Islamists Calling for Destruction in Egypt

Egypt under the new Muslim Brotherhood president, Mohamed Morsi, could end up looking very different than the Egypt the world knows. Morsi may be the Arab world’s first elected leader, but he is being pressured, and even expected by some, to follow the militant Islamic vision. It may be very wishful thinking to say that democracy is coming to Egypt.

In Timbuktu, militant Islamists destroyed two ancient tombs that were classified as a world heritage site by UNESCO. Other ancient mausoleums in the city viewed by the militants to be “idolatrous” have also been destroyed. This wanton destruction of religious and historic landmarks, condemned by much of the world, is being desired by some in Egypt.

There have been recent reports of prominent Muslim clerics calling for the destruction of Egypt’s Great Pyramids because they, too, are “symbols of paganism”. Sensing that the time may be ripe for further changes because of a Muslim Brotherhood president, calls are also being made to legalize Islamic sex-slave marriage and to institute “morality police”.

Egypt’s Tourism Minister, Muneer Fakhry Abdul Nour, seems to be deaf to those calls. With the country’s tourism industry already suffering badly, he says he is very optimistic, expecting an “unprecedented” increase in tourists in the second half of this year. Perhaps tourists would actually come to watch the difficult task of destroying the pyramids, but militant Islamists running wild and morality police on the prowl would tend to dampen that attraction.

Change in Egypt may come swiftly, but change for the better is an entirely different matter. The Islamic militant’s idea of progress hinges on a nostalgic look backward. That past era of repression has no place in today’s world, but that doesn’t stop the militants from trying to carve out a place for it using violent force. Unfortunately, Egypt may have become ripe for carving.

David J. Hentosh

Department of Injustice?

Not long ago, we linked to a Washington Times editorial (Inside the Black Panther Case) by J. Christian Adams, a DOJ attorney who resigned due to the department’s refusal to prosecute some Philadelphia Black Panthers for voter intimidation, even after they had the case essentially won.

Another editorial runs today in the Washington Times about how most of the press has ignored this story:

Where is the New York Times? Where is The Washington Post? Where are CBS and NBC? A whistleblower makes explosive allegations about the Department of Justice; his story is backed by at least two other witnesses; and the allegations involve the two hot-button issues of race and of blatant politicization of the justice system. A potential constitutional confrontation stemming from the scandal brews between the Justice Department and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. A congressman highly respected for thoughtfulness and bipartisanship has all but accused the department of serious impropriety. By every standard of objective journalism, this adds up to real news.

Or it would be real news if a Republican Justice Department stood accused. It would be real news if the liberal media weren’t mostly in the tank for our celebrated but failing first black president.

Read the rest here: Media Blackout for Black Panthers

Unless you read the Washington Times or watch Fox News, where Megyn Kelly interviewed J. Christian Adams, you’ve likely missed this story.

Where is the media?

Here is the link to Kelly’s interview with Adams: Megyn Kelly Exclusive Interview with Attorney

NdP

DOJ Attorney Resigns Over Dismissal of Philadelphia Black Panther Intimidation Case

Damning editorial by a DOJ attorney who resigned over the dismissed Black Panther intimidation in Philadelphia during the 2008 election. By J. Christian Adams in The Washington Times.

On the day President Obama was elected, armed men wearing the black berets and jackboots of the New Black Panther Party were stationed at the entrance to a polling place in Philadelphia. They brandished a weapon and intimidated voters and poll watchers. After the election, the Justice Department brought a voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party and those armed thugs. I and other Justice attorneys diligently pursued the case and obtained an entry of default after the defendants ignored the charges. Before a final judgment could be entered in May 2009, our superiors ordered us to dismiss the case.

The New Black Panther case was the simplest and most obvious violation of federal law I saw in my Justice Department career. Because of the corrupt nature of the dismissal, statements falsely characterizing the case and, most of all, indefensible orders for the career attorneys not to comply with lawful subpoenas investigating the dismissal, this month I resigned my position as a Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney.

Read the rest here: Inside the Black Panther Case: Anger, Ignorance, and Lies

Democracy’s Downfall: The Tyranny of the Majority

Justin Nataro, treasurer of the Thomas Jefferson Club, wrote this OpEd that appeared in the Bucks County Courier Times today.

Since the installment of Barack Obama as our commander in chief, I know many, myself included, who are frustrated with his constant utterance of the word “democracy” to refer to the United States. Yes, it’s true, America is a democracy. But first and foremost America is a republic with a Constitution in place to safeguard certain inalienable rights, which cannot be overturned no matter how large the majority against them is. For instance, in America, even if 99.99 percent of the population is against private gun ownership, the right to bear arms cannot be overturned. It’s one of our inalienable rights established by the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments), and thus permanently out of the reach of any collection of citizens against it.

The essential difference between a republic and a democracy is the driving force that separates the American identity and value system from the rest of the world. The essential aspect of a Democracy is the belief that all of our rights come from government, i.e., other elected human beings.

The essential aspect of a republic is the belief that all of our rights come from God, or, for atheists, are possessed innately. The humans we elect to government are simply meant to protect those rights from infringement by other humans. Bearing this in mind, I can only shake my head over the many who align themselves as strict constitutionalists and/or “Republicans” (whatever that means) who are also rejoicing over the Swiss referendum to ban the construction of minarets.

Refresher alert: According to Wikipedia, “minarets are distinctive architectural features of Islamic mosques. Minarets are generally tall spires with onion-shaped or conical crowns, usually either free standing or taller than any associated support structure.” Essentially, they’re the Islamic version of the church steeple. And 57.5 percent of Switzerland’s voting population voted to ban their future construction.

Unfortunately for real constitutionalists, the right to private property and freedom of religion are two of those inalienable, God-given rights, and, unless we’re experiencing interference in our own lives, we don’t have the authority to inhibit the rights of anyone else just because we disagree with them. Stinks, I know.

The flaw in a democracy is that it leads to a problem referred to as the tyranny of the majority, whereby the God-given rights of 49.9 percent of people can be overturned by 50.1 percent. The beauty in a Republic is that our God-given rights are protected at all times from all levels of resistance. As long as you’re not interfering in anyone else’s life, you’re right to own property and do with it as you please and to practice your religion as you please cannot be infringed upon.

Read the rest of the editorial here.