(REPORTED BY ISRAEL NATIONAL NEWS)

Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was assassinated Thursday, apparently after being shot and then attacked by a suicide bomber as she left a campaign rally, aides said. Twenty others also died.

The death of the charismatic former prime minister threw the campaign for the Jan. 8 election into chaos and created fears of mass protests and an eruption of violence across the volatile south Asian nation.

The attacker struck just minutes after Bhutto addressed a rally of thousands of supporters in the garrison city of Rawalpindi. She was shot in the neck and chest by the attacker, who then blew himself up, said Rehman Malik, Bhutto’s security adviser. At least 20 others were killed in the blast. Bhutto was rushed to the hospital and taken into emergency surgery. “At 6:16 p.m. she expired,” said Wasif Ali Khan, a member of Bhutto’s party who was at Rawalpindi General Hospital. “The surgeons confirmed that she has been martyred,” Sen. Babar Awan, Bhutto’s lawyer, said.

Bhutto’s supporters at the hospital exploded in anger, smashing the glass door at the main entrance of the emergency unit. Others burst into tears. One man with a flag of Pakistan People’s Party tied around his head was beating his chest.

Some at the hospital began chanting, “Killer, Killer, Musharraf,” referring to President Pervez Musharraf, Bhutto’s main political opponent. A few began stoning cars outside.
“We repeatedly informed the government to provide her proper security and appropriate equipment including jammers, but they paid no heed to our requests,” Malik said.

Nawaz Sharif, another former premier and opposition leader, arrived at the hospital and sat silently next to Bhutto’s body.

US officials said they were looking into reports of Bhutto’s death.

“Certainly, we condemn the attack on this rally. It demonstrates that there are still those in Pakistan who want to subvert reconciliation and efforts to advance democracy,” said deputy State Department spokesman Tom Casey.

The United States has for months been encouraging Musharraf to reach some kind of political accommodation with the opposition, particular Bhutto, who is seen as having a wide base of support here. Bhutto served twice as Pakistan’s prime minister between 1988 and 1996. She had returned to Pakistan from an eight-year exile on Oct. 18. Her homecoming parade in Karachi was also targeted by a suicide attacker, killing more than 140 people. On that occasion she narrowly escaped injury. The scene of the bombing Tuesday was awash in blood.

An Associated Press reporter could see body parts and flesh scattered at the back gate of the Liaqat Bagh park where Bhutto had spoken. He counted about 20 bodies, including police, and could see many other wounded people. Party supporter Chaudry Mohammed Nazir said two gunshots rang out when Bhutto’s vehicle pulled into the main street and then there was a huge blast next to her car.

Police cordoned off the street with white and red tape, and rescue workers rushed to put victims in ambulances as people wailed nearby. The clothing of some of the victims was shredded and people put party flags over their bodies. Police caps and shoes littered the asphalt.

On Thursday, hundreds of riot police had manned security checkpoints to guard the venue. It was Bhutto’s first public meeting in Rawalpindi since she came back to the country. In November, Bhutto had also planned a rally in the city, but President Pervez Musharraf forced her to cancel it, citing security fears. In recent weeks, suicide bombers have repeatedly targeted security forces in Rawalpindi, a city near the capital where Musharraf stays and the Pakistan army has its headquarters.

A very important Senate report on Global Warming – reported by Jack Kinsella of the Omega Letter Independence”

A new Senate report on global warming shattered the myth of ‘scientific consensus’ about anthropogenic (man-made) climate change, after hearing from more than 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries. “Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust,” declared astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing the new study which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

Another scientist said the peer-reviewed study overturned “in one fell swoop” the climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore.

The study entitled “Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System,” was authored by Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz.

Not too long ago, the chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Dr. Rahendar Pachuari, joked that there were perhaps ‘ a dozen’ skeptical scientists left in the world on the subject of climate change. Al Gore claims a ‘universal scientific consensus’ exists that blames human activity for what he says will be catastrophic climate changes over the next fifty years. Like Pachuari, Gore has publicly equated the global warming skeptics among the scientific community with members ‘of the Flat Earth Society.’ Gore also compared global warming skeptics to people who ‘believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona’.

A new minority Senate report on global warming shattered the myth of ‘scientific consensus’ about anthropogenic (man-made) climate change, after hearing from more than 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries. The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, views that stand in stark contrast to those of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Indeed, many of the same scientists who contributed to the Senate report were themselves either current or former members of the UN’s IPCC ‘consensus’ opinion. The Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. Many of the scientists featured in the report testified that many of their colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution.

Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem expressed the ‘consensus’ opinion among climate-change skeptics this way: “Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media.”

Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a “consensus” of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. “I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority.”

The Senate report also details the teams of international scientists that are dissenting from the UN IPCC’s view of climate science. Scientists from Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, New Zealand and France contributed to the dissenting view. The dissenting scientists include experts in climatology; oceanography; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology.
Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise. (And many, as members of the IPPC panel, shared in the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize together with Al Gore).

This is a long list, but I am going to include it because of its sheer size. The dissenting scientists listed are far from members of the “Flat Earth Society”. Instead, they are members of: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; University of Columbia; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.

The most comprehensive definition I could find for “consensus” is this:
“General agreement, characterized by the absence of sustained opposition to substantial issues by any important part of the concerned interests and by a process that involves seeking to take into account the views of all parties concerned and to reconcile any conflicting arguments.”

The Senate report flatly contradicts the solemn pronouncements of the mainstream media, as well, which probably explains why it isn’t exactly a “Breaking News” headline.
One would think that the opposition of so many scientists, especially given the prestige of the institutions they represent, might cause somebody to rush for a dictionary to look up the word ‘consensus’ but no such luck. The media has been been universal in its, (forgive me) consensus opinion about scientific consensus on global warming.

“The scientific debate is over. We’re done. [Global warming skeptics] are “bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry.” (Miles O’Brien, CNN July 23, 2007)

“There are only a “handful of skeptics” to man-made global warming fears.” (Washington Post, May 23, 2007)

“After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate” on global warming. (ABC’s Bill Blakemore, August 30, 2006)

‘Science’ is supposed to be, well, scientific, which therefore suggests there is empirical evidence of sufficient weight to form a scientific ‘consensus’ — which would also then mean the end of the debate. But 17,000 top scientists signed a letter expressing the contrary view last year. Four hundred scientists expressed their opposition before the UN Senate.

The debate continues to rage among scientists, even as Al Gore, the UNIPPC, the mainstream media and the Nobel Peace Prize Selection Committee assure us that the science is ‘settled.’

In the 1980’s then-British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was doing battle with the environmentalists over expanding Britain’s nuclear power generation grid to include more reactors. Her government began to offer grants to scientists who could draw a link between fossil fuel and global climate change. Of course, to get the grant, one had to produce results. If the results favored the government’s position, more grants would follow. Other Western governments followed suit, and the myth of global warming was born. As far as scientific research is concerned, global warming is a cash cow.

All through the 1990’s new climate models and new projections, each more terrifying than the one before, resulted in an avalanche of grant money.

Governments used their findings as fuel to run various pet energy projects, justify spending, (or the lack thereof) and provide governments with a ‘boogey-man’ to scare their constituencies with. This isn’t conspiracy theory — it’s conspiracy fact. The scientists getting all the grant money are in ‘consensus’ — those outside the gravy train say its all baloney.

But . . . they are all looking at the same statistics!

Somebody is conspiring with somebody, here!

But for there to be a conspiracy, there must also be a motive. What is the motive for advancing the theory of man-made global warming? Let’s connect the dots. The UN is dependent on member governments, (particularly the US) for its operations budget. That makes the UN, at least marginally, accountable to those governments. If Congress, for example, were to cut off UN funding, it would lose both its headquarters and a quarter of its budget. The ability to impose taxes on difficult governments, (such as the USA) turns that equation on its head, making the member governments accountable to the UN — in essence, handing the United Nations absolute sovereign power. Absolute global power is a pretty convincing motive. And as you go down the line, the motive, power, remains pretty static. Global warming turned Al Gore from a failed national politician into a global political superstar. Global warming turned Dr. Heidi Cullen from a weathergirl on the Weather Channel into a global scientific authority with such prestige that her call to revoke the credentials of any meteorologist who didn’t agree with her made headlines worldwide.

Global warming offers something for everybody: power, prestige, money, control, glory . . . it reads like a Biblical list of Satan’s five ‘I wills’.

Global warming is the UN’s Declaration of Independence — if it can manage to pull off the greatest fascist power-grab in the history of the world. Global warming has become the politician’s refuge of last resort, a sort of whipping boy that can be trotted out and blamed for anything from raising taxes to exonerating genocide. (Witness Ban Ki Moon’s pathetic attempt to divert the blame for the genocide in Darfur away from the Islamic government in Khartoum — which might inflame the Islamic world mid-massacre — and the UN’s inaction, by claiming the conflict is the result of global warming.)

The myth of global warming runs the gamut of Biblical signs for the last days.

The Bible says the last days will be characterized by fear; fear of global catastrophic events; earthquakes, famines, wars, pestilences, signs in the atmosphere and in outer space, fear of climate change, fear of both the known and unknown. Jesus described it as, “the distress of nations, with perplexity” warning of “men’s hearts failing them for fear, for looking after the things that are coming upon the earth, for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.” (Luke 21:25-26)

Paul said the global government will be founded on deception, and characterizes the antichrist as the ultimate deceiver. (2nd Thessalonians 2:10-11)

Finally, Jesus said, “when you see things things begin to come to pass”, we are to, “look up and lift up our heads, for [our] redemption draweth nigh.” (Luke 21:28)

Maranatha!

Israeli archeologists have uncovered a monumental Second Temple structure opposite the Temple Mount that was likely Queen Helena’s palace, the Israel Antiquities Authority announced Wednesday.

The building was unearthed during a six-month excavation in the Givati parking lot just outside the Old City’s Dung Gate, ahead of the planned expansion of the Western Wall parking lot.

The site also indicates that the ancient City of David was much larger than previously thought, said archeologist Doron Ben-Ami, who is directing the dig at the site.

“The palace, which was destroyed by the Romans when they demolished the Second Temple in 70 CE, was dated to the end of the Second Temple period by pottery and stone vessels, as well as an assortment of coins from that time,” Ben-Ami said.

He said the elaborate edifice, which is an anomaly in the landscape of the lower city at the end of the Second Temple period – otherwise marked with only modest buildings – was probably a palace built by Queen Helena, a wealthy Babylonian aristocrat who converted to Judaism and moved to Jerusalem with her sons.

Helena became known for her generosity in helping the city’s poor during a famine. She was buried in Jerusalem.

According to the prominent 1st century historian Josephus, Helena’s family built lavish buildings in the City of David, which stood out at the time in a largely residential area that was noted for its almost complete absence of public or monumental buildings.

The archeologists carrying out the dig have not yet found any inscription to identify the building they uncovered, but Ben-Ami said there was a “high probability” that the site was indeed Helena’s palace.

“We need more evidence to decide, but almost everything fits,” he said.

The well-preserved structure being uncovered in the excavation is an impressive architectural complex that includes massive foundations; walls, some of which are more than five meters tall and are built of stones that weigh hundreds of kilograms; halls that are at least two stories tall; a basement level that was covered with vaults; and remains of polychrome frescoes, water installations and mikvaot.

“The narrow openings that were discovered in the basement level of the structure were likely used by its inhabitants to flee shortly before the Romans destroyed the palace,” Ben-Ami said.

The building was destroyed by dismantling the walls of the large structure, causing the massive stone walls and ceilings from the upper stories to collapse onto the basement.

The large edifice was covered with remains that date to later periods – Byzantine, Roman and early Islamic. Below it there are remains from the early Hellenistic period and artifacts from the time of the First Temple.

“It is like an open history book of Jerusalem,” Ben-Ami said.

EX-US AMBASSADOR TO UN JOHN BOLTON SPEAKS OUT!
by Hillel Fendel

John Bolton, who served as the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations from August 2005 to December 2006, spoke with IsraelNationalRadio’s Tovia Singer about the recent Bush Administration intelligence report on Iran’s nuclear capabilities. The controversial diplomat said the report was more political than intelligence-based, and that it was meant only to undercut President Bush’s policies on Iran.

Singer began by asking Bolton, author of a recent book entitled, Surrender is Not an Option: Defending America at the UN and Abroad, “How did you manage to maintain your sanity while working in such a hostile environment as the UN?”

Chuckling, Bolton replied, “It was truly a target-rich environment there, and not the most hospitable. But it was important to have someone stand up for American interests, and make sure that we’re not turned into a well-bred doormat there at the UN and that our foreign policy options are not constrained.”

Singer: “But it certainly got you in an enormous amount of trouble, for you’ve always been outspoken, and you’re not hostile to the Jewish State, and you believe in the war on terrorism – basically, you drive the left crazy! Why do you do it?”

Bolton: “I like to think that Sen. Joe Biden actually tipped his hand a little back in 2001 when he opposed my confirmation for my first job in this administration as Undersecretary for Arms Control; he said that his trouble with me was that over the years, I have been ‘too competent.’ They were worried that I might actually change things.”

When Singer said he wanted to bring up the recent American intelligence report that downplayed the Iranian nuclear capabilities and brought great joy to Iran and to the left, Bolton said, “I don’t think we should call it an intelligence report, but rather a document of the Executive Branch. It was a highly-politicized document, written by some who are not even intelligence community professionals, but rather from the State Department… In theory, they all work for the President, but they don’t like his policies and they think that he’s too belligerent towards Iran – though my own personal view is that the President was not tough enough – and this paper was intended to undercut the Bush position. This report has put Bush’s policy on the bottom of the ocean.”

“Let me just take one specific example to show how distorted it was,” Bolton said. “The headlines all over the world after the report were that Iran has no nuclear weapons program – but in fact the document refers only to a halt on weaponization – putting a nuclear device on top of a ballistic missile, which is just a sliver of the all-out nuclear program. It’s an important piece, yes, but it’s just a small part. Since 2003 Iran has made steady progress towards all the technology it needs for a nuclear weapon, and it can turn its program back on – if it was ever turned off – in a snap. This report will be very harmful to the cause of stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.”

Bolton went on to say that the job of the intelligence community is merely to “provide the facts, and what we do not need from the intelligence people is their view on how to put those facts into a political policy; for that, we have government leadership. Unfortunately, this report shows that the intelligence community has gone way beyond its legitimate boundaries.”

Singer asked why Iran, with its enormous oil reserves, does not just send ten billion dollars over to cash-strapped North Korea and buy a nuclear weapon?

Bolton: “It’s possible; North Korea is a criminal state, and would sell anything to anyone for hard cash. But my judgment is that Iran wants a sustained nuclear capability; they want to master everything so that it doesn’t have to be dependent on a place like North Korea.”

“I think we should all be paying more attention to the site that Israel struck in Syria back on September 6. You know, you in Israel are operating under extraordinary censorship about that, but I think this is a mistake – we need to get the facts out about what was going on there at that site near the Euphrates River. We need to know more about the nuclear partnership between Syria and North Korea there.”

Singer: “Has this report buried the strategy of imposing sanctions against Iran?”

Bolton: “Yes, certainly for the short term. But I have faith in the Iranians that they will soon do something that will tip their hand again and do something to show that they are working towards nuclear capability. I don’t think the report will stand for very long, but let’s face it, it’s done a lot of damage.

Singer: “You are now speaking to many Jews and non-Jews throughout the Land of Israel, from the Jordan to the Mediterranean. Your message to them?”

Bolton: “I think it’s important to keep your focus on national security and not get diverted by political rhetoric and the demands of people who are out trying to build legacies for themselves. You have to keep the long-term and your national interest in mind and remember who your friends are.”