Displaying posts published in

2016

Egypt’s “Security Threat”: Churches by Raymond Ibrahim

Whenever Christians attempt to repair, renovate, or build a church — all of which contradict Islamic law — the same chain of events follows. Local Muslims riot and rampage, and local (Muslim) officials conclude that the only way to prevent “angry youths” from acts of violence is to ban the church, which is then declared a “threat” to security.

Repeatedly, Christian leaders accuse local officials of inciting Muslim violence against churches. Muslim leaders then point to this violence to deny the church a permit on the grounds that it has attracted violence.

On February 1, Tharwat Bukhit, a Coptic Christian member of Egypt’s parliament, announced “there are approximately 50 churches in Egypt closed for reasons of security.”

When the “Arab Spring” broke out in 2011, Egypt’s Christians compiled a list of 43 churches that had been shut down by local authorities over the years. This list was given to the prime minister of Egypt at the time, Dr. Essam Sharaf, who said that the churches would be opened as soon as possible. Yet since then, according to Bukhit, “Today, the number of closed churches has grown to almost 50.”

Why are Christian churches being “closed for reasons of security”? Whenever Christians attempt to repair, renovate, or build a church — all of which contradict Islamic law[1] — the same chain of events follows. Local Muslims riot and rampage, and local (Muslim) officials conclude that the only way to prevent “angry youths” from acts of violence is to ban the church, which is then declared a “threat” to security.

‘We Have Slid Into A New Cold War’: Chilling Statement From Russian Prime Minister Medvedev over tensions in Syria further raises the spectre of WWIII as France accuses them of bombing civilians

Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said tensions between Russia and the West have sent the world into a ‘new Cold War’, while speaking at the Munich Security Conference today.

‘We have slid into a new period of Cold War,’ he said. ‘Almost every day we are accused of making new horrible threats either against NATO as a whole, against Europe or against the US or other countries.’Amid an escalating war of words, the Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said a lack of trust could return the continent to ‘40 years ago, when a wall was standing in Europe’.

He rejected claims that Russian planes had killed more than 1,000 civilians in Syria, and insisted that Russia was ‘not trying to achieve some secret goals in Syria’ but was ‘trying to protect our national interests’.
He added: ‘Nearly on a daily basis, we are being blamed for the most terrible threat to Nato as a whole, to Europe, to America, to other countries. They make scary movies where Russia starts a nuclear war. I sometimes wonder, are we in 2016 or 1962?’

His comments comes after France’s Prime Minister Manuel Valls called on Russia to stop bombing civilians in Syria, saying this was crucial for achieving peace in the country.France’s Prime Minister Manuel Valls also warned that the European project could ‘disappear’ if policymakers were not careful

‘France respects Russia and its interests … But we know that to find the path to peace again, the Russian bombing of civilians has to stop,’ Valls said in a speech at a security conference in Munich.

‘The European project can go backwards or even disappear if we don’t take care of it,’ he said.

Nationalism Wreaks Havoc in Divided Europe Confronted by common challenges, national politicians have been unable to adopt a pan-European view By Simon Nixon

http://www.wsj.com/articles/nationalism-wreaks-havoc-in-divided-europe-1455477856

There are many different ways the European Union could fall apart in the coming weeks, but all of them have a common thread: the inability of national politicians to adopt a European perspective when confronted by common European challenges.

This is as true of the crisis surrounding the U.K.’s membership of the EU and the migration crisis, which will dominate a crunch EU leaders’ summit this week, as it is true of the eurozone economic crisis, which have burst back on the agenda following recent moves in financial markets.

Take Britain’s EU membership: When Prime Minister David Cameron first said that he wanted a new deal for the U.K. ahead of a referendum he has pledged to hold by the end of 2017, he insisted that the reforms he was seeking would benefit the whole of Europe.

Yet the draft deal that EU leaders will discuss does nothing of the sort. It consists of a series of carve-outs for the U.K. carefully crafted to stop other countries taking advantage of them. Indeed, EU officials are clear that if other member states try to make use of a controversial “emergency brake” that will allow the U.K. to restrict welfare payments to EU migrants for four years, the deal with the U.K. government would fall apart.

The deal may fall apart anyway: European Council President Donald Tusk has warned that the process is “fragile”. Mr. Cameron can’t even be sure he will achieve even his limited objective of persuading key figures in his party to back his deal, complicating his efforts to win the referendum, which he hopes to hold in June.

Either way, the deal looks likely to make the EU harder rather than easier to manage. The price of trying to keep Britain in the EU has been to put in question core EU principles including nondiscrimination against EU citizens, the free movement of workers and the integrity of the single market rule book. That looks like a recipe to embolden nationalists across the continent, showing that unilateral threats can deliver results. CONTINUE READING AT THE SITE

Antonin Scalia Was Democracy’s Legal Champion He changed the way judges looked at text and law, and he was the best writer the Supreme Court has ever known.By Michael W. McConnell

Mr. McConnell, a law professor and the director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.
Antonin Scalia, who died Saturday at age 79, was the most influential Supreme Court justice of the past 30 years. Not because he had the votes. He was influential because he had a clear, consistent, persuasive idea of how to interpret the Constitution: It means what it says; it means what those who enacted it meant to enact.

And Justice Scalia was influential because he wrote opinions with verve and good sense, in prose that any American could read and understand. He was the best writer the Supreme Court has ever known—and with justices like John Marshall, Oliver Wendell Holmes and Robert Jackson, that is saying a lot. He was the court’s most withering logician. He showed us what a real judge can be, even on that most political court.

When Justice Scalia arrived at the Supreme Court in 1986, its jurisprudence had become sloppy, results-driven, plagued with fuzzy three-part tests and fuzzier four-part tests, all of them concocted by his predecessors with little basis in constitutional text. Today, the entire court—even the liberal justices—have adopted Justice Scalia’s style: close attention to text, awareness of history, analytical rigor. The Supreme Court has not announced an impressionistic multipart “test” in years. CONTINUE READING AT THE SITE

Why Islamists and the radical Left loathe the Day of Love. Jamie Glazov

Yesterday, February 14, was Valentine’s Day, the sacred day that intimate companions mark to celebrate their love and affection for one another. If you’re thinking about making a study of how couples celebrate this day, the Muslim world and the milieus of the radical Left are not the places you should be spending your time. Indeed, it’s pretty hard to outdo jihadists and “progressives” when it comes to the hatred of Valentine’s Day. And this hatred is precisely the territory on which the contemporary romance between the Left and Islamic fanaticism is formed.

The train is never late: every year that Valentine’s comes around, the Muslim world erupts with ferocious rage, with its leaders doing everything in their power to suffocate the festivity that comes with the celebration of private romance. Imams around the world thunder against Valentine’s every year — and the celebration of the day itself is literally outlawed in Islamist states.

This year, for example, Pakistan banned Valentine’s Day as an “insult” to Islam and warned that “strict” action would be taken against anyone daring to celebrate the day in any part of Islamabad. While in the past, Valentine’s Day activities were disrupted by Jamaat-e-Islami, Pakistan’s main religious party, it was the first time this year that the state actually got involved to ban celebration of the day. In Iran, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia this year, and as always, Valentine’s Day was outlawed. Under the Islamic regime in Iran, for instance, any sale or promotion of Valentine’s Day related items, including the exchange of gifts, flowers and cards, was illegal. The Iranian police warned retailers, as they do every year, against the promotion of Valentine’s Day celebrations.

MY SAY: THE COURT OF POLITICAL OPINION

First- Following the death of a great justice …..In a better world Michael Mukasey would be appointed to the Supreme Court….rsk

Second : The Debate
John Kasich is what we used to call a “goody two shoes” defined as a smugly or obtrusively virtuous person; a goody-goody. He reminds me of Philip Roth’s aunt in “Portnoy’s Complaint” who claimed that her only flaw was being “too good.”

Trump was worse than usual- rude, obnoxious, insulting, void of any real policy gravitas- and his grimaces were clownish. A schoolyard bully and a mud wrestler.

Jeb? He tried gamely to go after Trump but the oaf outshouted him. He was right that the Cruz/Rubio skirmish over a bill that never passed was silly.

Cruz and Rubio were better but Rubio won in delivery, personal message, answers, and foreign policy. It was definitely a comeback.

Ben Carson? Alas….nice guy who finished last.

Trump Was Half-Crazed, But Does Anyone Care? By Rich Lowry

I feel like we’re back in the pre-Iowa period when no one could figure out whether Donald Trump skipping the Iowa debate would hurt him–by the normal rules, of course it would hurt him; by the Trump rules, it wouldn’t make a difference and maybe even help (by demonstrating strength).

By the normal rules, Trump embracing a blood libel about George W. Bush (he knew there were no WMD in Iraq), saying Planned Parenthood does great things, and often swinging wildly and angrily would hurt him a week out from a primary in Bush-friendly, hawkish, socially conservative South Carolina.

But we’ll see. Certainly Trump’s behavior reinforces the idea that he’s disruptor and not just another politician, and Republican voters might not mind so much that one of the candidates is outspokenly anti-Iraq war (even if he takes it too far). Trump continues to be able to interrupt everyone else with impunity and act the Big Man on stage, with no one really able or willing to assert themselves against him.

Jeb is trying the hardest. He continues to improve–he seems a bit more relaxed and authoritative every debate– and did better against Trump than ever before. But some of his strongest moments were defending his family and although that is honorable, I’m not sure how much that gets him. He has still not figured out how to clearly best Trump, even when he has the better of the argument.

Rubio was very good. A little sharper, a little more conversational. He probably got in more telling jabs against Trump in the Iraq debate than Bush did (although I doubt anyone cares much that Bush was enforcing U.N. resolutions). More importantly for Rubio’s purposes, he clashed with Cruz and showed he could throw punches in real time after the New Hampshire debate. If Rubio had hit back at Chris Christie this way, the trajectory of the race might look different.

Cruz had strong moments, of course, especially on Scalia and the Supreme Court. But it looked like he basically wanted to duck Trump again, which is kind of amazing given that he can’t win South Carolina without Trump getting taken down several notches. In the one exchange with Trump, Cruz seemed to shrink a bit, and it was awkward for him that both Trump and Rubio waved the bloody flag of Ben Carson in Iowa, more or less a non-scandal that is very useful to his opponents.

Kasich continues to get to narrow-cast for his audience.

Sweden and the Death of Multi-Kulti Idealism By Michael Walsh

As Alec Guinness says at the end of The Bridge on the River Kwai: “What have I done?”

When the refugee crisis began last summer, about 1,500 people were coming to Sweden every week seeking asylum. By August, the number had doubled. In September, it doubled again. In October, it hit 10,000 a week, and stayed there even as the weather grew colder. A nation of 9.5 million, Sweden expected to take as many as 190,000 refugees, or 2 percent of the population — double the per capita figure projected by Germany, which has taken the lead in absorbing the vast tide of people fleeing the wars in Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere.

That afternoon, in the cafeteria in the back of the Migration Agency building, I met with Karima Abou-Gabal, an agency official responsible for the orderly flow of people into and out of Malmo. I asked where the new refugees would go. “As of now,” she said wearily, “we have no accommodation. We have nothing.” The private placement agencies with whom the migration agency contracts all over the country could not offer so much as a bed. In Malmo itself, the tents were full. So, too, the auditorium and hotels. Sweden had, at that very moment, reached the limits of its absorptive capacity. That evening, Mikael Ribbenvik, a senior migration official, said to me, “Today we had to regretfully inform 40 people that we could [not] find space for them in Sweden.” They could stay, but only if they found space on their own.

RIP Antonin Scalia :By Roger Kimball

I just got the dreadful news that Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead, age 79, this morning at a Texas resort. The death of a great man is always a cause for sadness. The passing of Justice Scalia is more than that: it is a national tragedy. Of course, President Obama will nominate and try to force through a left-wing jurist to the Court. The Senate, with its Republican majority, ought to be able to defer the nomination until the administration of the next president. But note that the Senate majority leader is Mitch McConnell, not a man who is known to stand up to bullies. These are trying times for the republic. I hope my irreligious friends will forgive me for asking that we all pray for the country.

As it happens, I wrote about Scalia just a few weeks ago. I thought it might be appropriate to repeat what I said here:

January 3, 2016

“Thank God for Justice Scalia.”

I’ve often found myself muttering that exhortation in recent years. I repeated it last June, for example, when reading Scalia’s masterly dissent to Obergefell, et al. v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, et al., the Supreme Court case that took the definition of what counts as marriage away from the states and delivered it into the hands of one man, Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Madame Blavatsky of the Bench. Kennedy looked into his crystal ball and determined that henceforth so-called “gay marriage” should be legal across the fruited plain. Why? Because, Kennedy wrote, “the Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity.” Er, what? Had he written such nonsense, Scalia retorted, he would “hide [his] head in a bag.” “The Supreme Court of the United States,” he continued in what is one of my favorite legal footnotes, “has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.”

Indeed. And Scalia was pointed as well as droll. You might think, or at least say when the children ask, that the United States of America is a democracy in which We, the People are sovereign. Ha, ha, ha. Really, Scalia pointed out, we are an extreme oligarchy in which “the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court,” all of whom went to Harvard or Yale. Feeling better?

And just yesterday, speaking at a Roman Catholic school in Metairie, Louisiana, Scalia pointed out that, contrary to some extreme secularists, government support for religion is not only justified by the Constitution but has throughout most of our history been the unspoken norm. Moreover, he argued, “one of the reasons” that the Untied States has prospered so mightily is that the American people have always done God honor. “God has been very good to us,” he said. “That we won the revolution was extraordinary. The Battle of Midway was extraordinary. I think one of the reasons God has been good to us is that we have done him honor. Unlike the other countries of the world that do not even invoke his name, we do him honor.”

Obama Breaks Tradition, Will Nominate Supreme Court Successor to Scalia By Tyler O’Neil

Responding to the untimely passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, President Barack Obama declared that he will nominate a successor, breaking a nearly 100-year tradition. Both Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Republican presidential candidates have encouraged him to wait for the next president, who will be elected this November.

“I plan to fulfill one of my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor, in due time,” Obama declared in a statement Saturday evening. “There will be plenty of time for me to do so and for the Senate to fulfill its responsibility to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote.” Obama emphasized, “These are responsibilities that I take seriously and so should everyone— they are bigger than any one party, they are about our democracy.”

No lame duck president has nominated a Supreme Court justice in an election year for eighty years, a fact which both Florida Senator Marco Rubio and Texas Senator Ted Cruz mentioned in the Republican presidential debate Saturday evening.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R, Iowa) said that “it’s been standard practice over the last 80 years to not confirm Supreme Court nominees during a presidential election year.”

“Given the huge divide in the country, and the fact that this president, above all others, has made no bones about his goal to use the courts to circumvent Congress and push through his own agenda, it only makes sense that we defer to the American people who will elect a new president to select the next Supreme Court Justice,” Grassley said.