Golan Heights Turning into Terror Base Like Sinai

by Mati Tuchfeld, the AP and Israel Hayom Staff

Maj. Gen. Aviv Kochavi warns "The Golan is liable to become an arena of operations against Israel in much the same way the Sinai is today" • Assad has pulled troops out of the Golan to fight the rebels, creating a power vacuum there • Hezbollah's arsenal six times larger than in 2006 war.

Israel Defense Forces Director of Military Intelligence Maj. Gen. Aviv Kochavi on Tuesday warned that global jihadists have moved into Syrian territory bordering the Golan Heights and could soon use the area to stage attacks on Israel.

In a briefing to the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, Kochavi said that Islamic terrorists have taken advantage of the chaos created by the Syrian civil war to approach the Golan area.

He said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has pulled troops out of the Golan to fight rebels in other parts of the country, after concluding that the likelihood of war with Israel at this time is low.

Kochavi's comments were echoed on Wednesday by Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe (Bogie) Ya'alon, himself a former head of military intelligence. Speaking on Army Radio, Ya'alon said Israel should prepare for instability in Syria to reach the Golan Heights.

"Assad is living on borrowed time, he cannot reconstitute his legitimacy to rule, he's crossed the point of no return," Ya'alon added.

Kochavi told lawmakers that a power vacuum has created a possible arena in the Golan Heights for anti-Israel operations, similar to what was happening in Egypt's Sinai region, where the government in Cairo is finding it hard to impose its authority on the desert peninsula.

"The Golan area is liable to become an arena of operations against Israel in much the same way the Sinai is today, and that's a result of the increasing entrenchment of global jihad in Syria," he said.

An increase in suicide bombings and other signature attacks in Syria has led experts to conclude that al-Qaida is taking a role in the uprising against Assad's regime. Though al-Qaida's main targets have been the West and secular Arab regimes, the group has also tried to attack Israel.

Since the overthrow of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak early last year, terrorists based in Egypt's Sinai have carried out two deadly cross-border raids into Israel and fired several rockets at Israeli territory, and more than 10 terrorist networks based in the Sinai Peninsula have been destroyed recently, Kochavi said.

While Kochavi did not reveal who the terrorists were or who disrupted their networks, he warned the Knesset committee that Islamic terrorists operating out of Sinai would continue in their efforts to create geopolitical crises.

Kochavi said that for Egypt's newly-elected president, Mohammed Morsi, the security situation in Sinai was only a secondary priority, coming after his need to establish his leadership.

"In Egypt there is a clear power struggle between the military and the Islamists. The fact that Egyptian President Morsi is considered the number two man in the Muslim Brotherhood there hurts his confidence to make decisions and obligates him to seek advice from the [Brotherhood's] leadership, which has been kept outside of the president's sphere of power," said Kochavi.

The Israel-Syria border has been mostly quiet since 1974.

Israel, which captured the Golan Heights in the 1967 Six-Day War, has closely monitored the civil war in Syria. While Israel has been careful not to get involved, Israel fears that Assad's formidable arsenal of missiles and chemical weapons could slip into the hands of Hezbollah or other terrorist groups.

Kochavi, repeating the assessment of other Israeli officials, judged Assad's days to be numbered, but he did not estimate how long he would be able to cling to power. "Assad could be in power from anywhere between two months and two years," Kochavi said.

Kochavi showed the panel satellite photographs that he said showed Syrian troops "brutally" firing artillery indiscriminately into an unidentified populated urban area, the meeting participant said. He did not say when or where the attack took place. Kochavi reportedly told the MKs that the Syrian army's brutality was a sign of its frustration at not having better military options against the rebels.

During the civil war in neighboring Syria, Lebanon-based Hezbollah has been supporting the Assad regime, which Israel says has boosted Hezbollah over the years by allowing shipment of Iranian arms through Syrian territory to the Lebanese organization.

Kochavi warned that Hezbollah is preparing for the aftermath of Assad's fall by amassing Iranian weapons.

He estimated Hezbollah now possesses 70,000 to 80,000 missiles and rockets capable of striking Israel — up to six times the number the group possessed before the Second Lebanon War in 2006.

Mati Tuchfeld, the AP and Israel Hayom Staff

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=5096

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

“Yankee Go Home!” Saith the Good Guys

by Barry Rubin

The interesting news was not that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was pelted with stuff while visiting Cairo, the important issue was who was doing the pelting. Once upon a time, anti-American radicals threw things at U.S. leaders. But now….

Reportedly, the hurlers of objects were people from the Free Egyptians Party and other Egyptian liberals. At the same time, leading Christians, including Naguib Sawiris who is the man behind that party and perhaps the most outspoken anti-Islamist figure in Egypt today, refused to meet with Hillary.

Why? Because these people see the Obama Administration as an ally of the Muslim Brotherhood. That might sound far-fetched to the mainstream media (though not to you, dear readers) but it is taken for granted in much of the Middle East. In the articles of liberal Arabs; the statements of Persian Gulf Arab establishment figures; the conversations of Syrian, Turkish, Iranian, and Lebanese oppositionists, the idea that the U.S. government is now helping the Islamists is taken for granted.

Let me repeat that: It is taken for granted.

So it is the liberals, the democrats, the moderates who now view America as their enemy. Yet supposedly the U.S. policy is promoting moderation and democracy, right?

These critics have a strong case. Obama’s Cairo speech was precisely about encouraging Middle Easterners to redefine their identity from a national one—principally Arab—to an Islamic one. Obama invited the Brotherhood to sit in the front row. And when the upsurge in Egypt began and the State Department wanted to support continuity along with reform, the Obama Administration demanded the end of the regime.

Next, without anyone asking him, Obama said the United States wouldn’t mind if the Brotherhood became the government of Egypt. And more recently, of course, he has supported the Brotherhood against the army, demanding that the military turn over power right away, or else.

And in Syria, the Obama Administration backed a Brotherhood-dominated leadership in the Syrian National Council. Islamist Turkey was the ideal country from the White House standpoint, with Obama lavishing praise and almost never criticizing it for becoming pro-Hizballah, pro-Hamas, pro-Iran, pro-Islamist in Syria, and fanatically anti-Israel. And in Bahrain, the Obama Administration was ready to back a revolution putting (Shia) Islamists in power until the State Department stopped it.

“I want to be clear that the United States is not in the business, in Egypt,” says Clinton, “of choosing winners and losers, even if we could, which, of course, we cannot.”

Wrong! While of course Islamists won elections in Egypt and Tunisia (but maybe lost in Libya), the Obama Administration has been working to pick the winners and losers. The winners: revolutionary, antisemitic Islamists; the losers: old regimes and liberal oppositionists.

Is it really the West’s duty to help push a radical Islamist government into power in Egypt as fast as possible? True, the Brotherhood won the parliamentary election but the election was invalidated. By who? Ah, one might expect a leading American newspaper to know that fact. Here’s the Los Angeles Times editorial on the subject:

“To some extent, the military’s power — along with economic realities — may have inclined [Egyptian President Muhammad al-] Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood to a more pluralist and moderate course. But if the generals overplay their hand, they will lose popular support and antagonize Egypt’s allies, including the United States, which provides the military with $1.3 billion a year in assistance. Both Congress and the Obama administration have put the generals on notice that those funds are in jeopardy if the transition to democracy is thwarted. An attempt to shut down a reconvened parliament would be interpreted inside and outside Egypt as just such an obstruction.”

Let’s list the points made here:

–The Muslim Brotherhood has become more pluralist and moderate. Why? Because of the military’s power and economic realities. How is this logical? You mean that the military’s pressure on the Brotherhood has made it more moderate? So by that argument if the military ceased its pressure and turned over government to the Brotherhood then the Brotherhood would be more radical. Yet that is precisely what the Los Angeles Times and much of the media and the Obama Administration is advocating!

How has the economic situation made the Brotherhood more moderate? Presumably because it needs to be so in order to keep Western aid and investment flowing. But both of these factors will be insufficient to help Egypt avoid a crack-up. Then comes the time for demagoguery. Moreover, the bottom line here is to claim that the Brotherhood can be bought off. Like Iran’s regime, Syria’s regime, Saddam Hussein, and others were bought off?

–If the generals try to limit or keep the Muslim Brotherhood out of power they will become less popular. Well, maybe that is so. But popularity isn’t the most important thing in the region. That’s an American obsession, not one from Arab politics.

–The United States doesn’t like the military’s policy and will punish the army (cutting off aid?) if it doesn’t surrender. That’s a terrible policy. Talk about empowering your enemies and bashing your friends! Why should the United States be the new patron of the most dangerously anti-American group in the world? I know. Because the Obama Administration believes that will make the Brotherhood more moderate. Yet even the Obama Administration has seen that this tactic didn’t work with Iran, Syria, Hamas, or Hizballah. Why should it work this time?

Then there are two extremely important points the editorial doesn’t tell you, and you won’t see in many places:

First, let’s remember that the parliamentary election was not invalidated by the army but by the Egyptian courts. Judges have been among the most courageous dissidents in Egypt. Many of them spoke out against the Mubarak regime and they are not the clients of the army but an independent force in their own right. So if you want to exalt the rule of law, you should support the military in trying to enforce a legally binding decision by two Egyptian courts.

Second, the left and liberal forces are largely boycotting the attempt to revive the parliament illegally because they fear the Muslim Brotherhood’s monopoly on power. Have you noticed that moderate support for anti-army demonstrations has dwindled away now? It is the Brotherhood that is going up against the armed forces, though leaving the door open for a deal.

PS: The head of Israel’s military intelligence has said that Israel’s army has stopped a dozen attempted cross-border attacks in Sinai. This is of extraordinary significance since it shows a full-scale offensive is underway and not just the two attacks previously implemented.

Barry Rubin

Source: http://www.gloria-center.org/2012/07/yankee-go-home-saith-the-good-guys/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Obama & Bain: The Ultimate Smear Campaign

by Arnold Ahlert

Barack Obama’s campaign and media surrogates are doing everything they can to deflect the election year conversation away from the president’s record. Their principal method for doing so is as surprising as a sunrise: they’re attacking Mitt Romney with all the effort they can muster. Yet as is so often the case with this president and his defenders, overt lying has become an integral part of the equation. One particular lie stands out above all the rest. In an avalanche of coordinated Chicago-style thuggery, they are trying to convince Americans that Romney is a “possible felon” with respect to his tenure at Bain Capital. And they’re hoping the lie repeated often enough becomes the truth.

Before getting into the details of the current attacks, it is worth reminding readers that this is not the first time Democrats and members of the mainstream media were willing to sacrifice their integrity for the so-called greater good of getting their man into the White House. After the 2008 election, it was revealed that 400 progressive journalists, academics and activists coordinated their efforts to insulate Barack Obama from his former religious mentor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Employees of Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic were all part of the so-called JournoList collaboration. That effort consisted largely of attacking anyone who brought up Wright as “racist,” even as they attempted to keep Wright’s own racist rants under the radar in their respective publications.

The current method of attack is different, but equally insidious. On July 12th, Obama’s deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter suggested Mitt Romney may have committed a felony. Talking with reporters, Cutter said that Romney’s name on the firm’s filings with the SEC, indicating he was CEO of Bain years after he said he ended active involvement with the company, means that “either Mitt Romney, through his own words and his own signature, was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the SEC, which is a felony…Or he was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the American people to avoid responsibility for some of the consequences of his investments.”

Cutter’s accusation was based on an article in the leftist Boston Globe published the same day, purporting to show that Romney was in charge of Bain Capital longer than he had claimed to be. The timing is critical because the Obama campaign has painted Romney as a jobs outsourcer for what Bain did after Romney ceased running the company in February of 1999 to lead the winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. The Globe contends that Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) documents filed by Bain Capital state that Romney remained the firm’s “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president” through at least 2002.

Romney claims he was nothing more than a passive, absentee owner during that time, and despite the Globe’s hyperventilating, critical evidence obtained by Fortune Magazine–also published on July 12th–reveals that Romney was telling the truth. Bain Capital circulated offering documents for its seventh private equity fund in June 2000, listing 18 managers of the fund. Romney’s name is not among them, nor is he listed as a “key investment professional” or as part of the day-to-day operations or investment committee of the Bain Venture Fund established in 2001. He continued to fulfill legal obligations to the firm, such as signing legal documents, but all managerial and investment decisions made from the time he left in 1999 until 2002, when he gave up ownership in the company, were made by others.

That reality remains irrelevant to Obama’s leftist water-carriers. After being informed of the information obtained by Fortune, Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt emailed a response that closely resembled Cutter’s remarks. “Mitt Romney either misled the American people or misrepresented himself to the SEC,” he wrote. “Romney has said he had no authority or responsibility for managing Bain since 1999, but that has been proven false.” The Daily Beast’s Andrew Sullivan claimed Romney is “an obvious perjurer and thereby a felon.” DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz parroted Cutter on MSNBC. “Either Mitt Romney was lying on SEC forms and misrepresenting to his investors –which could be a felony–that he was the sole owner, president, CEO of Bain Capital from 1999 until almost the end of 2001, or he wasn’t and represented that he was,” she said.

Yet this week, Cutter’s position on the issue was “evolving” to say the least. Asked by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Monday whether she had any regret over using the word “felony,” Cutter responded, “No, absolutely not. It’s a fact. If you’re signing federal documents knowing them to be false, it’s a felony.” Yesterday On MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Cutter said she wasn’t implying that Romney had committed a crime–at least at first. “We’re not suggesting Romney committed a crime here,” she contended. “We’re actually suggesting he’s not being up front with the American people about what his involvement was with Bain. And day by day more and more evidence comes out that he was involved with Bain.” Yet when asked if she was walking back her remarks of last week she responded, “No, no.”

Ms. Cutter and the rest of these rumor-mongers have reason to be concerned. Slowly but surely, the truth is trickling out. An article by Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler reveals that the story by the Boston Globe ”seems to hinge on a quote from a former Securities and Exchange Commission member (Roberta S. Karmel), which would have more credibility if the Globe had disclosed she was a regular contributor to Democrats,” and that there “appears to be some confusion about how partnerships are structured and managed, or what SEC documents mean.” The paper also states that in order to believe the claims made by Cutter, et al., “one would have to believe that Romney, with the advice of his lawyers, lied on government documents and committed a criminal offense. Moreover, you would have to assume he willingly gave up his share to a few years of retirement earnings–potentially worth millions of dollars–so he could say his retirement started in 1999.”

The Post also confirmed Fortune’s assessment that Romney “was only a passive investor” in Bain Capital. ABC News came to the same conclusion. “Democrats say it defies common sense that someone who technically owned Bain Capital could have no say whatsoever in its investment activities and operations…But, as fact checkers note, Team Obama does not provide any specific evidence to back up claims that Romney was actively managing Bain between 1999 and 2002.”

Yet a follow-up article by the Washington Post fact-checker — that awarded the Obama campaign three-out-of-four Pinocchios for lying — illuminated the crux of the issue. “Indeed, if someone wanted to make a criminal case (against Romney), why quibble with ancient SEC documents?” asks Kessler. He continued:

In 2011, Romney, as a presidential candidate, filed a public financial disclosure form, under pain of perjury, that stated:

“Mr. Romney retired from Bain Capital on February 11, 1999 to head the Salt Lake Organizing Committee. Since February 11, 1999, Mr. Romney has not had any active role with any Bain Capital entity and has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way.”

Kessler noted that if Romney lied on that form it would indeed be a felony. He concludes his piece with a challenge. “Still, if the Obama campaign wants to put its money where its mouth is, it should immediately lodge a complaint about Romney’s financial disclosure form, filed just last year, rather than try to mislead people about potential violations in relatively unimportant SEC documents.”

Kessler is missing the point. Misleading people is precisely the aim of this whole charade. Nothing illustrates that reality better than the statement made Sunday by Obama campaign advisor David Axelrod on CNN’s “State of the Union.” Referring to Cutter’s either/or contention that Romney lied about his time at Bain Capital, or he lied on SEC filings, Axlerod was asked if Romney was a felon. Axlerod said that if Romney made false allegations on SEC forms, that it would constitute a felony–even as he noted that Cutter did not accuse Romney of actually being a felon.

In other words, rather than making anything resembling a substantiated claim, members of the Obama re-election campaign and their media enablers are resorting to the lowest form of innuendo. Virtually any accusation, no matter how meritless, can be plugged into the formula. Thus, the Obama campaign could say, if Mitt Romney cheated on his wife, then he’s an adulterer — secure in the knowledge that at least some of their media surrogates would be more than willing to run it as a “breaking” news story.

The strategy here is clear. Hurl enough accusations at Romney to make him a reactive candidate, who spends more time defending himself, rather than a proactive candidate who can continue to focus on the president’s dismal economic record, his contempt for the Constitution, and the numerous scandals that afflict his administration. Unfortunately, Mitt Romney rose to the bait, demanding an apology. “He [Obama] sure as heck ought to say that he’s sorry for the kinds of attacks that are coming from his team,” Romney contended.

Such a quixotic request demonstrates a disturbing level of naivete. Hell will freeze over before Obama and his surrogates apologize for anything, much less something that puts Romney on the defensive, no matter how absurd the charges are. It is who they are, and what they do. The sooner Mitt Romney comes to terms with it, the better his chances in November. Counter-punching is insufficient strategy. President Obama, as his most recent attack on private enterprise indicates, intends to expand on his socialist/Marxist vision for America in a second term. Mitt Romney remains the last obstacle in his way.

Arnold Ahlert

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/arnold-ahlert/obama-bain-the-ultimate-smear-campaign/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The Great Betrayal: Obama’s Wars and the War in Iraq

by Frontpagemag.com

Daniel Greenfield’s new Freedom Center pamphlet, The Great Betrayal: Obama’s Wars and the War in Iraq, is an effort to understand the politics of the “war on terror” which has now reached a final punctuation point with the U.S. decision to speed its withdrawal from the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan (where success was once deemed so crucial to national security), and to practice an incoherent form of regime change in Libya while ignoring more serious threats in Syria and Iran.

The war on terror began, Greenfield shows, as an admirable bipartisan commitment soon after the tragedy of 9/11—an effort to transcend party lines not only to punish those who attacked our country but also to interrupt planning for further attacks and try to stop the international spread of the Islamic jihad behind the attacks. But the Democratic Party, with the honorable exception of a few individuals like Richard Gephardt and Joe Lieberman, turned its back on a war soon after authorizing it, and did so at a time when American troops were facing hostile enemy fire.

Although Senate Democrats on the intelligence oversight committee had been granted access to every piece of data available to the White House, they now accused President Bush of tricking them to secure their approval. In fact, their own about-face was entirely dictated by political considerations when a Sixties antiwar activist, Howard Dean, surged ahead in the Democratic primary polls and it appeared for a moment that Americans were on the side of retreat and capitulation.

Although regime change in Iraq had been official U.S. policy since Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, Democratic senators such as John Kerry who only months earlier had supported the war effort now launched demoralizing attacks on the American commander-in-chief and his troops in the field, stigmatizing it as “the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.” If the truth was the first casualty of their war against the Bush administration, the second casualty was the principle of bi-partisanship that had guided foreign policy debates throughout the Cold War, the principle that “politics stops at the water’s edge.” Now partisan politics trumped security.

The unrestrained attacks on the Iraq War as illegal and unjustified went largely unanswered by Republicans who failed to call the Democratic saboteurs of the nation’s war effort to account or to decry the risk their cynical attacks posed to American servicemen and women on the battlefield. As Greenfield demonstrates, the Democrats’ partisanship had consequences not only in Iraq but elsewhere in the region: the paralysis that resulted from their “anti-war” campaign led straight to the destruction of Lebanon and the installation of a terrorist army, Hezbollah, there as a regime within a regime. And it emboldened an overtly Islamofascist regime in Iran not only to supply the IEDs responsible for most of our troop fatalities in Iraq but also to proceed with a nuclear program aimed directly at Israel and the West.

The Great Betrayal shows that Barack Obama’s abandonment of Iraq is a betrayal of all the Americans and Iraqis who gave their lives to establish freedom in that country. And the result of his policies in Afghanistan has been as disastrous. While the President presented his rationale for pursuing war there as the pursuit of al-Qaeda, after abandoning his “surge” (which resulted in two thirds of all America’s Afghan casualties there and the resurgence of the Taliban allies of al-Qaeda), he blithely prepared for withdrawal as if national objectives had been met.

Order your copy of The Great Betrayal by clicking here.

Frontpagemag.com

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/frontpagemag-com/the-great-betrayal/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Anti-Semitism Sweeping France

by Peter Martino

If Europe fails to protect its Jews, it must be feared that soon Christians, too, will no longer feel safe in Europe. When the Jews are made to flee, it will not be long before others will have to flee as well.

Early this month, the French weekly magazine Le Nouvel Observateur devoted a cover article and several other articles to the phenomenon of the rising anti-Semitism in France. The magazine referred to several incidents of anti-Jewish violence during the previous weeks.

The Council of Jewish Institutions in France (CRIF) keeps track of anti-Semitic incidents. In the last decade, the number rose well above 300 incidents per year. In 2010, there were 466 incidents. In 2011, there were 389. However, 2012 will break the record. During the first five months of 2012, already 268 incidents of hatred against Jews have been reported. In certain neighborhoods of Paris, Marseille or Lyons it is no longer safe for Jews to walk the streets.

Young Jews in particular are made to suffer for their Jewishness. Le Nouvel Observateur relates how Elie M., a 12-year old Jewish Parisian, told his parents that he wants to have his name changed because he is being called "dirty Jew" at school.

On 26 March, an 11-year old Jewish boy was hit in the face in front of his school in Paris by a man who was screaming "Dirty Jew." That same day, in the Rhone Valley, youths threw stones at a rabbi. On 30 April, two Jewish boys were beaten up in Marseille by an aggressor shouting: "We support the Palestinians. You will be killed, you will be exterminated." On 8 June, a Jewish adolescent was beaten up by three youths who were shouting anti-Semitic insults. In early June, three Jews were attacked by a gang who hit one of the Jews on the head with a hammer.

On 5 July, the very day that the Nouvel Observateur was published, a 17-year old Jew was beaten up in a train near Toulouse because he was wearing a necklace with a Star of David. The aggressors were two 18-year old Frenchmen of North African origin who had just applied to join the French army. The victim was a student at the same Jewish school where last March the jihadist Mohammed Merah murdered a rabbi and three children.

Mohammed Merah, the Nouvel Observateur points out, has become a role model for many young French of Islamic origin. In many French schools, incidents occurred while a minute of silence was being observed for the victims of the Jewish school in Toulouse. Iannis Roder, a teacher of history and geography in Saint-Denis near Paris, confirmed in the magazine that anti-Semitism is rising in French schools and that almost always the anti-Jewish venom is coming from Islamic youths. As soon as the Holocaust is mentioned in class, or whenever lessons deal with a historic French figure who is Jewish, such as Léon Blum, Muslim pupils start making anti-Jewish remarks.

While the culprits of anti-Semitic acts are predominantly Muslims, analysts point out that there are some unsettling similarities with the European anti-Semitism of the 1930s. As then, anti-Semitism goes hand in hand with anti-Americanism. As then, the Jews are depicted as rich and powerful capitalists who manipulate the media and rule the world through their money -- a bizarre assertion when one considers that today Arab plutocrats control so many Western media outlets.

According to Muslim youths interviewed by the Nouvel Observateur, of every meal bought at McDonalds one euro is paid by McDonalds to the Israeli army. Coca Cola, too, is part of the Americo-Jewish plot as its logo, when read from back to front, allegedly reads: "No to Allah, no to the Prophet." This information, they claim, is well known, although it will never be heard on French television because French television "belongs to the Jews."

Because of the rising anti-Semitism, many Jews no longer send their children to public shools. The number of children in Jewish schools has increased to 30,000 and is growing every year. Many of the 600,000 Jews in France no longer feel safe in the country. "People ask themselves whether they should stay," says Sammy Ghozlan of the National Bureau of Vigilance Against Anti-Semitism, a French Jewish organization. Young Jews dream of a safer future in the United States or Israel.

Unfortunately, the situation in other West European countries is grimly similar to that in France. Last month, the Italian journalist Giulio Meotti wrote an article about the plight of the Jews in Italy. He described how synagogues and Jewish schools in Rome are protected by cameras, metal detectors, security guards and police officers, while their windows are plumbed with iron grates like the Jewish homes of Hebron and the schools of Sderot.

Already in 2006, the London Daily Telegraph ran a story entitled, "Is this the last generation of British Jews?" In 1990, there were estimated to be about 340,000 Jews in Britain. By 2006, the population had declined by a fifth to 270,000. While the article dealt mainly with the consequences of secularism and intermarriage, it referred to a parliamentary inquiry which stated "that anti-semitic violence has become endemic in Britain, both on the streets and university campuses."

As in France, in Britain, in the past few years, emigration to Israel has doubled. The Jewish population in the United Kingdom is expected to decline to 240,000 by 2020, 180,000 by 2050, and 140,000 by 2080.

In the Netherlands, in 2010, Frits Bolkestein, a prominent Dutch Conservative and former European Commissioner, said there is no future for Jews in his country because of "anti-Semitism among Dutchmen of Moroccan descent, whose number keeps growing." He referred to the increase in anti-Semitic incidents in the Netherlands over the past decade and urged Jews to "emigrate to the U.S. or Israel."

As always, the Jews are like the canary in the coalmine. If Europe fails to protect its Jews, it must be feared that soon Christians, too, will no longer feel safe in Europe. When the Jews are made to flee, it will not be long before others will have to flee as well. Recently, Monsignor Anba Damian, bishop of the Coptic Church in Germany, warned that persecutions of Christians might soon be a reality in Germany. "There is a real danger that an ever more dominant Islam in Germany will seriously threaten Christians," he said. Many think the Bishop is scaremongering. However, as teacher Iannis Roder said in the Nouvel Observateur, in the late 1990s, he could not have believed that anti-Semitism would again become a common phenomenon in France. "I am from a generation that thought that anti-Semitism had died with the Shoah [Holocaust]. I could never have imagined that it would resurface."

Peter Martino

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3168/anti-semitism-sweeping-france

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Jihadi Tourism Hits Europe

by Soeren Kern

European security officials are especially concerned about reports that al-Qaeda is recruiting and training Western operatives who have "clean" criminal records and have the ability to travel freely and blend in with European and American cultures.

Increasing numbers of Muslims in Europe are travelling to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and other conflict zones to obtain training in terrorist methods.

Although intelligence agencies have been following the trend since the July 2005 bombings of the London commuter system, which were perpetrated by four home-grown Islamic terrorists, the scale of the problem has come into greater focus in recent weeks.

European security officials are especially concerned about reports that al-Qaeda is recruiting and training Western operatives who have "clean" criminal records and have the ability to travel freely and blend in with European and American cultures.

In Norway, for example, an ethnic Norwegian convert to militant Islam who has received terrorist training from al-Qaeda's offshoot in Yemen, is awaiting orders to carry out an attack on the West, officials from three European security agencies said on June 25.

European officials have confirmed that the man is "operational," meaning he has completed his training and is about to receive a target. Although the terrorist-in-waiting is believed to still be in Yemen, even if he is found he cannot be extradited: under Norwegian law it is not a crime to attend a terrorist training camp.

The London-based newspaper Sunday Times, quoting intelligence services, published a story on July 1 that said the Norwegian jihadist had been trained by Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula [AQAP] to evade airport security and is plotting to hijack an American passenger plane and, in a suicide mission, crash it. The newspaper portrayed the plot as an attack on the upcoming London Olympics, to be held from July 27 to August 12, but said the target was specifically supposed to be an American aircraft.

The paper described the recruit as being a Norwegian citizen in his 30s, with no immigrant background, but who calls himself Abu Abdulrahman. The man, who converted to Islam in 2008, has apparently in recent months been undergoing training at AQAP bases in Yemen.

According to a detailed report in the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet, on July 5, the individual is a 33-year-old Norwegian who, in his youth, was associated with Oslo's far-left Blitz movement. Despite his one-time radical credentials, he later worked as a babysitter at a daycare center in Oslo, the city where he was born and raised. He did not have a history of violence, the paper said.

Dagbladet went on to report that eventually he became a member of the Green Party; a source close to the suspect said that, after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, he had come to be viewed as an easily-led conspiracy theorist.

His ideological priorities shifted, according to the paper, after he married the daughter of a diplomat from an unspecified North African country. In 2008, he converted to Islam and underwent a change of lifestyle: he gave up alcohol and broke off almost all contact with his earlier friends. The newspaper stated that he recently became a father, and that his wife had travelled to her home country with their child.

Jonathan Evans, the head of MI5, Britain's domestic security service, recently provided important context to the threat posed by would-be jihadists. In a rare public address on June 25, Evans said the Olympic Games in London "present an attractive target for our enemies and they will be at the center of the world's attention in a month or so. No doubt some terrorist networks have thought about whether they could pull off an attack."

"In back rooms and in cars and on the streets of this country there is no shortage of individuals talking about wanting to mount terrorist attacks here," Evans continued. "It is essential that we maintain pressure on al-Qaeda."

Evans also said that al-Qaeda militants are using the countries which toppled their leaders in the Arab Spring as bases to train radical Western youths for potential attacks on Britain: "This is the completion of a cycle. Al-Qaida first moved to Afghanistan in the 1990s due to pressure in their Arab countries of origin. They moved on to Pakistan after the fall of the Taliban. And now some are heading home to the Arab world again."

"Today," Evans added, "parts of the Arab world have once more become a permissive environment for al-Qaeda. A small number of British would-be jihadis are also making their way to Arab countries to seek training and opportunities for militant activity, as they do in Somalia and Yemen. Some will return to the UK and pose a threat here. This is a new and worrying development and could get worse."

Some 100-200 British residents are thought to be involved in militant activities in the Middle East and the Horn of Africa, mostly young men from cities such as London and Birmingham between the ages of 18 and 30, according to MI5.

Although al-Qaeda has made no successful attack on Britain since 2005, Evans said the threat has not evaporated, and that Britain has been the target of credible terrorist plot every year since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.

A suspected al-Qaeda militant and would-be suicide bomber, for example, was caught at the Olympic Park in London on July 7. The 24 year-old has previously tried to get to Afghanistan, allegedly for terrorist training; he is suspected of fighting for the Somali Islamist group al Shabaab, which has been responsible for thousands of deaths, including those of Western aid workers. He is also accused of trying to recruit other Britons to the Islamist cause.

In Germany, the country's international broadcaster, Deutsche Welle, published a detailed story about German jihadists on July 2. Citing intelligence sources, Deutsche Welle reported that "since the beginning of the 1990s, around 235 people with German connections and Islamic terrorist backgrounds have at least attempted to obtain paramilitary training." There is concrete evidence that around 100 were actually trained or engaged in military operations. More than half of those are said to be back in Germany, and around 10 have been imprisoned.

Deutsche Welle interviewed a spokesman for Germany's domestic intelligence agency, the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (BfV), who said: "Should they [the jihadists] return to Germany, these people could be involved in activity which poses a threat to national security. Another risk factor is that these people have big reputations in the Islamist scene. That can lead to the further radicalization of Islamists who until now weren't necessarily prepared to engage in violent conflict."

The report also describes the lives of two Turkish-German brothers from the German city of Wuppertal, who went to join Islamist fighters in the mountainous Pakistani region of Waziristan on the border of Afghanistan. One of the brothers, named Bünyamin, was killed by an American drone attack shortly after his arrival in October 2010. (His death caused German politicians to protest the American policy of drone strikes in Pakistan.)

After Bünyamin died, his brother, Emrah, left Waziristan and travelled to Somalia where he joined al-Shabaab militants in Somalia. East African security agents became aware of him at the end of May 2012 in connection with an attack in Kenya on a shopping mall. He was arrested in Tanzania on June 10, 2012, and later deported to Germany. The Federal Prosecutor's Office has accused him of being "an active member of the foreign terrorist association al-Qaeda."

Deutsche Welle also made mention of Mounir and Yassin Chouka, two Moroccan brothers from Bonn who regularly appear in German-language propaganda videos from Waziristan. In the most recent video, dated May 2012, Yassin called for the murder of journalists and activists from the conservative political party, PRO NRW, which is opposed to the Islamization of Germany.

A new book, entitled, "Young, German, Taliban," sums it up nicely. Author Wolf Schmidt, who is also the editor of Berlin-based newspaper Tageszeitung, states: "Many of these young men intended to go to Chechnya, but ended up in Pakistan. They don't know the war zone, have relatively little idea about the conflict, and often have shockingly little knowledge of the religion which they claim to defend."

Soeren Kern is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook.

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3178/jihadi-tourism-europe

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Honor Violence in America

by Abigail R. Esman

Other girls, unable to resolve the conflict between submitting to a marriage, and essentially being raped by a stranger – not to mention the physical torture and possible murder if they resist – prefer to end their lives.

Aiya Altemeemi, aged 19, suffered a punishment last February that none of her schoolmates in Phoenix, Arizona could have imagined: her father cut her throat with a kitchen knife. When she escaped to her bedroom, her mother and sisters followed, tied her to her bed, taped her mouth shut, and beat her. And this was not the first time: previously, when Aiya had expressed reservations about marrying the 38-year-old man her parents had chosen as her husband, her mother had shackled her to the same bed and burned her with a hot spoon.

Despite such treatment, Aiya, who arrived from Iraq with her parents around three years ago, soon after announced to stunned reporters that she understood why her mother had assaulted her: "Because I talked to a boy, and that is not normal with her, that is not my religion. My religion says no talking to boys."

Alhough Aiya's was among the few to receive media attention, stories like hers are far more common than most people would imagine. In what is known as "honor violence," mistreatment includes not just beatings, but acid attacks, setting a woman on fire, severing her nose from her face -- particularly in Pakistani and Afghan communities -- and other forms of mutilation.

Such incidents, which occur mainly in Muslim and Hindu families, have been the focus of attention in Europe for several years -- largely thanks to the efforts of Somali-Dutch activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who first brought the problem to light some ten years ago in the Netherlands. Since then, research has uncovered disturbing statistics: 400 to 600 incidents of honor violence are recorded annually in the Netherlands alone, with around 12 honor killings a year each in Germany and the Netherlands. And in England, where the directors of one center say they receive 500 calls for help from victims of honor violence every month, and where police estimate there are between 3,000 and 17,000 incidents of honor violence each year, a recent report contends that one-fifth of all South Asian immigrants believe that "certain acts thought to shame families were justification for violence."

Americans, however, have been reluctant to accept the notion that honor violence occurs on US soil, just as – until recently – they insisted that the radicalization of Muslims in Europe was not a problem that could confront Americans. But with events such as Nidal Malik Hassan's 2009 attack at Fort Hood and the would-be Times Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad, we've learned otherwise: radical Islam is alive and well in these United States and with it, religious and culturally-based violence against women.

CBS News has reported that, "According to a survey, the [Virginia-based] Tahirih Justice Center conducted of more than 500 social service, religious, legal, educational and medical agencies last year, 67 percent responded that they believed there were cases of forced marriage occurring among the populations they serve, but only 16 percent felt their agency was equipped to deal with the situation." Yet no one had ever investigated the problem.

Now Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) has introduced a bill that promises to make clear just how big the problem is, and – if necessary – to develop programs to address it.

Those who have experience with the issue say that such programs are sorely needed: while Americans are growing more aware of honor killings, they are less conscious of honor violence -- a more insidious but even larger phenomenon. Moreover, domestic violence shelters and services are not adequately suited to handle the problem, , which encompasses more complex and dangerous situations, and which often require a different kind of outreach: honor violence victims are often immigrants with little or no understanding of the resources available, few outside contacts, and in the case of Muslims, are often not even allowed access to the outside world except when accompanied by a male family member.

More significantly, in cases of honor violence, the entire family –- even the entire community –- is involved. Where a domestic violence victim can often find shelter with a friend or family member, such refuge is usually impossible for these women. "What do we do with a teenager runaway? Ninety-nine percent of the time, we take her home," Peoria, Arizona, Detective Chris Boughey told CBS. "But some of these girls end up getting killed."

For this reason, many of the victims of honor violence -– girls and women who have, for instance, refused a promised marriage; fallen in love with a boy the parents do not accept; or who are too Westernized, at least according to the family's standards -- are not safe even in domestic violence shelters. The situation has grown so difficult that in the Netherlands, young girls are sometimes sequestered in prison cells -- the only place where they can be certain they are safe. Some will only appear in public in disguise, including full face masks and wigs. Other girls, unable to resolve the conflict between submitting to marriage, and essentially being raped by a stranger -- not to mention the physical torture and possible murder if they resist -- prefer to end their lives. Carla Rus, a psychiatrist who specializes in working with these women in the Netherlands, reports that suicide among young Hindu and Muslim women is as much as five times higher than among the rest of the population.

According to Congressman Wolf, the new bill will allow the FBI and other law enforcement agencies to examine the extent of the problem in the US, based not only on Aiya Altameemi's case, but on research from Tahirih, in addition to the cases that have ended in the death of the victims: girls such as Jessica Mokdad, murdered at 20 by her father, an Iraqi immigrant; Noor Al-Maleki, also Iraqi, who was also 20 when her father ran her down in the family car (she, too, had refused an arranged marriage, and was considered "too Westernized" by the family); and Aasiya Hassan in Buffalo, NY, whose husband, when she threatened to leave their marriage, beheaded her.

"This is just the beginning," notes Wolf. "It's from here that we will look to find out if there really is a problem, or if this is just an isolated few incidents. Until now, it seems the FBI has not wanted to look at it; but there seem to be enough dots on the page that we feel it is time for them to gather data."

Not everyone, however, finds this idea admirable. Some worry that the bill targets Muslims, defining a category of crime that singles out specific cultures and religions.

"That's ridiculous," says Rep. Wolf; he points out that his office has long championed issues on freedom-of-religion. "If there are honor killings and honor violence, wherever it's going on, it ought to be ended. This is just the beginning of our country beginning to deal with this issue in a way that we should have been dealing with it a long time ago."

Abigail R. Esman

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3176/honor-violence-in-america

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Obamanomics 101

by Greg Richards

On Friday night, in a campaign stop in Roanoke, Virginia, President Obama made what Michael Kinsley has called a gaffe. In Washington, a gaffe is when you tell the truth, or, in this case, say what you really think:

"If you've got a business - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

He left out the best part: "from each according to his ability; to each according to his need." This second quote, of course, is not from Obama, but from Marx. It should be engraved over each encampment of the gulags around the world.

Socialism is the doctrine that dare not speak its name. Conservatives run for office proudly on conservative philosophy, now summarized by the Tea Party as: fiscal responsibility - limited government - free markets. Socialists have to dissemble. Obama is not running and will not run as a socialist even though everybody knows he is one.

What is interesting about this quote, however, is that Obama is right. "You" didn't build that. You didn't go out and make the turbine to generate the electricity and string the wires to carry it to your factory or office. You didn't go out and mine the coal that heats the boilers that run the turbine. You didn't go out and smelt the steel to make the rails which were laid on rights of way to bring the coal to the boiler to make the electricity!

But if you didn't do all these things, how did they happen? By the division of labor in an advanced, transaction-based economy. How did each piece of the economy that you used get put there? Through the self-interest and incentives of other people. Each person along the supply chain had to see that creating a piece of that supply chain would serve the need of a customer, of his fellow-man.

But he didn't supply that need altruistically. At each step, the need was supplied at a cost less than the value that the user put on the good or service! That is how the economy created the wealth - the infrastructure - to serve "your" company.

And how were those services directed to your company? You paid for them. That is how the suppliers of goods and services and rights of way were compensated. Going further back, that is how your teacher was compensated - he was paid for his services.

Was that the only motivation of your teachers and suppliers? What leftists don't understand is that in 99% of the cases, the answer is "no." Your teacher might have seen it as an obligation to educate the next generation. The designer of the generator very likely took great pleasure in seeing his design become manifest in a piece of machinery. There is morality all along the line in free market transactions. It is not only illegal to defraud your customer, it is considered immoral to do so.

But, as they put it at Lincoln Center (the center for performing fine arts in New York City), "We can't live on love alone." We all want to get paid as much as we can for our work. That is human nature. That is self-interest. What the free market does is harness that self-interest - what Obama calls "everybody for himself" - into the service of the community.

Did "somebody else make that happen?" Absolutely. Many people. They did so on their own initiative because they by being paid they had the incentive to do so in a transactions-based free market economy. They did not need bureaucrats directing them. As for the public services "you" used? You paid your share of them through taxes. And you enabled the people who work at your company and for your supply chain to pay their share of taxes.

Greg Richards

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/07/obamanomics_101.html

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

New Obama Birth Certificate Forgery Proof in the Layers

by Mara Zebest

My newly released report examines the metadata and object code of Obama's long-form birth certificate PDF file and explains how this information corroborates the claim that Obama's PDF file never originated as a paper document, but rather was born in cyberspace or was -- to put it another way -- digitally manufactured. The only time Obama's long-form birth certificate image exists as a paper document is when a computer user selects Print from the File menu. Obama's PDF file, like everything else from this administration, is a composite, a lie, an illusion -- even down to the deceptive colors presented in the file.

The focus of this report is centered on Obama's PDF file released on April 27, 2011; the file can be downloaded at this White House link. From the moment Obama's PDF file was posted, numerous professionals have been speaking out on the multitude of anomalies. The most notable indicator of malfeasance within Obama's PDF file is the presence of multiple layers. A document scanned into a computer should only contain one layer -- known as a flattened file. However, Obama's PDF file not only contained more than one layer; it contained nine layers that clearly display recognizable signs of forgery, along with a host of other manipulative indicators. The problems range from Tom Harrison's observation of undisturbed safety-paper pattern beneath white dots to a clipping mask path that hides data and more.

Because layers are the most obvious symptom of foul play, it may be helpful to understand what layers are and what advantages layers provide. Layers are analogous to transparencies used on a projector in what will be referred to as the analog world. Content is printed on separate sheets (or layers), which allows the user to move, add, or remove a sheet element independently of the remaining sheets. The total composite dofcument comprises the combined stack of transparency sheets.

The digital equivalent allows a user to add or move digital image information (or text) onto separate layers. This, of course, would be a manual and manipulative choice. Like their analog parallel, layers can provide a means to maneuver individual elements within the image independently of surrounding image pieces.

The layers have been the most damning and problematic evidence of file-manipulation, and the defenders of Obama are quick to respond with a plethora of explanations to justify the presence of layers. The excuses range from OCR (Optical Character Recognition) software to the more predominant excuse of optimization -- both of which have been debunked in my previous report for the Cold Case Posse press conference.

Many Obama defenders have conceded that OCR is not a factor and admit that OCR was never applied to the PDF file. However, arguments for optimization still persist. Optimization refers to a file-saving process in which the goal is to reduce the file size while maintaining (or optimizing) the quality of the image (as best as possible depending on the settings applied).

Those who insist on the optimization argument either do not understand what attributes need to be present for this argument to hold water -- or they are hoping the general public does not understand. It's probably a little of both. The defenders certainly count on the ignorance of the average citizen when it comes to understanding the differences in layers produced from an automated process (such as optimization) compared to a manual choice to manipulate the file. One goal of the report is to offer a deeper understanding for recognizing the two patterns of layering (and to avoid being deceived or bamboozled). The report adds additional proof along the way that the optimization excuse fails miserably and can be completely ruled out as a justification for layers.

One particular and significant point to understand: not all optimization processes are created equal, and only certain programs will create (automated) layers when optimizing. Adobe Acrobat Pro is the most commonly used program capable of creating layers from an automated process such as optimization, but even Acrobat Pro does not always produce layers when optimizing a file. The method and settings applied during the saving process play a factor in whether layers will be automatically generated or not. To be clearer on this point, programs like Photoshop and Illustrator will not automatically generate layers when optimizing a file (regardless of the circumstances). Any layered files generated from these programs are reflective merely of layers manufactured by the user.

The problems for the opposition increases when the metadata is considered. So what is metadata? If you've ever examined a file and noticed property information such as the creation date, modified date, or the program used to create the file, this is known as metadata. The metadata for Obama's PDF reveals that a Mac-based program called Preview was used to generate the optimized PDF file.

Preview is a program that allows a user to open and view a file (as the name suggests). Preview can view a range of file types created from other programs as well as allow a user to re-save the file in any file format available within Preview. Preview is limited in its abilities and certainly not a program used to create a layered file from scratch. The optimization argument becomes increasingly problematic when it is understood that Preview is incapable of producing or generating layers automatically from an optimization process (when saving a file). Preview will only maintain pre-existing layers produced from another program. Thus, Obama's PDF layers had to be generated from another program prior to being saved from Preview.

One more important point regarding Preview's role in creating Obama's PDF file: if a file is produced in another program, opened, and saved again within Preview, the metadata from any prior programs used is replaced with Preview metadata, thus eliminating any digital tracks for the previous programs utilized in the process (such as Photoshop or Illustrator, which might imply manipulation).

Along with metadata, object code is also buried within the PDF file -- which refers to the code that describes the attributes or properties present for each file object (and can be seen by opening the PDF file in WordPad or Word). Layers within the Obama PDF file would be examples of objects described in the object code. The report examines the layer object code, along with how the code properties can be applied in analyzing automated layers -- produced by an Acrobat optimized document -- against the manufactured layers -- produced in Obama's PDF file. Visible and consistent patterns in optimized layers do not exist in Obama's PDF file.

One of the object code properties examined will be BitsPerComponent (seen in the figure), which is typically followed by a numeric value of 1 or 8. To simplify, this refers to either a 1-bit layer or an 8-bit layer, respectively. In layman's language, a 1-bit layer that also contains an ImageMask true property (in the object code) equates to a layer that is capable of containing only one single color -- black. Conversely, an 8-bit (ColorSpace) layer is capable of containing more than one color -- indeed, of containing any color value (not restricted to just black). If this concept is clear, then the rest is easy, and the report will explain these concepts further.

The bottom line, documented in detail within the report, is that an optimized layer pattern will contain only a single layer of 1-bit quality that displays black only. All remaining layers (in an optimized file) are 8-bit -- containing multiple colors. In other words, the optimization process pulls out all the black color onto one (1-bit) layer -- not two (1-bit) layers, not three (1-bit) layers...just one layer, with this 1-bit object code attribute.

Obama's PDF file (as seen in the figure) contains EIGHT 1-bit layers -- all of which fail to reflect a black color. However, the colors presented are a deception. The black is there, but it's hidden in plain sight (as outlined in the report).

Taking into account the multiple 1-bit layers embedded in Obama's file, combined with the associated color-manipulation defined in the report, it is impossible to duplicate these file attributes through scanning or any other argument thrown at the debate, which currently includes:

• Optimization
• Adaptive compression
• MRC (Mixed Raster Content) compression
• JBIG2
• Adobe Acrobat Pro, and...
• OCR

Here's a challenge to anyone who would like to defend the list of excuses or to supplement any additional excuses. It is advised (before doing so) to carefully read the report, examining the provided figure of object code for the nine layers found in Obama's PDF (with important properties highlighted). Then run tests to see if any of the described suppositions proposed in the above bulleted list (or any new excuses being considered) can produce object code exactly as seen in the capture (without manipulation). The final result must include eight 1-bit Image Mask true layers (with FlateDecode, as seen in the figure), and one 8-bit ColorSpace layer (with DCTDecode, as seen for this last layer). Oh, and as an added bonus, the 1-bit layers (all eight of them) need to have colors displayed that are not within a pure (grayscale color value) range of black.

When these displayed attributes from Obama's PDF anomalies are reproduced via scanning and optimization settings, please publish the winning recipe settings for all to verify. And don't forget to include a refry from Preview as the last step. If you cannot document the winning recipe, then supposition does not count, and therefore you have nothing -- which falls into the category of misinformation, misunderstanding, misrepresenting, and misdirecting.

Obama's PDF object code properties cannot be reproduced without manufacturing and manipulating layers. Any layers produced through optimizing will result in a single 1-bit layer. Repeat: just one 1-bit layer -- not eight. In the case of adaptive compression, the color on the 1-bit layer will reflect a black color value -- not off-white, not greenish-black, not greenish-gray (as displayed in Obama's PDF file).

The report will detail these concepts and provide a documented recipe on how the layers in Obama's PDF file can be replicated down to the metadata, object code, and low file size. Here's a hint: the only way it was possible was through complete image manipulation and manufacturing of layers. The winning recipe included Photoshop, Illustrator, and Preview (in that order).

Watch related American Thinker Video selection.

Mara Zebest is a graphic artist and co-author for a number of Adobe product books including the Inside Photoshop series, which typically exceeded 1,000 pages and was published in at least ten different languages around the world. Ms. Zebest is also tech editor for numerous books for both Adobe and Microsoft products and has worked closely with the Cold Case Posse (CCP) for the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) in providing evidence on Obama's forged birth certificate.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/new_obama_birth_certificate_forgery_proof_in_the_layers.html

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Jerusalem Sovereignty According to International Law

by Dr. Jacques Gauthier

Dr. Jacques Gauthier is an expert in International Law who has made it his mission to establish coolly and methodically, which body has sovereignty over Jerusalem according to International Law.

Dr. Jacques Gauthier

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zf8cF1HYqN8&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.