Friday, April 30, 2010

Red Light . . . Green Light

Originally posted on American Thinker @

Admit it. We've all done it. When we're bored and have nothing else to do, we find a stopwatch, head down to the nearest intersection, and collect data to prove that traffic lights are discriminatory. Apparently, employees at the Economist have been quite bored lately.

According to a March 6, 2010 article in the mainstream British news magazine, traffic lights in Jerusalem "flick green only briefly for cars from Palestinian districts while staying green for cars form Jewish settlements for minutes." When asked by CAMERA to provide evidence for this charge, the Economist provided a list of intersections at which drivers from Arab neighborhoods are allegedly forced to wait at long red lights while drivers from Jewish neighborhoods go on their jolly way.

Of course this is not an unreasonable assertion. Being that Israeli technology is among the most developed in the world, one can only assume that cutting-edge traffic lights that can distinguish between an Arab and a Jewish vehicle indeed do exist. Expect a follow-up story soon giving details of the resolution passed in the next U.N. emergency session condemning Israel for traffic light violations.

Sunday, April 18, 2010

All For the Palestinians Stand Up and Holler!

Originally posted on American Thinker at

Ah, spring is in the air. Time for the annual tradition of Israel Apartheid Week spreading across college campuses. UC Berkeley recently held an Israel Apartheid Week, sponsored by the Students for Justice in Palestine and supported by the Muslim Student Association. Immediately following Israel Apartheid Week the ASUC, the student senate at UC Berkeley, voted in favor of Bill 118: A Bill in Support of UC Divestment from War Crimes. Citing the "occupation" and “war crimes” committed by Israel the ASUC approved to divest funds from G.E. and United Technologies, which materially and militarily support Israel. Seems as if the ASUC tore a page out of the SJP playbook, which calls for college students to help punish the "Apartheid State of Israel" by demanding that their schools divest financial assets from companies doing business in Israel.

After ASUC president Will Smelko vetoed the bill, the ASUC met on April 14 to overturn his veto. Needing 14 votes, the meeting lasted until dawn ending with 13 votes and one abstention. For now, the vote has been tabled. Rachel Horning, a 19 year-old sophomore at UC Berkeley, has been elected to serve next year on the ASUC. Although not an official part of the vote, she did participate in the 10 hour-long debate before the vote. Horning is quick to point out that she desires the Middle-East conflict to end favorably for both sides, but she says, "The decisions made by a group of 18-22 year-olds regarding age-old politics has no place within the ASUC." Also, pointing out a glaring problem with the bill, Horning says, "The ASUC has no investments in either companies listed in the bill, and hasn't since 2008, thus proving that this bill is more of a symbolic jab at the Jewish community at Cal, than an actual call for boycott.”

I applaud Horning for recognizing the ASUC’s attempt to "armchair quarterback" from their campus. As Netanyahu once said, "Israel's security needs naturally look different from the banks of the Potomac than from the banks of Jordan." The ASUC states that they are armed with facts justifying their stance. Yet their facts are gathered from organizations with a long history of bias against Israel: the United Nations with its piece de resistance the Goldstone Report, The International Red Cross, the Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International (which recently announced the condoning of jihad "when done in self-defense"). Which brings us to the million-dollar question to ask the ASUC: What about Israel's right to self-defense? But, realistically, why should college students consider the conflict from Israel's point of view when world leaders don't?

President Carter and Mandela propagate "Israeli Apartheid." College students are just following their example. When Hamas claims it's message is reaching the White House, why should it come as a surprise that it is reaching college campuses too? When the "hip" president so quickly turns against Israel, why wouldn't it be "en vogue" for college students to turn against Israel? The list continues to grow of colleges hosting events which are blatantly anti-Israel. On the campus of UC Irvine, the poster-school for anti-Semitism, Hamas and Hezbollah are openly celebrated, supported, and allegedly funded by students. During one event at UC Irvine, speaker Malik-Ali who openly speaks of jihad, was challenged by a Jew in the audience and responded by saying, "If history is any indication, there will be peace when you are gone." Malik-Ali has also been a guest speaker at UC Berkeley.

Meredith Weiss, president of Fuel for Truth, which disseminates truth about Israel among the college-age demographic, sees firsthand the growing climate of anti-Semitism on college campuses. "There is a new anti-Semitism, and it has found its way to our campuses. This is one of the new fronts in what's called 'stealth jihad.'" Is Weiss an alarmist or a realist? Are groups such as the MSA, with whom one of the ASUC members lists as a "liaison," just garden variety college clubs, or do they in any form or fashion support jihad?

The MSA, which now has 150 chapters on college campuses in the US, was founded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood. The MSA Starter’s Guide: A Guide on How to Run a Successful MSA states, “It should be the long-term goal of every MSA to Islamicize the politics of their respective university. Aim to rise within the ranks of the union and to get on selected executive committees.” Sounds harmless enough. Brotherhood. Run for office. Until one realizes what the Muslim Brotherhood is.

The Muslim Brotherhood has provided the ideological foundation for all modern Sunni Islamic terrorist groups. When discussing Hamas, al Qaeda and Islamic Jihad, Richard Clarke, former national coordinator for security and counter-terrorism, stated in October 2003 testimony before a Senate committee: “The common link here is the extremist Muslim Brotherhood - all of these organizations are descendants of the membership and ideology of the Muslim Brothers.” Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the architect of 9/11, was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. In a memorandum by the Muslim Brotherhood on the "General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,” their mission was to establish "an effective and stable Islamic Movement" in America. It stated that Muslims "must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within." The Brotherhood listed some 29 like-minded organizations seeking to realize the same goal. The MSA made the list.

Am I accusing the ASUC of being involved in jihad? Absolutely not. Is it safe to assume that college students are being influenced by groups that are involved in jihad? Absolutely. When members of Fuel for Truth speak to college students, Weiss describes their reactions, “Scores of students are shocked to learn that speakers Muslim groups have invited to campuses in the past were later arrested by the FBI in connection with terrorist groups.” Post 9/11 investigations have exposed multiple Muslim organizations in America which, to put it mildly, don't have America's or Israel's best interest in mind. With a president who encourages the public to bury their heads in the sand regarding radical Islam and jihad, it has become the responsibility of groups like Fuel for Truth to educate the generation who will move from being in college senates to being in the U.S. Senate.

The Berkeley senate denies that their actions are anti-Semitic. They also officially state that they are not “taking sides,” yet the very title of Bill 118 indicts Israel of war crimes. A bit of an oxymoron. Goldstone would be proud. Zak Meyers, at Fuel for Truth, so aptly reminds us, "At the end of the day, Thomas Friedman said it best: 'Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle-East is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest.'"

To stand against Israel's right to defend itself, is to stand against Israel's right to existence. To stand against Israel's right to existence, is to stand against Zionism. To stand against Zionism, is to stand against the Jews. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews - make no mistake about it." Bill 118 is anti-Semitic to its very core - make no mistake about it.

Camie Davis © 2010

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Reagan and Obama; a Difference of Epic Proportions

Originally posted on American Thinker @

Have you felt the earth move the last several days? It's President Reagan rolling in his grave upon President Obama's foreign policy and nuclear goals being favorably compared to Reagan's modus operandi.
Remember a long time ago, in a galaxy far away, Reagan was at the helm guiding the Republic against an Evil Empire. Now with Obama at the helm, we are light years away from the leadership of Reagan. Appeasement of terrorists, political correctness, slow admittance that we are even in a war (or should I say "contingency operation"), believing that just saying no to nukes and singing Kumbaya will solve the world's problems . . . the list grows by the day of the blaring differences between the two presidents.
Natan Sharansky, who experienced the effects of the Evil Empire first-hand when he spent 13 years in the Siberian gulag, was asked by The Weekly Standard about Reagan standing up against the former Soviet Union. Sharansky said, "He had the moral clarity to understand the truth, and the courage both to speak the truth and to do what needed to be done to support it. It was a great, brilliant moment when we learned that Ronald Reagan had proclaimed the Soviet Union an Evil Empire before the entire world. This was the moment. It was the brightest, most glorious day. Finally a spade had been called a spade. Finally, Orwell's Newspeak was dead. President Reagan had from that moment made it impossible for anyone in the West to continue closing their eyes to the real nature of the Soviet Union."
So much for the days of calling a spade a spade as we face the new Evil Empire of terrorism. Under Obama's moral clarity and Newspeak, "Muslim extremist" and "jihad" are being removed from our vocabulary. Political correctness explains that terrorists are really the victims of social ills. Deterrent policies are thrown out the White House window. Israel is reassured that tough measures will be taken against Iran's nuclear program, and then yawn, that memo is placed in the "Eventually Impose Sanctions That Will Bite" file. What a reassuring promise considering all the appeasing bark that is behind the bite. Obama and Reagan being placed in the same category? The two don't even belong in the same galaxy.
Perhaps one of the things that drove Reagan to be such a great leader in the face of an enemy was knowing that the fight at large was for individuals. He was known to keep a list in his coat pocket of people in prison in the Soviet Union. Each time before Secretary of State George Shultz traveled to the former Soviet Union, Reagan would pull out the list and remind Shultz to raise those names to the Soviets. Natan Sharansky was on the list. His freedom was gained because the leader of the United States did not flinch in the face of evil, but systematically called for needed and expected changes.
I can't help but wonder what would happen if Obama carried a list of victims of terrorism in his pocket. Indeed Obama does seem to carry a list. A list of the perpetrators of terrorism to remind himself and his staff, not who they are fighting against, but rather who it is they will appease, aid, and abet. And it is a reminder to all of us of who seems to have Obama snugly in their pocket.