart from their distinctive garb, their girth, and their baby carriages. To this untrained eye, they behave much like other French women.

If Muslims are invading Europe, they’re pretty sneaky about it for the most part. The invasion of the United States from our southern border is much more apparent.

As for energy, the Europeans keep the indoors warmer in the summer and cooler in the winter. Sometimes, uncomfortably so. I assume this is because energy is more expensive in Europe. Translated into gallons and dollars, gasoline is a little shy of $10/gallon.

One result is that they use mass transit more than we do. The train system is very good in most of Europe – not just because gas is expensive but also because the distances are more manageable. And they have smaller cars. It’s extremely rare to see an American-style monster pickup truck, for example.

They have funny small cars we’ve never heard of, especially in France. In Germany you often see BMWs, Mercedes and Audis, of course, and they look just like the ones we buy. But on close inspection, you see that they are equipped with much smaller engines than ours and evidently get much better gas mileage. They still go plenty fast on the autobahn.

You see wind mills or, more accurately, wind turbines for generating electricity. They apparently work, but are inefficient once you factor in the cost of manufacturing and installing them and their limited life span.

I saw no one beheaded. In fact, I saw no violence and never felt threatened. I felt much safer in downtown Munich than in downtown Denver.

You never see vagrants camping on the streets, sidewalks or parks. That’s not because Europeans are rich; the average German has less money than the average Mississippian. It’s because they prohibit vagrants from camping in public spaces. I saw no reports that the consequence of that prohibition was the freezing or starving to death of vagrants.

On a government building in the old part of Munich, I saw several flags displayed, including the Israeli flag. This was 20 miles from Dachau.

As for the dysfunctionality of Europe, I suppose it depends on how you define it. The trains run on time. The garbage gets picked up.

Their politics, like ours, are volatile. But their conflict tends to drive things toward the center rather than toward the extremes.

I attribute that to their parliamentarian systems. In America, the candidates get chosen in primaries where the people who bother to vote tend to be the extremists on the right and left. The result is more extremity in the general elections – a hard right candidate chosen by the hard right primary voters versus a hard left candidate chosen by the hard left primary voters.

One wins. Then Congress is comprised of a bunch of hard rightist and hard leftists who spend an inordinate amount of energy battling one another rather than solving problems.

In parliamentary systems, the candidates are chosen more by the party apparatchiks. They tend to disfavor ideologues and favor electability. The chosen candidates are thus more moderate.

Moreover, the presidents and prime ministers are chosen not by the people but by their elected representatives. Those elected representatives tend to be pragmatic in their choices. They want leaders who can hold things together.

The multiple parties that are common in Europe mean that it is often the case that no one party can command a majority. When that happens, the parties must form coalitions – they have no choice but to compromise in order to maintain control of the government.

In Europe, they call that process of compromise and coalition-building “governance” and label the people who engage in it “leaders.” In America, we call that process “traitorous” and we label the people who engage in it “RINOs.”

Imagine if the alternatives for President of the United States were, say, Mitt Romney and Joe Manchin. My tribe will say they hate Mitt Romney. Fine, I get that. But wouldn’t it be better to win with Mitt Romney than to lose with Donald Trump? And wouldn’t it be better to lose to Joe Manchin than to lose to Barack Obama?

Hmm, a Christian conversion sans Christ or Jesus

The news today is that a prominent and thoughtful Somalian-Dutch-American who left her Muslim faith in favor of atheism some years ago, has now left her atheist faith in favor of Christianity.

Welcome to my church, Ayaan Hirsi Ali. You can sit anywhere you’d like.

Ayaan published an essay explaining the reasons for her conversion. Her essay describes no epiphany, no encounter on a road to Damascus or anywhere else. Strikingly, neither “Christ” nor “Jesus” appear anywhere in her essay.

Instead, she explained that Christianity (and by implication the larger Judeo-Christian culture) is the only framework capable of building civilization as we know it, and protecting it against human depravity. It is our last – and really only – tool.

It’s our only defense against power-driven totalitarianism that inevitable degrades into violence, the kind we saw in the mass murder of 9/11 and again in the sadistic atrocities of 10/7.

Christianity is on the side of good. Ayaan wants to stand shoulder to shoulder with us, for good.

Continue reading