Sunday, January 31, 2016





                             LAURIE CARDOZA-MOORE                  TOM TRENTO


Public Declaration against the BDS movement at USF
Public Declaration of support for Israel


Outside, on the campus of USF, Tampa FL.


Wednesday, February 3, 5pm


The State of Florida is developing public policy against the
"Jew-hatred" Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement just as
many USF students are attempting to initiate BDS policy on campus



Dr. Kedar is an Israeli scholar and will speak
at a lecture hall on the campus of USF


(Dr. Kedar's lecture is a separate program not related to the public declaration)






Follow The United West on Twitter


SUNDAY JAN 31, 2016

Mideast Christian Suffering, U.S. Denial

Gatestone Institute
Facebook  Twitter  RSS

In this mailing:

Mideast Christian Suffering, U.S. Denial

by Raymond Ibrahim  •  January 31, 2016 at 5:00 am
  • Escaped eyewitnesses have reported that ISIS places Iraqi and Syrian Christians in cages or coffins and sets them on fire.
  • ISIS persecution of Christians "fits the definition of ethnic cleansing." — Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial.
The Syriac Orthodox Church of St. Ephrem in Mosul, Iraq, before if the captured by the Islamic State (left), and after.
When a 1,400-year-old Iraqi Christian monastery was destroyed by the Islamic State (ISIS) most of the world condemned the demolition -- except for spokesman for the U.S. military's Operation Inherent Resolve, Col. Steve Warren.
"Thousands [of Iraqi Christians] have been killed, hundreds of thousands have been forced to flee," said CNN's Wolf Blitzer in an interview with Col. Warren the other week. "There is legitimate fear -- you're there in Baghdad -- that the long history of Christians living peacefully, productively in Iraq, is coming to an end. How worried should we be about the Christian community in Iraq?"
Col. Warren's response: "Wolf, ISIL doesn't care if you're a Christian ... We've seen no specific evidence of a specific targeting towards Christians."

Will Democracies Combat Terror?

by Jagdish N. Singh  •  January 31, 2016 at 4:00 am
  • Many extremist Islamic groups are still shielded by states such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran. These countries have so far not severed their links, overt or covert, with these outfits.
  • The United States and other members of the free world need to take corrective measures not only against terrorist groups but also against the states that sponsor them.
  • Washington, in its relationship with Tehran and Islamabad, among others, is on the wrong track. Its approach towards a rogue Iran is not likely to "bring it in from the cold," but to embolden it even further in its various terror activities the world over.
In 2014, this photo of Muslim ISIS supporters in India's Tamil Nadu state went viral on Twitter.
Sadly, major world powers, including the United Nations, have not appeared serious about fighting terrorism or the Islamic State (ISIS, IS) or similar terrorist groups.
UN Security Council Resolution 2170 (August 15, 2014) called on member-states to take "national measures to prevent fighters from traveling from their soil to join the IS and deny it any arms or financial support. The resolution also "expressed readiness to consider putting on the sanctions list those who facilitated the recruitment and travel of foreign fighters."
To subscribe to the this mailing list, go to
14 East 60 St., Suite 1001, New York, NY 10022


SUNDAY JAN 31, 2016

(Just another HAMAS supporter threatening us - we deal with all the time)


My team and I are off to a fabulous 2016 start with several major projects including a

multipart series on Benghazi that is a serious investigative piece on the failures of Hillary and Obama.

We just returned from the South Carolina Tea Party Conference where we has an excellent impact

and interviewed several of the Presidential candidates, stay tuned for those video pieces.
 Our investigative documentary, "Fallen Angel,” about the Obama/Hillary coverup of the shoot down

of SEAL Team Six is getting very strong coverage and on track to Premiere on August 6, 2011,

the five year Memorial anniversary of the tragedy in Afghanistan.

In March, I’m leading another group of Jewish and Christian Zionists to Israel for a behind-the-scenes

mission to study the national security threats to Israel from Iran, HAMAS, Hezbollah and ISIS.

We are kicking bad guy ass like never before and plan to do so the rest of the year!









Follow The United West on Twitter


SUNDAY JAN 31, 2016

In Turkey, Islamism and Pluralism Don't Mix

Middle East Forum
Promoting American Interests

Facebook  Twitter  RSS  Join Mailing List
Follow the Middle East Forum

Related Articles

In Turkey, Islamism and Pluralism Don't Mix

by Burak Bekdil
Hürriyet Daily News
January 30, 2016
Be the first of your friends to like this.
Slightly edited, originally published on January 20 under the title "OK, Turkey Is a Majoritarian Democracy, not a Dictatorship."
Justice Minister Bekir Bozdağ has an important message for the world: Turkey is not a dictatorship.
I have no idea how many justice ministers in the democratically civilized world have to make speeches arguing that their country is not a dictatorship. But Turkish Justice Minister Bekir Bozdağ has recently felt compelled to remind the world of just that. Bozdağ said the mere existence of main opposition leader Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu is proof that "there is no dictator in the country." That was relieving.
But Mr. Bozdağ's line of defense is problematic. For instance, the existence of Syrian opposition parties did not mean Syria was NOT a dictatorship.
Bozdağ's problematic line of defense does not change the fact that President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is an elected leader, or that his seat is legitimate. But the fact that Mr. Erdoğan is not a dictator does not change the fact that Turkey has an increasingly wider democratic deficit. That is primarily because Islamist politics is majoritarian and can hardly make peace with pluralism.
In his Nov. 8, 2013 editorial, "Ignoring the majority," Hayrettin Karaman, a professor of theology and a columnist for the pro-government Yeni Şafak, wrote the following:
Governments cannot protect, through law and order, any behavior the majority would dislike or view as harmful, illegitimate and ugly. The minority will have to give up some freedoms (that are disapproved of by the majority). The remedy ... is democracy with reference to Islam. Otherwise the majority, whose values could be violated by the minority, will have the right to apply neighborhood pressure [on the minority].
Professor Karaman's doctrinaire thinking has hardly changed since then. In his Jan. 17 column, "Freedom of opinion?" He wrote that "a democrat would never say preposterous things like 'there is no democracy in this country, there is dictatorship,' or 'human rights and freedoms are being violated.'" But regarding the academics who recently signed the now infamous declaration of peace [with Kurds] and others who defend their right to express their opinion, Mr. Karaman wrote the following:
They view the academics' declaration as freedom of opinion ... despite the fact that it damages our country's image, it is against the law and ethics, and it is impossible that freedom of opinion could allow this [the declaration] ... They are not defenders of human rights; they are democracy fools and 'democratists' [his neologism for possibly fake democrats].
After 13 years of Islamist rule, this kind of majoritarian thinking comes as no surprise at all. In this mindset, a democrat would never complain of human rights violations in his country. Why? Because the government responsible for such violations was elected by the majority's votes/will.
Islamist politics is majoritarian and inherently at odds with pluralism.
Similarly, according to this mindset it is impossible that freedom of opinion could allow the academics' declaration. Why? Because it is against the law and ethics. But which law? Universal law or Islamic law? Who will have the authority to judge whether or not a declaration issued by academics or plumbers is ethical? Mr. Karaman and the ulema? Or perhaps the president?
The Islamists' inherent problem with pluralism is often painful for the minority. But the way they sometimes defend their "cause" can be entertaining. For example, one of the staunchly pro-government (or rather "pro-president") newspapers actually admitted that there was a dictator in Turkey. Daily Star's front-page headline on Jan. 17 read "Kemal the dictator," in reference to the main opposition leader.
So we know who to blame for Turkey's huge democratic deficit. Perhaps a ban on the opposition would make Turkey a more democratic place?
Burak Bekdil is an Ankara-based columnist for the Turkish newspaper Hürriyet Daily News and a fellow at the Middle East Forum.
Related Topics:  Turkey and Turks  |  Burak Bekdil

To subscribe to the MEF mailing lists, go to

US mosque Obama to visit controlled by Hamas-linked ISNA, former imam was Muslim Brotherhood member

US mosque Obama to visit controlled by Hamas-linked ISNA, former imam was Muslim Brotherhood member

Islamic Society of Baltimore
“The US Mosque Obama Has Chosen For His First Presidential Visit Has Deep Extremist Ties,” by Chuck Ross, Daily Caller, January 30, 2016 (thanks to Plamen):
The Baltimore mosque President Obama has chosen as the first U.S.-based mosque to visit during his presidency has deep ties to extremist elements, including to the Muslim Brotherhood.
The White House announced on Saturday that Obama will visit the Islamic Society of Baltimore (ISB) on Wednesday. He has visited several mosques overseas as president but has resisted visiting one in the homeland. The purpose of the trip, according to the White House, is to “celebrate the contributions Muslim Americans make to our nation and reaffirm the importance of religious freedom to our way of life.”
But ISB is a curious choice for Obama’s first domestic visit.
The mosque is a member of a network of mosques controlled by the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a Muslim civil rights group named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation terror case. Several executives with that organization were convicted of sending money to aid the terrorist group Hamas.
An imam who served at ISB for a total of 15 years has also been a leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood network and has worked for an Islamic relief group that was designated as a terrorist organization by the Treasury Department in 2004.
Mohammad Adam el-Sheikh, who served two stints as ISB’s imam, from 1983 to 1989 and from 1994 to 2003, was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Sudan in the 1970s. He also co-founded the Muslim American Society, a Falls Church, Va.-based group that is controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood.
While in Baltimore, el-Sheikh served as a regional director for the Islamic American Relief Agency. That group’s parent organization is the Islamic African Relief Agency, which the Treasury Department says provided funds to Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, Hamas and other terrorist organizations.
After leaving Baltimore, el-Sheikh served as imam at the infamous Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church. That mosque has a lengthy roster of known terrorists and terrorist sympathizers. Its imam during much of the 1990s was Mohammed al-Hanooti. He was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six people.
Dar al-Hijrah came under the control of Anwar al-Awlaki in 2001. He’s the American al-Qaeda recruiter who was killed in a U.S. drone strike in 2011. Nidal Hasan, the U.S. Army major who killed 13 people at Fort Hood in Nov. 2009, is said to have attended the Virginia mosque when al-Awlaki served there. The pair also reportedly exchanged emails. Two of the 9/11 hijackers also attended Dar al-Hijrah during al-Awlaki’s tenure.
El-Sheikh took over at Dar al-Hijrah in Aug. 2003, a little over a year after al-Awlaki left. While there he defended Palestianian suicide bombings against Israel.
“If certain Muslims are to be cornered where they cannot defend themselves, except through these kinds of means, and their local religious leaders issued fatwas to permit that, then it becomes acceptable as an exceptional rule, but should not be taken as a principle,” he said in 2004, according to a Washington Post article at the time.
As The Post reported Saturday, ISB’s website states that it seeks “to be the anchor of a growing Muslim community with diverse backgrounds, democratically governed, relating to one another with inclusiveness and tolerance, and interacting with neighbors in an Islamic exemplary manner.”
But that desire for tolerance — which President Obama frequently touts as well — does not appear to be a virtue shared by ISB’s resident scholar, Yaseen Shaikh.
A 2013 Youtube video shows Shaikh, who previously served as imam at a mosque in Plano, Tex., speaking out forcefully against homosexuality in Islam.
During an hour long diatribe, Shaikh called homosexuality a psychological disorder that has no place in Islam or society. He also lamented that gay rights groups have “hijacked” political discourse.
“This whole subject of homosexuality in the public sphere…is no longer a religious issue, unfortunately, as much as we want to use the religious card and try to defeat this, now it’s become a politicized issue,” Shaikh says in the video….

The Vicious Snake

REPORT: Economic Benefits Of Migration Debunked, ‘A Reservoir For Low-Cost Labour’

REPORT: Economic Benefits Of Migration Debunked, ‘A Reservoir For Low-Cost Labour’


A stunning new report on migrant employment has skewered the oft-cited economic argument for mass migration, revealing that most migrants are unemployed for years, and countries won’t see a benefit for at least a generation.

The report for German paper Die Welt entitled “The Truth about the Refugee Job Wonder” asks if German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s pronouncement that migrants will be the “labour revitalisation” of Germany is actually true? It turns out Syrians, Afghans and Iraqis are more likely to be unemployed than the average German by a large margin.

The Institute for Employment Research (IAB) has conducted research into migrant employment rates and found that in the case of Syrians their employment rate has dropped from 32 percent to only 9 percent as recently as last November.

Afghanis and Iraqis, who are increasingly becoming a larger proportion of migrants coming into the EU according to Frontex, don’t fare much better, with Afghan employment participation going from 37.6 percent to 24.5 percent and Iraqi employment going from 34 percent to 25.3 percent over the same five year period. To put this in perspective, the employment rate of the average German is 67.3 percent.

Migrants have an especially difficult time and even those with professional qualifications tend to have a hard time becoming employed. It is actually easier, according to the report, for an unskilled native worker.

According to IFO Institute for Economic Research migration expert Gabriel Felbermayr, “We know that people who come as refugees, much more difficult to integrate into the labor market than those who immigrate to work,” and said, “Usually it takes at least a generation,” until the employment rate, “has approached the domestic population.”

This amount of time to enter the workforce presents huge problems for the welfare system that the migrants are thought to be able to prop up. Often the countries which they come from improve and conditions allow them to go back, meaning a zero return on investment from the costs associated with housing and education.  

Employers often fail to recognise the qualifications of migrants from Africa and the Middle East as they have found their education not comparable to a European equivalent qualification. This leads many former professionals to low paid work and the report says, “for companies the refugees are mainly REPORT: Economic Benefits Of Migration Debunked, ‘A Reservoir For Low-Cost Labour’,” and not the engineers and academics many left wing media sources have said.

The report seems rather late when economists from elsewhere have been saying that the migrants will be a net negative for the German economy and rather than a benefit.

Migration Watch UK already debunked a report that tried to explain the economic benefits of the migrant crisis. They determined, as Die Welt has, that putting over a million people on welfare, paying for retraining, language courses, accommodation and the like only takes more money from the German taxpayer instead of supposedly propping up Germany’s decaying welfare state.

The German people themselves appear wiser than the experts who argue the economic benefit. It was revealed that only 16 percent of them believe Chancellor Merkel’s idea of a migrant-fuelled economic miracle, as Breitbart London has reported.