FROM PHOPECY NEWS WATCH

Seismic fault beneath us is ‘fully loaded’ after 311 years




http://heraldnet.com/





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



As if you didn’t have enough worries, here is one more to add to that massive list:



“It’s been 300 years,” Bill Steele said Tuesday. “We have a fully loaded subduction zone.”



Actually, it’s been 311 years since the Great Cascadia Earthquake of 1700.



Steele, a University of Washington seismologist and spokesman for the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network, said scientists have determined the monster quake occurred Jan. 26, 1700 — 311 years ago tonight.



It happened off the Northwest coast, and created huge tsunamis that devastated shorelines here and in Japan.



What’s amazing is how much is known, considering that in 1700 there were no Europeans in the Northwest. British Capt. George Vancouver wouldn’t find his way here until 1792. The Lewis and Clark Expedition to the West didn’t start until 1804. Historians have no original account of the 1700 quake written from a Western perspective.



“There’s quite a detective story of how we know all that. It’s fantastic,” Steele said.



First, a quick explanation of what happened from the online encyclopedia HistoryLink:



“The earthquake ruptured what is known as the Cascadia subduction zone — the area of overlap between two of the tectonic plates that make up the Earth’s surface, the Juan de Fuca plate and the North American plate.” The 2003 HistoryLink essay by Greg Lange, citing scientists who studied the quake, said the event dropped the whole Pacific Northwest coastline 3 to 6 feet, and that the tsunami was as high as 33 feet.



Knowledge of all that comes from both recent science and long-ago legends and tales of American Indians. Ruth Ludwin, a former University of Washington geophysics professor, has studied and published evidence of the quake found in native lore, Steele said.



“There are a large number of Native American legends and tales of meadows reclaimed by the sea, of great shaking and landslides, and of whole villages wiped out with canoes found in the trees,” he said. “It may have killed tens of thousands of people, but there is no written record of that.”



Scientific evidence of the 1700 earthquake comes from Dr. Brian Atwater of the U.S. Geological Survey, Japan’s Kenji Satake and other researchers. Their work identifying “ghost forests” and an “orphan tsunami” is no less compelling than the Native legends.



“Brian Atwater uncovered a layer cake of soils,” Steele said. At Willapa Bay on the southwest Washington coast, he said, there are five layers where scientists see transitions from marshy tidal estuary to woody soil, indicating trees, all covered by layers of sand and bay mud.



The layers show places where land levels rapidly changed. And studies of the roots of trees in what Steele called “ghost forests” showed that trees died between the growing season of 1699 and before their sap would have come in 1700.



Steele said Kenji Satake, of the Geological Survey of Japan, found records of samurai lords, who kept track of rice harvests. Those detailed records, Steele said, showed that an “orphan tsunami” — a giant wave without any shaking in the area — hit the coast of Japan on Jan. 27, 1700. “It did kill a number of people in Japan,” Steele said.



By working with those records and wave speed, he said, scientists determined that the quake hit the Northwest coast about 9 p.m. Jan. 26, 1700.



“It’s quite a marvelous story, what happened and the impact. No one wrote about it in the West,” he said.



It’s fascinating, but frightening, too.



Steele said it takes hundreds of years to build up the strain that causes a subduction zone earthquake. “The toe of North America, the edge, is being shoved downward. It’s like bending a ruler back,” he said, adding that the 1700 quake was the last one known to have occurred on the Cascadia subduction zone.



Remember — it’s “fully loaded.”



“It could produce another one tomorrow, or maybe a century or more away,” Steele said. “Certainly geologically, in the not too distant future we’re going to have another one.”



Steele is all for being prepared — whether it’s keeping supplies on hand at home, making sure homes and public buildings are up to withstanding big quakes, or assuring that people who live on the coast have evacuation routes.



It takes money, and recognizing the risks.

FROM PHOHECY

Muslim Brotherhood: Arabs will topple leaders allied with the United States




http://apnews.myway.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The leader of Jordan's powerful Muslim Brotherhood warned Saturday that unrest in Egypt will spread across the Mideast and Arabs will topple leaders allied with the United States.



Hammam Saeed's comments were made at a protest outside the Egyptian Embassy in Amman, inspired by massive rallies in neighboring Egypt demanding the downfall of the country's longtime president, Hosni Mubarak.



About 100 members of the fundamentalist group and activists from other leftist organizations and trade unions chanted "Mubarak, step down" and "the decision is made, the people's revolt will remain."



Elsewhere, a separate group of 300 protesters gathered in front of the office of Jordanian Prime Minister Samir Rifai, demanding his ouster. "Rifai, it's time for you to go," chanted the group.



Jordan's protests have been relatively small in size, but they underline a rising tension with Jordan's King Abdullah II, a key U.S. ally who has been making promises of reform in recent days in an apparent attempt to quell domestic discontent over economic degradation and lack of political freedoms.



But as a monarch with deep support from the Bedouin-dominated military, Jordan's ruler is not seen as vulnerable as Mubarak or Tunisia's deposed leader. Even the Brotherhood - a fiery critic of Jordan's moderate government - has remained largely loyal to the king, who claims ancestry to Islam's Prophet Muhammad.



Many believe it's unlikely King Abdullah will bow to demands for popular election of the prime minister and Cabinet officials, traditionally appointed by the king.



Saeed said Arabs have grown disgruntled with U.S. domination of their oil wealth, military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and its support for "totalitarian" leaders in the region.



"The Americans and (President Barack) Obama must be losing sleep over the popular revolt in Egypt," he said. "Now, Obama must understand that the people have woken up and are ready to unseat the tyrant leaders who remained in power because of U.S. backing."



Saeed did not specifically name King Abdullah. But he said Jordan's prime minister "must draw lessons from Tunisia and Egypt and must swiftly implement political reforms."



"We tell the Americans 'enough is enough'," he said.



Rifai has in the last two weeks announced a $550 million package of new subsidies for fuel and staple products like rice, sugar, livestock and liquefied gas used for heating and cooking. It includes a raise for civil servants and security personnel.



Still, Jordan's economy struggles, weighed down by a record deficit of $2 billion this year, rising inflation and rampant unemployment and poverty.

FROM ISRAEL TODAY

Egypt's next leader a 'stooge of Iran?'


Monday, January 31, 2011
Ryan Jones

Print Version

Share




Egypt could soon go the way of Lebanon in becoming a satellite or close ally of Iran if the current street demonstrations succeed in toppling the government of President Hosni Mubarak.



Until now, the week-long protests have lacked a clear leader, someone to take over should Mubarak fall. But Mohammed ElBaradei, former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), is busy setting himself up as just such a leader.



ElBaradei openly backed and took part in the demonstrations over the weekend, quickly earning him the support and admiration of most of the protestors.



ElBaradei is a clean-cut diplomat with extensive ties to the international community. But Malcom Hoenlein of the Conference of Presidents of American Jewish Organizations warned everyone not to be fooled.



In an interview with Yeshiva World News, Hoenlein accused ElBaradei of being a “stooge of Iran.” Hoenlein noted that during his years as head of the IAEA, ElBaradei worked tirelessly to oppose Western sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program. ElBaradei adopted and championed the Iranian line that its nuclear program was purely civilian in nature.



His successors later acknowledged that ElBaradei’s reports were not accurate.



The kind of leader ElBaradei would be was further revealed on Sunday when Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, the forerunner of the Palestinian Hamas, publicly endorsed him as the next president of Egypt.



Meanwhile, Egyptian protestors on Monday began to express great frustration over the lack of an international response to their uprising, especially from the US.



Many Egyptians noted that the Mubarak regime is deeply entrenched, and without the help of international pressure, they are unlikely to be able to dislodge it. They accused Washington of supporting a repressive dictator because doing so serves American interests in the region.

FROM ISRAEL TODAY

Palestinian leadership in hot water over 'Palestine Papers'


Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Ryan Jones

Print Version

Share




One of the two main issues holding up the advance of the peace process (the other is control of Jerusalem) is whether or not the five-to-seven million so-called “Palestinian refugees” should have the right to take up residence in sovereign Israel.



Israel, of course, rejects this condition, as it would mean the demographic destruction of the Jewish state. The Palestinian leadership publicly insists that the “right of return” will never be surrendered, but in private they apparently agree with Israel.



On Monday, the pan-Arab news network Al Jazeera released yet more documents detailing meetings between Israel and the Palestinians, and between Palestinian leaders regarding the peace process. Those documents have been dubbed “The Palestine Papers.”



One of the most recently published documents details a June 2009 meeting between Palestinian Authority officials during which chief negotiator Saeb Erekat states that the Palestinian leadership is ready to accept that only 10,000 Palestinian refugees will be allowed to take up residence in Israel.



Another document has Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas telling a gathering of Palestinian negotiators in 2008 that “it is illogical to ask Israel to take 5 million, or even 1 million - that would mean the end of Israel.”



Documents released on Sunday showed that Abbas and Erekat were also willing to cede large parts of eastern Jerusalem to Israel.



These revelations beg the question, why does the Palestinian leadership continue to make such a big deal about the refugees in public, even going so far as to use militant rhetoric? Also, why did they not sign an agreement with the leftist government of former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who was ready to match these concessions by surrendering most of Judea and Samaria?



For those who have been following the Middle East conflict with their eyes open, the answer is that these Palestinian concessions behind closed doors amount to a negotiating tactic. The leaders know that voicing these offers will make them look conciliatory, even as they have themselves prepared the Palestinian public to violently reject such gestures.



Meanwhile, the Palestinian leadership continues to fume over these embarrassing revelations.



In a written response published by the Bethlehem-based Ma’an news agency, Erekat said the Palestine Papers had “misrepresented our positions,” but acknowledged that concessions had been discussed in private that the Palestinian leadership knew would be rejected by the Palestinian public.



The Palestinian Right to Return Coalition (Al-Awda) issued a statement saying that the Palestine Papers had only confirmed the suspicions they had about the Abbas and his government, and demanded that the current Palestinian leadership be replaced immediately.



Jerusalem Post analyst Khaled Abu Toameh wrote that Al Jazeera had also basically judged Abbas and his regime to be traitors, and that the network and the rest of the Arab world are now just waiting for the Palestinian street to carry out the sentence.



The Palestinian Authority is reportedly interrogating employees at the PLO Negotiations Department on suspicion that one or two officials there leaked the documents to Al Jazeera in exchange for a large payment.



Even so, top Palestinian official Yasser Abed Rabbo said the story would have never been aired without a green light from Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, the Emir of Qatar, where Al Jazeera is based.



Rabbo claimed the publication of the documents is part of a political campaign being directed by the emir, and accused Al Jazeera of massaging the information to make the Palestinian Authority look as bad as possible.



Washington was also none too happy about the situation. State Department spokesman PJ Crowley said the Palestine Papers would make it even more difficult for the Obama Administration to broker a peace process between Israel and the Palestinians.



Modern Hebrew worship - Praise to Our God 3

From Israel Today

Lebanon faces isolation as Hizballah rises to power


Sunday, January 23, 2011
Ryan Jones

Obama Administration officials were quoted by Arabic media on Sunday as saying all US foreign aid to Lebanon will cease if the Hizballah ends up controlling the government in Beirut.

Hizballah brought down the Western-backed government of Prime Minister Saad Hariri last week, and appears poised to either score a major victory in upcoming elections or to use its superior military forces to seize control of the country.

Hizballah had been part of Hariri’s government, and was even granted veto powers as part of a coalition deal signed last year.

Christian leaders in Lebanon are panicked over what will happen to their country in the coming weeks. Samir Geagea, leader of the Christian Lebanese Forces, warned at a Beirut press conference on Saturday that Hizballah will “turn Lebanon in to Gaza,” referring to the current state of the Palestinian-controlled coastal strip after it came under the sway of Hamas.

Walid Jumblatt, whose Druze community is smaller and weaker than the Christians, apparently felt he must side with the stronger of the two opposing forces, and threw his lot in with Hizballah. Jumblatt’s backing may tip the scales in Hizballah’s favor when the Lebanese parliament meets on Monday to pick a new prime minister.

Israeli Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom on Saturday said these development had removed all doubt that Lebanon is now a satellite of Iran, which sponsors and even gives orders to Hizballah.

The situation in Lebanon also provides further evidence of why a Palestinian Arab state is a bad idea. Israel can sign nicely-worded agreements with the Palestinian Authority today, but there is no guarantee that Hamas will not tomorrow seize control of the entire Palestinian state and all the money and weapons the Americans have poured into it.

That has already happened once in the Gaza Strip, though the geography of the region has kept the terror group somewhat contained. Were it to happen in a fully sovereign Palestinian state incorporating Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem - and all indications are that it would - then Israel would be facing a new existential threat.

Already have an online subscription? Please Login.

Intelligently defend Israel - Setting the Record Straight

From Israel Today

US blocks UN condemnation of 'Jewish settlements'


Thursday, January 20, 2011
Ryan Jones

Print Version

Share




The US on Wednesday prevented the UN Security Council from voting on and adopting a resolution that condemned all Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and on the eastern side of Jerusalem as “illegal.”



The resolution was submitted by Lebanon, but was clearly drafted by the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinians have been threatening for months now to seek UN condemnation of Israeli “settlement activity,” a step they hoped would open the way to UN recognition of a unilateral declaration of independence in Judea and Samaria.



The resolution referred to Judea and Samaria (including eastern Jerusalem) as “Palestinian territory,” and insisted that the presence of Jews there is “illegal and constitutes a major obstacle to the achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace.”



It demanded that Israel forbid all Jewish construction in theses areas in preparation for their surrender to the Palestinian Authority, which would be followed by an ethnic cleansing of all Jews currently living there.



The US representative at the meeting expressed strong opposition to the resolution, and said the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can only be solved via direct negotiations between the two sides. Because of the US opposition, the parties behind the resolution knew it was pointless to call for a vote on the matter.



Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev followed up the US objections by reminding the Associated Press that the Palestinians “have made a series of commitments that all the issues of dispute between us and them should be resolved in direct negotiations.”



By taking this unilateral route, the Palestinians are once again breaking their commitments, said Regev.



It should also be noted that the resolution was an attempt to further solidify the Arab position that Judea and Samaria are “Palestinian territories” that must eventually be returned. The truth is that no sovereign Palestinian entity has ever existed there, but sovereign Jewish entities have.



At best, the areas must be described as “disputed territories,” since both sides have some degree of historical and legal claims. But the Arabs and the UN are constantly trying to rewrite the narrative of the peace process to make it appear that Israel is defiantly holding the lands of a foreign entity.



Already have an online subscription? Please Login.



Intelligently defend Israel - Setting the Record Straight

FROM ISRAEL TODAY

World in uproar as Israeli demolishes vacant Jerusalem hotel


Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Ryan Jones

Print Version

Share




A routine demolition of an old and vacant building to make way for new development. In any other city or country it would go almost unnoticed, but when such an event involves Jews and Israel and Jerusalem, it is suddenly cause for international consternation.



And so the world was in an uproar this week when the historic Shepherd Hotel in the eastern Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah was torn down so that construction could begin on 20 new apartments that will likely be sold or rented to Jews.



Before getting riled up over the tearing down of historic landmarks, note that the Shepherd Hotel was not famous for a good reason. The structure was built as a residence by the World War II-era Palestinian religious leader Haj Amin al-Husseini, a known collaborator with the Nazi regime and personal confidante of Adolf Hitler.



Ownership of the building changed hands several times during the preceding decades, until it was finally bought in 1985 by Jewish American businessman Irving Moskowitz. It has taken until now for Moskowitz to secure authorization to build what he wants on his own property due to political concerns.



As far as the US and Europe are concerned, Moskowitz should never have been granted such freedom, and in fact should never have been permitted to buy the property in the first place.



The Shepherd Hotel was situated in a part of Jerusalem that the Palestinian Arabs claims as their future capital.



A document circulated among the 25 European Union consuls general in Jerusalem this week lamented that “if current trends are not stopped as a matter of urgency, the prospect of east Jerusalem as the future capital of a Palestinian state becomes increasingly unlikely and unworkable.”



The Europeans determined that they must do more to intervene and halt the spreading Jewish presence in the Jews’ ancient capital.



US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also voiced discontent with the demolition, insisting that it undermines American efforts to yet again restart stalled peace talks.



Washington often expresses support of Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel, but incidents like this provide evidence that under the surface, the White House wants Israel to surrender the city’s eastern half to the Palestinians.



Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office (PMO) on Monday issued a statement reminding the international community that Israel is a democracy, and in a democracy people are free to purchase and develop property regardless of race, religion or creed.



“There should be no expectation that the State of Israel will impose a ban on Jews purchasing private property in Jerusalem. No democratic government would impose such a ban on Jews and Israel will certainly not do so,” read the statement.



“Just as Arab residents of Jerusalem can buy or rent property in predominantly Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem, Jews can buy or rent property in predominantly Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem,” the PMO added.



Already have an online subscription? Please Login.



Intelligently defend Israel - Setting the Record Straight

From Townhall

Democrats Pursuing a New "Nuclear Option" on Filibuster


Email Guy Benson
Columnist's Archive Share10 Buzz 0diggsdigg

Sign-Up Senate Democrats all share a common aim: Reforming the chamber's filibuster rules and eroding Republicans' ability to impede their legislative agenda. Achieving consensus on how to accomplish that goal, however, is proving challenging.



Every returning Democratic Senator signed a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in December signaling a desire to end “the current abuse of the rules by the minority” through rule changes. Republicans responded that the filibuster is a crucial arrow in the minority’s tactical quiver and asserted that the true abuse of Senate rules came in the form of Reid’s iron-fisted control of the agenda. Since 2007, Reid has “filled the amendment tree” on legislation – thus blocking any further amendments from being offered – on 44 occasions; more than the previous six majority leaders combined.



The finger pointing may come to a head later today when some Democrats are expected to introduce a resolution to amend the Senate rules with only 51 votes – far short of the customary two-thirds majority requirement. Republicans strongly oppose the idea. “The Senate needs to change its behavior, not to change its rules,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) in a speech at the Heritage Foundation on Tuesday. He labeled Democrats’ rule change gambit “election nullification,” and quoted an Investor’s Business Daily editorial slamming the proposal: “The Senate Majority Leader has a plan to deal with Republican electoral success. When you lose the game, you simply change the rules. When you only have 53 votes, you lower the bar to 51.”



Reid is reportedly working to delay any final action on the rule changes, which will likely be introduced by Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) on Wednesday afternoon. Udall calls his resolution the “Constitutional option.” Republicans used the exact same term in 2005 to describe their proposal to eliminate extra-Constitutional judicial filibusters of Bush nominees – a plan that Democrats, then in the minority, branded the “nuclear option” and strenuously opposed. Unlike the 2005 kerfuffle, Udall’s plan would tamper not with nominee filibusters, but with traditional legislative ones. According to a senior Republican aide, Udall might kick off what could be a long and convoluted process by objecting to the continuation of the previous Senate rules and introducing several significant changes. The aide called the situation “fluid” and wondered if Democrats even have a finalized game plan.



Among Udall’s proposed changes are requiring Senators to maintain a filibuster by remaining physically present on the Senate floor, and putting an end to a process known as “secret holds.” Udall says his proposal would not effect the core longstanding requirement of 60 votes to end debate on a piece of legislation. Republicans plan to object to the rule changes, in part, because Udall’s allies hope to adopt them using the lower, 51-vote threshold. Alexander called the scheme “changing the rules by breaking the rules,” and suggested that by triggering this unprecedented rule change procedure, Democrats risked facing a “dramatic” response from Senate Republicans. “I think the Democrats called it ‘nuclear’ once,” he said.



Reid, meanwhile, faces dissention within his own ranks over how to proceed. Some Democratic members are leery about provoking Republicans, who they concede may seize control of the Senate in 2012. Democrats will be defending 13 more seats than Republicans in the next cycle. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), who will be up for re-election next year, is urging her party to pursue “modest” reforms. To buy time, Reid is reportedly considering stretching the opening legislative “day” – which is when rule changes must occur – to extend several weeks. This would allow his own caucus to reach an agreement on how to proceed and could provide further opportunities to consult with Republicans. Alexander said such a maneuver might be unseemly, but not unprecedented.



The GOP, for its part, is not necessarily opposed to the substance of all the Democratic reform proposals. Former Republican Senator Rick Santorum said Republicans could support certain reforms, particularly abolishing “secret holds,” wherein individual Senators can singlehandedly block nominees or legislation anonymously and for no stated reason. “If you want to hold something up, you should stand up and do it,” Santorum said. “There may be some sticky situations [where a secret hold would make sense], but by and large, it’s an abused power more than a helpful one.” Alexander agreed and said he expected a move to ban the practice would attract bipartisan support.



Alexander cautioned Democrats that any rash action they may attempt, even if it succeeds in the short term, would haunt them when the tables are turned. He said divisive, partisan reforms would “surely guarantee that Republicans will try to do the same to Democrats in two years,” or whenever the GOP wins back the Senate. “Those who want to create a freight train running through the Senate today, as it does in the House, might think about whether they will want that freight train in two years if it is the Tea Party Express. “





Guy Benson

Guy Benson is Townhall.com's Political Editor.

Chronicle · January 5, 2011




The Foundation

"[T]he present Constitution is the standard to which we are to cling. Under its banners, bona fide must we combat our political foes -- rejecting all changes but through the channel itself provides for amendments." --Alexander Hamilton



Editorial Exegesis

Boehner to have the Constitution read aloud"For the last decade, presidents and Congresses representing both major political parties have caused federal spending, regulation, and debt to explode as never before, with a result that the central government is in truly dire financial shape even as its power to control the most minute details of American daily life has never been greater. ... [W]e think incoming Speaker of the House John Boehner has been unjustly criticized in some, mostly liberal, precincts for his decision to open the 112th Congress with a public reading of the Constitution. Aside from the sad fact that the reading will likely be the closest encounter many lawmakers have ever had with the actual words of the document, the occasion will be a happy one because it will also provide citizens across the country with an opportunity to join Congress in examining and discussing the words of our founding document. Comparing the words of the Constitution to the actions of our leaders in recent years will surely make clear the enduring wisdom of James Madison's warning that 'there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.' Talking seriously about this condition is the first step to remedying it, just as Madison and the rest of the Founders intended." --The Washington Examiner



Dezinformatsia

Deliberate ignorance: "[Reading the Constitution aloud in Congress is] a gimmick. I mean, you can say two things about it. One, is that it has no binding power on anything. And two, the issue of the Constitution is not that people don't read the text and think they're following. The issue of the Constitution is that the text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago and what people believe it says differs from person to person and differs depending on what they want to get done." --Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein



What Constitution? "One of the things the Tea Party has talked about is dismantling health care. And we're wondering if, in the end of the day, that ends up being a fool's errand. ... It will face a certain veto. Is it worth the effort to try to do?" --CBS's Harry Smith



The BIG Lie: "Tax cuts add to the deficit no less than spending increases do." --Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne



Nothing to see here: "Nothing much happened in 2010. Oh, I know there was a lot of frothing and screaming. There was outrage aplenty. There was an election. Wars were fought. Humongous pieces of legislation were passed, but -- with the exception of health care reform -- few broke new ground and many, like financial reform, were compromised and massaged to the point of lugubrious semi-relevance. Even the enactment of health care reform, a true American milestone, was kicked down the road to 2013. ... 2010 will be regarded by historians, I fearlessly predict, as something of a neon hologram." --Time Magazine's Joe Klein



That lovin' feeling: "The Tea Party was a bunch of angry white guys who went around and put up racist signs at these events ... who had nothing better to do on weekends than sit on lawn chairs with signs suggesting Obama was a Muslim who wasn't born in this country." --Fox News' Alan Colmes



Political correctness: "[T]he bigotry expressed against Muslims in this country has been one of the most disturbing stories to surface this year. Of course, a lot of noise was made about the Islamic Center, mosque, down near the World Trade Center, but I think there wasn't enough sort of careful analysis and evaluation of where this bigotry toward 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide, and how this seething hatred many people feel for all Muslims, which I think is so misdirected, and so wrong -- and so disappointing. ... Maybe we need a Muslim version of The Cosby Show. ... The Cosby Show did so much to change attitudes about African-Americans in this country, and I think sometimes people are afraid of what they don't understand." --CBS's Katie Couric (Did The Cosby Show encourage blacks to fly planes into the World Trade Centers?)



Newspulper Headlines:

Poor Jill!: "Biden Says Gay Marriage 'Inevitable'" --Associated Press



Everything Seemingly Is Spinning Out of Control: "Joe Biden Poised for Larger Role in Obama White House" --Boston Herald



We Blame Christine O'Donnell: "Former CIA Director Calls Homegrown Terror Threat 'a Witch's Brew'" --TheHill.com



Good Thing It Was Abandoned or Someone Might've Been Hurt: "8 Killed in Fire in Abandoned New Orleans Building" --Associated Press



Questions Nobody Is Asking: "Do Dogs Need Sweaters?" --Slate.com



Finally, Some Good News: "President Obama: No Shirtless Pictures" --TheHill.com



(Thanks to The Wall Street Journal's James Taranto)

FROM ISRAEL TODAY

Leftist activists provoke Arab-Jewish violence for propaganda


Thursday, January 06, 2011
Ryan Jones

Print Version

Share




A violent clash between Jewish residents of Samaria (so-called “settlers”) and local Arabs that was caught on film and distributed to the mainstream media was apparently a staged incident provoked by those opposed to a Jewish presence in this land for propaganda purposes.



Local Jewish officials told Israel National News (INN) that contrary to the way the clash was presented by the press, it was the Arabs and their left-wing Israeli and foreign activist allies who started the violence.



According to the Jews’ version of events, which is corroborated by a video on the INN website, the Arabs approached a group of Jewish settler youth and began stoning them. The Arabs were urged to action by left-wing Israeli provocateurs and the incident was filmed by left-wing foreign activists.



Of course, the version of the film presented to the press by the activists omitted the part where the Arabs and their allies actually started the fight. In the footage broadcast by many media outlets, the Jews are the only ones shown throwing stones while the Arabs flee.



Fortunately, someone on the Jewish side was also filming, and released the unedited video to anyone willing to listen. Unsurprisingly, the mainstream media was uninterested in the accurate version of the incident.



Between the increasingly hostile younger generation of Palestinian Arabs, antagonistic left-wing Israeli and foreign activists, and a mainstream media all too happy to bash Israel in general, local Jews complain that they are facing a coordinated and overwhelming smear campaign.



“For almost two years we’ve been telling anyone who is willing to listen that the vast majority of violent clashes that take place Judea and Samaria were brought about by extreme-left provocation,” local Jewish residents told INN. “Their activists create violence on the ground, film it, and then send their heavily-edited videos to the press.”



Indeed, many Israelis who have lived in Samaria for decades have noted on a number of occasions that left to their own devices, local Arabs and Jews are perfectly capable of living in peaceful coexistence. It was the introduction of Yasser Arafat’s PLO into the region in an ill-fated “peace” effort and the subsequent radicalization of the local Arab youth that began to change the picture.



Israeli and foreign leftists opposed to any Jewish presence in the Jews’ biblical heartland have eagerly helped complete the transformation and ensure that there can never be peaceful coexistence in this region again, and that the only solution is for the Jews to leave.



Intelligently defend Israel - Setting the Record Straight