Monthly Archives: January 2006

Condi: Political Hulk

It appears Condi was able to strike a deal with Russia and China to report Iran to the Security Council.

What a fine President she would make.

I wonder who she would appoint as Secretary of State; who can match her?


Iran on IAEA Agenda, but Next Step Concerns U.S.
By Glenn Kessler and Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, February 1, 2006; A18

…Yet, at IAEA board meeting after board meeting, a decision to formally report the matter to the Security Council has been put off. Most recently, in September, the board said Iran violated its treaty obligations but delayed referral to the council. In November, another potential showdown was delayed.

In a compromise reached Monday night in London over a four-hour dinner, U.S. officials said, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her European counterparts struck a deal with Russia and China: Tomorrow, the 35-nation board should finally report the matter to the Security Council — but any action should be deferred until after yet another board meeting in March. That would give the Iranians one last chance to end nuclear activities and come back to the negotiating table.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/31/AR2006013100233.html

Graphic: Tracking Nukes’ Spread:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2006/01/17/GR2006011700665.html

Timeline: Iran’s Nuclear Program:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/18/AR2006011801131.html


Comment at LDS Patriot Forum Message Board:
http://www.ldspatriot.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=84#84

Advertisements

Hamas: Enemy Centered Political Platform

Have you ever met anyone that had an Enemy Centered view of the world? Some people love to hate, it’s what drives them, motivates them, and gives them purpose.

And so it is with Hamas, an Enemy Centered Political Platform, and lovers of hate. And I take them at their word, they would rather die than stop hating Israel.


The following quotes are taken from Hamas’s charter, written in 1988.

• “Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors.”

• “The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Waqf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it.” [Note: Waqf is a religious property giving revenues, as regulated by Islamic law.]

• “There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. The initiatives, proposals, and International Conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility.”

• “For Zionist scheming has no end, and after Palestine they will covet expansion from the Nile to the Euphrates. Only when they have completed digesting the area on which they will have laid their hand, they will look forward to more expansion….”

Source: The Palestine Center, Washington


Will Hamas change course?
As global pressure mounts, the radical Islamist group says it won’t alter its charter calling for jihad against Israel.

By Ilene R. Prusher | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

JERUSALEM – When Hamas was founded in 1987, it put the goals of the Islamic Resistance Movement into writing: “Allah is its goal, the Prophet its model, the Koran its Constitution, jihad its path, and death for the case of Allah its most sublime belief.”

Now Hamas finds itself caught between an overwhelming mandate to run the Palestinian Authority (PA) after last week’s election and an international demand to change its stance on Israel. And the movement’s lengthy charter stands as a roadblock between the two.

Changing it, say Hamas leaders, is not on the table. Don’t change it – says Israel, the US, the European Union, and the United Nations – and Hamas will not be invited to the table, neither for negotiations nor for foreign aid.

In translation, the document is close to 9,000 words and is replete with Koranic references instructing Muslims to wage jihad (meaning holy war or struggle) against the Jews on every last hilltop of historical Palestine – not just the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, but also Israel proper, as established in 1948.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0201/p06s01-wome.html?s=hns


Comment at LDS Patriot Forum Message Board:
http://www.ldspatriot.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=83#83

Tap away, President, tap away!

One of the great principles in the US Constitution is that of checks and balances, or the separation of powers. And we all know the result which stemmed from this inspired principle, that our government was divided into three branches of government, each branch having particular powers.

Now we have the executive brand and the legislative branch duking it out over the Presidents war powers. Did President Bush exceed the authority, rights and powers through his NSA wiretaps? No one knows for certain, so the debate is a worthy one.

As for me and my house, I say, “Tap away, President, tap away!”

I think it is the right thing to do on many levels. Civil libertarians are much more concerned with the potential violation of rights than they are concerned about allowing the President to do that right thing. That is an unbalanced perspective.

Well, Civil-Libertarian-Rights-At-All-Costs, I deserve the right to be protected from terrorists, and I take exception to your willingness to make it easier for terrorist to terrorize.

I doubt my rights have ever or will ever be threatened by allowing the President his wiretaps. At the same time, I most certainly have no doubts terrorist use phones to make their nefarious plans.

Therefore, I repeat my stance herein, “Tap away, President, tap away!”


Senate target: Bush’s war powers
In coming days, the Senate will ask tough questions about the Patriot Act and NSA wiretaps.

By Gail Russell Chaddock | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON – Since 9/11, the Bush White House has moved aggressively to expand presidential power in wartime, at the expense of Congress. Until recently, the Republican-controlled Congress went along.

Even bipartisan concern that Samuel Alito would too enthusiastically support broad presidential powers was not enough to block his confirmation to the Supreme Court Tuesday.

But that deference may be ending. The Senate, especially, is gearing up to make the case that power between the executive and legislative branches is unbalanced.

Next week, the Senate begins the first hearings on the president’s authorization of eavesdropping without a warrant.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0201/p01s01-uspo.html?s=hns


Comment at LDS Patriot Forum Message Board:
http://www.ldspatriot.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=82#82

Iraq Stability or Lack Thereof

It’s not all roses to be certain.

But the more murder-bombers there are afflicting casualties upon their citizenry, the more the Iraqis will stand up and defend their people and put an end to it.

It’s their job now.

Once they feel they can actually do something about it, they will. Fear is what they have known.

Freedom is new to them; they are intimidated by freedom. In time, they will fully embrace freedom and reject all forms of terror IMHO.

Of course, they could degenerate into a dictatorship once more.


Comment at LDS Patriot Forum Message Board:
http://ldspatriot.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=81#81

LDS Patriot A Realist: Neocon Quiz Results

My Neocon quiz results: Based on your answers, you are most likely a realist.

I concur.

Realist
– Realists…
– Are guided more by practical considerations than ideological vision
– Believe US power is crucial to successful diplomacy – and vice versa
– Don’t want US policy options unduly limited by world opinion or ethical considerations
– Believe strong alliances are important to US interests
– Weigh the political costs of foreign action
– Believe foreign intervention must be dictated by compelling national interest
– Historical realist: President Dwight D. Eisenhower
– Modern realist: Secretary of State Colin PowellNeoconservative
– Neoconservatives…
– Want the US to be the world’s unchallenged superpower
– Share unwavering support for Israel
– Support American unilateral action
– Support preemptive strikes to remove perceived threats to US security
– Promote the development of an American empire
– Equate American power with the potential for world peace
– Seek to democratize the Arab world
– Push regime change in states deemed threats to the US or its allies
– Historical neoconservative: President Teddy Roosevelt
– Modern neoconservative: President Ronald ReaganLiberal

Liberals…
– Are wary of American arrogance and hypocrisy
– Trace much of today’s anti-American hatred to previous US foreign policies.
– Believe political solutions are inherently superior to military solutions
– Believe the US is morally bound to intervene in humanitarian crises
– Oppose American imperialism
– Support international law, alliances, and agreements
– Encourage US participation in the UN
– Believe US economic policies must help lift up the world’s poor
– Historical liberal: President Woodrow Wilson
– Modern liberal: President Jimmy CarterIsolationist
The term isolationist is most often used negatively; few people who share its beliefs use it to describe their own foreign policy perspective. They believe in “America first.” For them, national sovereignty trumps international relations. Many unions, libertarians, and anti-globalization protesters share isolationist tenets.

Isolationists…
– Are wary of US involvement in the United Nations
– Oppose international law, alliances, and agreements
– Believe the US should not act as a global cop
– Support trade practices that protect American workers
– Oppose liberal immigration
– Oppose American imperialism
– Desire to preserve what they see as America’s national identity and character
– Historical isolationist: President Calvin Coolidge
– Modern isolationist: Author/Commentator Pat Buchanan

http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/quiz/neoconQuiz.html


Comment at LDS Patriot Forum Message Board:
http://www.ldspatriot.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=48&highlight=isolationists%85

British Patriot Act?

I expect the British law makers will react similar to American law makers, and create their own version of the Patriot Act; and rightfully so.

British police want tough new powers. Police want power to hold suspects for up to 3 months, and to crack down on extremists’ websites.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0722/dailyUpdate.html


Comment at LDS Patriot Forum Message Board:
http://www.ldspatriot.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=46&highlight=british+patriot+act

U.S.A. Constitution: Political Light For All The World

Question:
Do you believe that American citizens (not government officials) have a fundamental civic, ethical or moral obligation to try and pursuade citizens of other countries of the necessity to adopt and apply American ideologies into their own form of government? (Explain why or why not)

Answer:
Yes. The principles of freedom and the maintenance of rights and privileges as found in The Declaration of Independence and The U.S.A. Constitution were inspired by God and were intended to benefit the entire world.

D&C 98: 5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.

And in Isaiah 2:3 is reads “for out of Zion shall go forth the law,” meaning, not only the gospel law, but the principles of law, freedom, rights and privileges as found in the U.S.A. Constitution shall go forth to bless the entire world.

The U.S.A had the first written constitution. So remarkable and majestic is the U.S.A. Constitution that it is the model of all written constitutions of which only 6 countries in the world have yet to adopt and follow in like pattern.

As God sent his Son into the world to be The Light, God also sent men inspired by Him to bring forth the US Con. to be a Political Light unto the whole world. After all, we are all His children and He has given us a great blessing in the US Con., which has blessed the entire world by its Light!


Comment at LDS Patriot Forum Message Board:
http://www.ldspatriot.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=51&highlight=political+light

12 Great Reasons Why U.S.A. Should Get Out Of The UN!

An Unknown Author I strongly agree with.


The truth about the United Nations! More and more Americans are coming to the chilling realization that U.S. membership in the United Nations poses a very real threat to our survival as a free and independent nation. Here are some good reasons to be concerned:

1. The UN’s basic philosophy is both anti-American and pro-totalitarian. Our Declaration of Independence proclaims the “self-evident” truth that “men … are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” But, in its Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the UN ignores God’s existence, implies that it grants rights, and then repeatedly claims power “as provided by law” to cancel them out of existence. If any government can place restrictions on such fundamental rights as freedom of speech, the right to keep and bear arms, freedoms of the press, association, movement, and religion, soon there will be no such freedoms.

2. The UN was founded by Communists and CFR members whose common goal was a socialist world government. Sixteen key U.S. officials who shaped the policies leading to the creation of the UN were later exposed in sworn testimony as secret Communists. These included Alger Hiss, chief planner of the 1945 founding conference, and the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Harry Dexter White. The Soviet Union under Stalin and the entire Communist Party USA apparatus worked tirelessly to launch the UN. Since its beginning in 1921, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has always worked for world government. The key CFR founder, Edward Mandell House, in his book, Philip Dru: Administrator, called for “Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx …” The CFR was an early promoter of the UN, and 43 members of the U.S. delegation at the UN founding conference were or would become CFR members.

3. The UN has always chosen socialist one-worlders for leaders. The Secretary-General at the UN founding conference was Soviet spy Alger Hiss. He was followed as Secretary-General by Norwegian socialist Trygve Lie, Swedish socialist Dag Hammarskjold, Burmese Marxist U Thant, Austrian former Nazi Kurt Waldheim, Peruvian socialist Javier Perez deCuellar, and Egyptian socialist Boutros Boutros-Ghali. Each has consistently used the full resources of the UN to promote Communist and socialist causes around the world. The Socialist International (which proudly traces its origins to the First International headed by Karl Marx) today claims tens of millions of members in 54 countries. At its 1962 Congress, it declared: “The ultimate objective of the parties of the Socialist International is nothing less than world government … Membership of the United Nations must be made universal …” Almost all of the UN’s “independent” commissions for the last thirty years have been headed by members of the Socialist International.

4. The UN seeks power to control the environment, population, children … the world. Both the 1972 UN Environmental Program and the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development laid plans to whip up widespread environmental concerns (some exaggerated, many completely fabricated). These concerns would then be used as justification for increasing UN authority on environmental issues. The statements and publications of these UN programs leave little doubt that their goal is a world government with the power to cancel national sovereignty, regulate economic activity, and control the human race all, of course, under the banner of “protecting the environment.” In late 1994, UN planners meeting in Egypt approved a 20-year, $17 billion plan to “stabilize” the world’s population. The UN’s goal is to reduce population selectively by encouraging abortion, sterilization, and controlled human breeding. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child also claims power not only to grant rights but also to cancel them “as provided by law.” It claims that governments must guarantee children “freedom of expression … freedom to seek, receive, and impart information … freedom of thought, conscience, and religion,” regardless of the wishes of their parents.

5. The UN Charter outlines the path to world tyranny. After giving lip service about not intervening “in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state …,” the UN Charter continues, “but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.” Chapter VII discusses sanctions and boycotts, but if these are decided to “be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.” The UN used this broad assertion of authority as the pretext for its armed intervention in the domestic turmoil in Somalia and Haiti.

6. The UN is building its own army to enforce its will. In 1992, UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, fulfilling a directive from the UN Security Council, unveiled An Agenda for Peace, a plan to strengthen UN “peacekeeping” capabilities. The plan calls for armed forces to be made available to the UN “on a permanent basis.” It ominously warns, “The time of absolute and exclusive sovereignty has passed” and proceeds to name a long list of “risks for stability” that would be used to justify use of the “permanent” UN army to enforce its will. Incredibly, U.S. leaders are using America’s military to pave the way for this UN army. In Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, and elsewhere, foreign UN commanders have controlled our troops. When 15 Americans were killed over Iraq in mid-1994, Vice-President Gore extended condolences “to the families of those who died in the service of the United Nations.” Even more incredibly, it has been the official policy of the U.S. government since 1961 to disarm America and create a UN army. This policy concludes: “progressive controlled disarmament would proceed to the point where no nation would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened UN Peace Force.” (See State Department publication 7277: Freedom >From War.)

7. The UN doesn’t settle disputes – it makes them worse! Our ambassador to the UN in 1982, although a UN supporter, admitted, “The UN has become an arena in which countries are drawn into problems they might never have become involved in. ” Ask yourself: Should Seychelles or Benin or Guyana or Barbados have to take sides in a clash that breaks out on the opposite side of the world? When centuries-old animosities erupt in the former Yugoslavia, why does the UN inject its presence with troops, blockades, bombing, and a parade of speeches? American troops serving as globocops for the UN become targets for criminals and terrorists. In 1983, 241 U.S. Marines were blown to bits at the Beirut airport. Five years later, a U.S. Marine Lieutenant Colonel was kidnapped and eventually murdered by Arab terrorists while in a UN unit in Lebanon (he was unarmed – as required by the UN). The UN “peacekeeping mission” in Somalia cost the lives of another 36 Americans in 1993.

8. The UN ignores Communist atrocities but targets non-Communist nations and leaders. When Soviet tanks rolled into Hungary in the 1950s, when the Chinese Communists were murdering Tibetans in the 1960s, when the Soviets were butchering civilians in Afghanistan in the 1970s and 1980s, when Chechnya was brutalized by the Russians in the 1990s, the UN did nothing! But the UN declared tiny Rhodesia “a threat to international peace” in the 1960s, enabling pro-communist terrorist Robert Mugabe to seize power. And it was a UN-led campaign that brought self-described Communist and convicted terrorist Nelson Mandela to power in South Africa in the 1990s.

9. The UN embraces Communist China – history’s most murderous criminal regime. In 1949, anti-Communist Nationalist China, one of the UN’s founding members, was forced from the mainland to Taiwan by the Communists. In 1971, the UN expelled Taiwan and embraced the brutal Red Chinese government – a government responsible for over 35 million murders. When the vote admitting Red China was announced, UN delegates danced in the aisles to show their contempt for America and their joy at the triumph of Red China.

10. The UN is a moral cesspool filled with perverts and fat cats. In 1993, the UN Economic and Social Council granted consultant status to the International Gay and Lesbian Association which includes the North American Man/Boy Love Association (advocates of child molestation) and the Dutch group Vereniging Martijn (which also promotes use of children as sex objects). In 1988, the top Belgian UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) official was one of a group convicted of running a child sex ring. Moral bankruptcy is commonplace in UN operations. In Zimbabwe, UNICEF-donated equipment helped terrorists seize power. In Vietnam, the Communists received $13 million from UNICEF while untold thousands of boat people fled for their lives. Fat cats? UN employees are paid 40% more than comparable U.S. workers and have subsidized rent. An ex-UNICEF official confirmed that “pampered and cosseted staffs” of various aid agencies “absorb 80% of all UN expenditures.”

11. America supplies the money, the UN then finances tyrants and assorted enemies of the U.S., and conditions in the nations “aided” grow worse. U.S. taxpayers pay 25% of the UN budget plus 31% of the UN special-agency budgets. Additional billions of our dollars go to the IMF, World Bank, and other UN related lending agencies where they have been used for incredibly wasteful and subversive UN projects. (Not surprising since these agencies were designed by Soviet agent Harry Dexter White and Fabian Socialist John Maynard Keynes.) Socialist International spokesman Hilary Marquand aptly described the IMF as “in essence a Socialist conception.” World Bank “aid” funds went to brutal Marxist dictator Mengistu while he was causing large-scale starvation and death in Ethiopia; to Tanzanian dictator Julius Nyerere as he drove peasants off their land and burned their huts; and to the Vietnamese Communists, sending thousands of boat people into the sea. Even Newsweek magazine concluded that the UN’s foreign aid programs tend “to prop up incompetent governments or subsidize economies so they can never stand on their own.”

12. The UN is a war organization, NOT a peace organization. Article 42 of the UN Charter claims authority to “take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.” But the UN definition of “peace” is never given. Tyrannical regimes throughout history have defined “peace” as the absence of all opposition. To achieve “peace” in Katanga in 1961, UN planes bombed hospitals, schools, administrative buildings, and private homes. Katanga was an anti-Communist province of the Belgian Congo seeking freedom from the Communist-controlled central government. The UN is not now, and has never been, a peace organization. It will use whatever military power it is given to force all nations of the world to submit.


Comment at LDS Patriot Forum Message Board:
http://www.ldspatriot.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=47&highlight=great

What’s In the Barrett Report? Why Should You Care?

What’s In the Barrett Report? Why Should You Care?

Did the Clintons us the IRS to intimidate and harass and attack their opponents?

If so, “There is no government act more insidious and few more violative of civil liberties than the political use of IRS power. If that has indeed again occurred, and if Independent Counsel Barrett’s investigation uncovered it, then heaven and earth should be turned, not to mention a few congressional committees, to expose that abuse to the American people, and we thus join the growing chorus asking for same.”

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/Whats-In-the-Barrett-Report.html


Comment at LDS Patriot Forum Message Board:
http://www.ldspatriot.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=40&highlight=barrett

Tookie & The Terminator

How ironic that “Tookie’s” petition for clemency rested in the hands of the “Terminator.”


Comment at LDS Patriot Forum Message Board:
http://www.ldspatriot.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=41&highlight=tookie

Saddam’s Transregional Terrorists Training Camps

If you do not support the Iraq War, would your support change in favor of the war if there is evidence that Saddam did operate Transregional Terrorists Training Camps?


Saddam’s Terror Training Camps
What the documents captured from the former Iraqi regime reveal–and why they should all be made public.
by Stephen F. Hayes
01/16/2006, Volume 011, Issue 17

THE FORMER IRAQI REGIME OF Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion, according to documents and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq. The existence and character of these documents has been confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD by eleven U.S. government officials.

The secret training took place primarily at three camps–in Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak–and was directed by elite Iraqi military units. Interviews by U.S. government interrogators with Iraqi regime officials and military leaders corroborate the documentary evidence. Many of the fighters were drawn from terrorist groups in northern Africa with close ties to al Qaeda, chief among them Algeria’s GSPC and the Sudanese Islamic Army. Some 2,000 terrorists were trained at these Iraqi camps each year from 1999 to 2002, putting the total number at or above 8,000. Intelligence officials believe that some of these terrorists returned to Iraq and are responsible for attacks against Americans and Iraqis. According to three officials with knowledge of the intelligence on Iraqi training camps, White House and National Security Council officials were briefed on these findings in May 2005; senior Defense Department officials subsequently received the same briefing….

… Other officials familiar with the captured documents were less cautious. “As much as we overestimated WMD, it appears we underestimated [Saddam Hussein’s] support for transregional terrorists,” says one intelligence official.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp


Comment at LDS Patriot Forum Message Board:
http://www.ldspatriot.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34

John McCain Crushes Hillary Clinton in New Poll

I do not believe McCain can win the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination. And this poll is tool early to equate to any type of predictor of how things will shape up for 2008.


Newsmax
Sen. John McCain trounces Hillary Clinton in the latest poll on the 2008 presidential race, which gives him a whopping 16-point advantage over the former first lady.

By a margin of 52 to 36 percent, voters preferred the Arizona Republican over Clinton in the Diageo/Hotline survey.

In more bad news for Mrs. Clinton, her candidacy seems to generate a particularly enthusiastic response – from her opponent’s base.

Running against a generic Democrat, McCain still wins 36 to 29 percent – but his margin of victory is cut in half.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/20/112555.shtml?s=et


Comment at LDS Patriot Forum Message Board:
http://www.ldspatriot.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20

I Stand for Israel

While I do not agree with every decision Israel has made since its birth, I do stand for Israel for many reasons.


Stand for Israel News and Views
Thursday, January 19, 2006
by George Mamo, Executive Director, Stand for Israel

A few weeks ago, we sent you a survey asking you to give us your reasons for supporting Israel. Here’s just a bit of what we found out:

  1. Of the thousands of responses, a great majority — over 93 percent — included “God gave the land of Israel to the Jewish people” among their reasons for supporting the Jewish state
  1. Many cited other biblical considerations, including God’s covenant with Abraham (90 percent) and New Testament scripture that refers to Judaism as the “root” of Christianity (79.2 percent)
  1. Political and strategic factors were important to you as well, including “Israel is the United States’ strongest ally” (43 percent), “Israel is the Middle East’s only democracy” (41.7 percent) and “Israel is the frontline of the war on terror” (41 percent)

http://www.ifcj.org/site/PageServer?pagename=SFI_homepage


Comment at LDS Patriot Forum Message Board:
http://www.ldspatriot.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14

Will USA Stop Israel from Stopping Iran?

If Israel did attack Iran’s nuclear program, the USA would not stop her.

Would you support Israel attacking Iran’s nuclear program?


GlobalSecurity.org writes, “Target Iran – Air Strikes One potential military option that would be available to the United States includes the use of air strikes on Iranian weapons of mass destruction and missile facilities. In all, there are perhaps two dozen suspected nuclear facilities in Iran. The 1000-megawatt nuclear plant Bushehr would likely be the target of such strikes. According to the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, the spent fuel from this facility would be capable of producing 50 to 75 bombs. Also, the suspected nuclear facilities at Natanz and Arak will likely be targets of an air attack.”
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran-strikes.htm


NewsMax.com Wires-
Defense Minister: Israel Preparing to Stop Iran
Sunday, Jan. 22, 2006
JERUSALEM — Israel’s defense minister hinted Saturday that the Jewish state is preparing for military action to stop Iran’s nuclear program, but said international diplomacy must be the first course of action.

“Israel will not be able to accept an Iranian nuclear capability and it must have the capability to defend itself, with all that that implies, and this we are preparing,” Shaul Mofaz said…

…Israel long has identified Iran as its biggest threat and accuses Tehran of pursuing nuclear weapons. Iran says its atomic program is peaceful.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/1/21/215128.shtml?s=et

– Probability of a future Air strike against Iran by Israel and or US
– Probability of an attack by March 2006
– Probability of an attack by December 2006
http://members.cox.net/dmrc/Geopolitics/Attack_Iran.htm

Iran faces ‘destruction’ – Israel warns, By MARTIN WALKER, UPI Editor
http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20060121-045606-6575r

Israeli Hints at Preparation to Stop Iran
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060122/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear


Comment at LDS Patriot Forum Message Board:
http://www.ldspatriot.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15

Right v. Rights

I believe that many American’s are obsessed with rights (legal claim), and could care less about doing what is right (moral truth).

Bush’s position of abortion is more right (moral truth) than those who demand status quo or expanded abortion rights (legal claim). This is one of many reasons I would call myself a Bush supporter. Like Bush, I believe that “every human life has value, that the strong have a duty to protect the weak and that the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence apply to everyone, not just to those considered healthy or wanted or convenient.”

Well said, Bush!

Bush to anti-abortion activists: ‘We will prevail’
REUTERS
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President George W. Bush on Monday told opponents of abortion their views would eventually prevail and urged them to work to convince more Americans of “the rightness of our cause.”
…”We, of course, seek common ground where possible,” he said. “We’re working to persuade more of our fellow Americans of the rightness of our cause, and this is a cause that appeals to the conscience of our citizens and is rooted in America’s deepest principles — history tells us that with such a cause, we will prevail.”
…”You believe as I do that every human life has value, that the strong have a duty to protect the weak and that the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence apply to everyone, not just to those considered healthy or wanted or convenient,” Bush told the anti-abortion marchers.

Elder Russell M. Nelson, Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, LDS Church, on abortion:
“It is a war on the defenseless—and the voiceless. It is a war on the unborn… What sense of inconsistency can allow people to grieve for their dead, yet be calloused to this baleful war being waged on life at the time of its silent development? What logic would encourage efforts to preserve the life of a critically ill twelve-week-old infant, but countenance the termination of another life twelve weeks after inception? More attention is seemingly focused on the fate of a life at some penitentiary’s death row than on the millions totally deprived of life’s opportunity through such odious carnage before birth… But what impropriety could now legalize that which has been forbidden by the laws of God from the dawn of time? What twisted reasoning has transformed mythical concepts into contorted slogans assenting to a practice which is consummately wrong… Another contention raised is that a woman is free to choose what she does with her own body. To a certain extent this is true for all of us. We are free to think. We are free to plan. And then we are free to do. But once an action has been taken, we are never free from its consequences. Those considering abortion have already exercised certain choices…To clarify this concept, we can learn from the astronaut. Any time during the selection process, planning, and preparation, he is free to withdraw. But once the powerful rocket fuel is ignited, he is no longer free to choose. Now he is bound by the consequences of his choice. Even if difficulties develop and he might wish otherwise, the choice made was sealed by action…So it is with those who would tamper with the God-given power of procreation. They are free to think and plan otherwise, but their choice is sealed by action…The woman’s choice for her own body does not validate choice for the body of another. The expression “terminate the pregnancy” applies literally only to the woman. The consequence of terminating the fetus therein involves the body and very life of another. These two individuals have separate brains, separate hearts, and separate circulatory systems. To pretend that there is no child and no life there is to deny reality… It is not a question of when “meaningful life” begins or when the spirit “quickens” the body. In the biological sciences, it is known that life begins when two germ cells unite to become one cell, bringing together twenty-three chromosomes from both the father and from the mother. These chromosomes contain thousands of genes. In a marvelous process involving a combination of genetic coding by which all the basic human characteristics of the unborn person are established, a new DNA complex is formed. A continuum of growth results in a new human being. The onset of life is not a debatable issue, but a fact of science… Scripture declares that the “life of the flesh is in the blood.” (Lev. 17:11.) Abortion sheds that innocent blood.”

http://www.lds.org/newsroom/issues/answer/0,19491,6056-1-201-10-201,00.html


Comment at LDS Patriot Forum Message Board:
http://www.ldspatriot.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12

Hamas Political Platform

You’ve got to hand it to Hamas and give credit where credit is due. Their party platform leaves no doubt what they are all about: “Hamas is committed to the destruction of the Jewish state. Join us, we always need to replenish our stock of Murder Bombers.”

Legitimating Hamas by allowing them a place in the official government can be considered an honorable and honest thing to do. Why? No more pretending that the Palestinian Authority wants peace. Get it all out in the open, tell it like it is, stop lying and tells us straightway and aboveboard, you’re driving desire and mission in life, that which gives you purpose and meaning, is that you are “committed to the destruction of the Jewish state. Join us! We are ever in need of replenishing our stock of Murder Bombers.”

And some still think Israel bears greater blame.


Eyes on Hamas as Palestinians vote
By Wafa Amr and Mohammed Assadi
REUTERS

RAMALLAH, West Bank (Reuters) – Palestinians voted on Wednesday in their first parliamentary election in a decade, a ballot that could bring Hamas into the government and further dim prospects for peacemaking with Israel.

Opinion polls showed President Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah party with just a slight edge, raising the possibility of Hamas, an Islamist group committed to the destruction of the Jewish state, joining the Palestinian cabinet for the first time.

http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=10968277&pageNumber=0


Comment at LDS Patriot Forum Message Board:
http://www.ldspatriot.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9

Hawkish Gingrich on Regime Change in Iran

Given the sting of the Iraq war, I’m not certain a military option is something I’d support right now. Iran’s higher education students are already calling for democracy and regime change. Though such efforts should be supported and encouraged by the USA, it’s not likely the groundswell of students supporting democracy is going to motivate Mullah to cede power. China did care about what the students had to say, did they?

What that leaves us with is whether or not a military solution is warranted at this time, or any time for that matter. Gingrich would have us believe today is the day Iran needs regime change. However, the reality is that our military is already stretched too thin, so another war front is out of the question, at least until there is significant troop withdrawal from Iraq.

I question whether it’s wise, necessary and prudent to spend all our National strength and effort in foreign conflicts or wars. How defensible are we if a major aggressor wanted to invade the USA? And no, I’m not talking Mexican illegal alien issue! Or, perhaps that is in fact a worthy point.

The proof that America internally suffers is evident by the fact we cannot even protect our borders from foreign invasion, let alone trying to protect all world borders. Some have advocated that we need to use the military to secure the USA/Mexico border. Whatever the merits or lack of merits to such a solution, one thing is certain, our military is stretched thin with it’s current foreign operations supporting the War on Militant Islam (no, it’s not a War on Terror). A Military-Border Guard et al would stretch us even further, perhaps to a breaking point.

I support the Iraq war. But there are limits to our countries capabilities. If moderation in all things is a worthy principle to espouse personally, perhaps it is equally a principle the USA ought to live by. Not all regimes require military intervention. Not all terror supporting countries can be handled via military solutions. Not all worldwide problems require our assistance.

Where is the moderation in the Republican (or Democratic) platform today? I see only extremes from both sides, and that does not set well with me.


Gingrich Calls for Regime Change in Iran
by Robert B. Bluey
Posted Jan 24, 2006

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a potential 2008 Republican presidential candidate, says Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is as great a threat today as German dictator Adolf Hitler was in 1935, and the United States should not wait to help bring about a regime change in Iran.

“If we don’t have a very serious systematic program to replace the government of Iran, we’re going to live in an unbelievably dangerous world,” Gingrich said during an exclusive interview with HUMAN EVENTS. “This is 1935 and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is as close to Adolf Hitler as we’ve seen. We now know who they are; the question is who we are — are we Baldwin or Churchill?”

…”Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in September 1941, when we sank a German submarine while we were technically at peace, did a nationwide radio address and said, ‘If you are standing next to a rattle snake, you do not have an obligation to wait until it bites you before you decide it’s dangerous.’

…”And I will just say flatly, our objective should be the systematic replacement of this regime,” Gingrich said. “We should start with all-out help to the forces of independence in the country — there are trade union groups, there are student groups — we should in every way we can get them resources. We should indicate without any question that we are going to take the steps necessary to replace the regime and we should then act accordingly. And we should say to the Europeans that there is no diplomatic solution that is imaginable that is going to solve this problem.”

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=11829


Comment at LDS Patriot Forum Message Board:
http://www.ldspatriot.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6

Filibuster foiled, Alito is confirmed.

Filibuster foiled, Alito is confirmed.

Nice!


Alito Confirmed as Nation’s 110th Supreme Court Justice
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
WASHINGTON — The Senate voted 58-42 on Tuesday to confirm Samuel Alito to the nation’s highest court, putting to bed the most partisan Supreme Court nomination battle in recent memory.

Only four Democrats joined 54 Republicans in support of Alito. Of the court’s present justices, only Clarence Thomas received a slimmer margin of victory, 52-48, but even then received the votes of 11 Democrats who broke party ranks.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183270,00.html


Comment at LDS Patriot Forum:
http://www.ldspatriot.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=79#79

New Domain: www.LDSPatriot.com

http://www.ldspatriot.com/

LDS Patriot has four blogs and one forum message board.

Blogs

  • Aggregated Blog: LDS Patriot Aggregated Blog, which combines posts from blogs LDS Centric, Politick Centric blogs, and Links
  • LDS Centric Blog: LDS Centric Topics
  • Politick Centric Blog: Political Centric Topics
  • Links Blog: Links to LDS and Political Sites

Forum Message Board

  • LDS Patriot Forum Message Board: LDS Patriot Forum Message Board allows users to start their own threads. Unlike a blog, a Forum Message Board allows anyone to start a topic or thread

http://www.ldspatriot.com/

Non-LDS accusatory tirade, “LDS are not Christians?”

What is the motive behind the non-LDS accusatory tirade, “LDS are not Christians?”

Is it to inform and educate? No, because all Christians churches are “cults” and that cannot be denied, but they conveniently leave that out of the equation. So from the start it’s an intellectually dishonest, specious argument.

It’s a marketing initiative, period. If they put fear and doubt into the minds of consumers of religion, they may be able to cash in on a bigger share of the pie. It’s priestcraft pure and simple.

It’s as phony as “LDS worship a different Jesus.” Of course it is the same Jesus. So it’s got nothing at all to do with anything remotely resembling a “different Jesus”, rather, it is just a different understanding.

President Hinckley undergoes surgery

President Hinckley, I love you and my prayer’s are with you. May God grant you a speedy recovering and may he bless us with your continued divine leadership for years to come.

– Hinckley’s cancer removedChurch predicts speedy recovery
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_3435143?source=rss

– President Hinckley undergoes surgery
Cancerous growth is removed from intestine after routine screening
By
Wendy Leonard
Deseret Morning News
LDS Church President Gordon B. Hinckley was hospitalized Tuesday after doctors discovered and removed a cancerous growth in his large intestine.

After a routine medical screening, church officials said the 95-year-old President Hinckley was admitted to LDS Hospital Tuesday afternoon, where he underwent a successful laparoscopic surgery to remove the diseased portion of his intestine.
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635179047,00.html

Spyware is Computer Rape

Oh happy days!

It is great news that Harvard, Oxford, Google, Lenovo Group and Sun Microsystems have created a new consumer advocacy group, The Stop Badware Coalition, to target and shame spyware makers.

I hate spyware with a passion. It’s computer rape as far as I am concerned.

http://www.stopbadware.org/

By Eric Auchard
Internet brain trust aims to shame spyware makers
REUTERS

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – Internet researchers at Harvard and Oxford universities said on Tuesday they are seeking to enlist Web users in a program to name and shame suppliers of spyware and other malicious software programs.

The Stop Badware Coalition will seek to spotlight companies that make millions of dollars by tricking Web users into putting spyware, adware or other deceptive software on their machines, organizers from the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard and the Oxford Internet Institute said.

The multi-year project is financially backed by Google Inc. and computer makers Lenovo Group and Sun Microsystems Inc. It is advised by U.S. consumer advocacy group Consumer Reports WebWatch, its backers said.
http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=internetNews&storyID=10962618&pageNumber=0

Study: Omega-3 fats offer no cancer protection

I take Omega-3 supplements daily. I have noticed increased memory recall and do hope it helps combat heart disease.

Omega-3 fats offer no cancer protection: study
REUTERS
CHICAGO (Reuters) – The fatty acids found in some fish may help combat heart disease but there is no strong evidence they prevent cancer as some research has suggested, a study said on Tuesday
http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=10957375&src=eDialog/GetContent

God is the First Scientist

I’m no scientist and the topic of evolution has never interested me per se. My only beef is when people use evolution to claim God does not exist, or that somehow evolution proves the scriptures are not true.

My take is that earth has many phases and different purposes at different times. Just because there was Homo erectus does not mean Homo sapiens must have evolved from them.

Perhaps God allowed these creations to live on earth for a period of time. Then, when it was time to being the phase of mankind as we know it, then the old phase ended and a new one began.

Creation is a continuum, not a single event. This is true temporally as well as spiritually. Consider all the changes the earth has already undergone, i.e., creation, fall, flood, etc. And then consider earths future, e.g., the mighty earthquakes, and the God will bring earths land mass into one before the days it was separated, and the burning and re-creation to a paradisiacal glory only be to go through yet another burning re-creation to its final celestial glory.

Do evolutionists factor in these sudden and mighty changes in earths future? No. And they most certainly do not factor in sudden and mighty changes in earths past either.

Science isn’t nearly as useful in determining truth as is revelation.

For example, who knew more about creation, Darwin or Moses? Darwin only used science to aid his understanding. Moses saw every step and particle in earth’s creation, as well as the universe as a whole.

When there is an apparent conflict between the two, I side with God, believing it the more prudent path

God is the First Scientist. I’ll take his word over the evolutionists any day of the week.

Right v. Rights

I believe that many American’s are obsessed with rights (legal claim), and could care less about doing what is right (moral truth).

Bush’s position of abortion is more right (moral truth) than those who demand status quo or expanded abortion rights (legal claim). This is one of many reasons I would call myself a Bush supporter. Like Bush, I believe that “every human life has value, that the strong have a duty to protect the weak and that the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence apply to everyone, not just to those considered healthy or wanted or convenient.”

Well said, Bush!

Bush to anti-abortion activists: ‘We will prevail’
REUTERS
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President George W. Bush on Monday told opponents of abortion their views would eventually prevail and urged them to work to convince more Americans of “the rightness of our cause.”
…”We, of course, seek common ground where possible,” he said. “We’re working to persuade more of our fellow Americans of the rightness of our cause, and this is a cause that appeals to the conscience of our citizens and is rooted in America’s deepest principles — history tells us that with such a cause, we will prevail.”
…”You believe as I do that every human life has value, that the strong have a duty to protect the weak and that the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence apply to everyone, not just to those considered healthy or wanted or convenient,” Bush told the anti-abortion marchers.

Elder Russell M. Nelson, Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, LDS Church, on abortion:
“It is a war on the defenseless—and the voiceless. It is a war on the unborn… What sense of inconsistency can allow people to grieve for their dead, yet be calloused to this baleful war being waged on life at the time of its silent development? What logic would encourage efforts to preserve the life of a critically ill twelve-week-old infant, but countenance the termination of another life twelve weeks after inception? More attention is seemingly focused on the fate of a life at some penitentiary’s death row than on the millions totally deprived of life’s opportunity through such odious carnage before birth… But what impropriety could now legalize that which has been forbidden by the laws of God from the dawn of time? What twisted reasoning has transformed mythical concepts into contorted slogans assenting to a practice which is consummately wrong… Another contention raised is that a woman is free to choose what she does with her own body. To a certain extent this is true for all of us. We are free to think. We are free to plan. And then we are free to do. But once an action has been taken, we are never free from its consequences. Those considering abortion have already exercised certain choices…To clarify this concept, we can learn from the astronaut. Any time during the selection process, planning, and preparation, he is free to withdraw. But once the powerful rocket fuel is ignited, he is no longer free to choose. Now he is bound by the consequences of his choice. Even if difficulties develop and he might wish otherwise, the choice made was sealed by action…So it is with those who would tamper with the God-given power of procreation. They are free to think and plan otherwise, but their choice is sealed by action…The woman’s choice for her own body does not validate choice for the body of another. The expression “terminate the pregnancy” applies literally only to the woman. The consequence of terminating the fetus therein involves the body and very life of another. These two individuals have separate brains, separate hearts, and separate circulatory systems. To pretend that there is no child and no life there is to deny reality… It is not a question of when “meaningful life” begins or when the spirit “quickens” the body. In the biological sciences, it is known that life begins when two germ cells unite to become one cell, bringing together twenty-three chromosomes from both the father and from the mother. These chromosomes contain thousands of genes. In a marvelous process involving a combination of genetic coding by which all the basic human characteristics of the unborn person are established, a new DNA complex is formed. A continuum of growth results in a new human being. The onset of life is not a debatable issue, but a fact of science… Scripture declares that the “life of the flesh is in the blood.” (Lev. 17:11.) Abortion sheds that innocent blood.”
http://www.lds.org/newsroom/issues/answer/0,19491,6056-1-201-10-201,00.html

America, land of religious freedom, but not free from bigotry.

Will Americans put a Mormon in the White House?

“Why, I can’t tolerate the thought of a Mormon being a US president,” so think 17% surveyed.

Whatever!

Mitt Romney on the Issues
http://www.issues2000.org/Mitt_Romney.htm

-Mitt Romney Confronts Mormon Issue
With Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney being discussed as a potential candidate for the 2008 Republican nomination for president, observers have raised a crucial question: Will Americans put a Mormon in the White House?

Writing for the Wall Street Journal’s OpinionJournal.com this past weekend, James Taranto points out that the “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is indigenous to America, but many Americans view it with suspicion. In a 1999 Gallup poll, 17 percent of those surveyed said they would not vote for a Mormon for president, far more than said the same of a Jew (6 percent) or a Catholic (4 percent).”

…But Taranto observes: “The trouble is that much of today’s anti-Mormon sentiment is found on the religious right, a constituency that looms much larger in the GOP now than it did in 1968, or than it ever has in Massachusetts. Ask a conservative Christian what he thinks of Mormonism, and there’s a good chance he’ll call it a ‘cult’ or say Mormons ‘aren’t Christian.’”

However, Romney – who has announced that he won’t run for re-election in Massachusetts next year – is in step with the Christian right on the issues, Taranto concedes.

He is pro-life, but believes the individual states should decide their own abortion policy, and he vehemently opposed the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s 2003 decision to allow same-sex marriage.

http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?s=pf&page=http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/23/162340.shtml?s=et

I Stand for Israel

While I do not agree with every decision Israel has made since its birth, I do stand for Israel for many reasons.

Stand for Israel News and Views

Thursday, January 19, 2006

by George Mamo, Executive Director, Stand for Israel

A few weeks ago, we sent you a survey asking you to give us your reasons for supporting Israel. Here’s just a bit of what we found out:

  1. Of the thousands of responses, a great majority — over 93 percent — included “God gave the land of Israel to the Jewish people” among their reasons for supporting the Jewish state
  1. Many cited other biblical considerations, including God’s covenant with Abraham (90 percent) and New Testament scripture that refers to Judaism as the “root” of Christianity (79.2 percent)
  1. Political and strategic factors were important to you as well, including “Israel is the United States’ strongest ally” (43 percent), “Israel is the Middle East’s only democracy” (41.7 percent) and “Israel is the frontline of the war on terror” (41 percent)

http://www.ifcj.org/site/PageServer?pagename=SFI_homepage

Comment at LDS Patriot Forum Message Board:

http://www.ldspatriot.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14

Prelude to Armageddon? Iran’s Money Leaves Europe.

I am no alarmist. I am a realist who believes in the prophetic writings and statements of God’s prophets. As well, I have a keen interest in all things religious and political.

Notwithstanding the many events which must prelude the Battle of Armageddon, certain actions catch my eye from time.

For instance, Iran is withdrawing money from European banks. Is this permanent or only temporary? I think the former, especially in light of Iran’s incessant need to become build nuclear weapons. The West isn’t going to warm up to Iran anytime soon. Iran certainly doesn’t care one iota what the West thinks regarding its nuclear program(s).

Ezekiel and Joel have named the countries which will seek to destroy Israel in the Battle of Armageddon, namely, Persia (Iran), Russia, Turkey, Ethiopia, Libya. Joel 3:1-4, Rev. 16:9-14. Ezek. 38:2-12. Gen 10:1-3.

REUTERS
Iran says moving assets
By Parinoosh Arami

TEHRAN (Reuters) – Embroiled in a nuclear standoff with the West, Iran said on Friday it was moving its foreign assets to shield them from possible U.N. sanctions and flexed its oil muscles with a proposal to cut OPEC output.

“Yes, Iran has started withdrawing money from European banks and transferring it to other banks abroad,” said a senior Iranian official, who asked not to be named.
http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=10918464&pageNumber=0

William Shatner’s Body Estimated Value = $1,234,569,000

If William Shatner’s kidney stone commands $25,000, let’s estimate how much his whole body would sell for.

Kidney stones vary in size from as small as a grain of sand to as large as a golf ball. One of the largest recorded stones weight in at 1.36 kilograms or 2.992 pounds!

A Golf ball does not exceed 1.62 ounces, and a grain of sand weighs very little indeed.

If Shatner’s stone weight 1/20 of a golf ball, that would be 0.081 ounces. It probably was much smaller, which means my estimate is too low. No worries, you can do the rest of the math based on your estimates.

If Shatner’s weighs 250 lbs, that would be 4000 ounces.

At $25,000 per 0.081 ounces, Shatner’s whole body would be worth an estimated $1,234,569,000.

Trekkers, save your money.

Auctioneers, you are going to have a field day.

Charities, you are going to be swimming in cash!

And Shatner, you truly have gone where no man (or stone) has gone before!

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – Going maybe where no other actor has gone before, “Star Trek” star William Shatner has sold a piece of his body for charity.

Shatner, famed for playing Captain James T. Kirk, commander of the starship U.S.S. Enterprise in the original “Star Trek” TV series, sold his kidney stone to online casino GoldenPalace.Com for $25,000. The money will be donated by Shatner to Habitat for Humanity to build houses for the poor.

But Shatner said it wasn’t easy parting with a kidney stone, even if it had already left his body. He also said he would never sell unless he had visitation rights.
http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=10904655&src=eDialog/GetContent

Kidney Stone Photographs
http://www.herringlab.com/photos/

urologychannel Kidney stones
http://www.urologychannel.com/kidneystones/index.shtml

Neuroscientific Evidence of Schadenfreude

We all know women are more empathic than men. Science can now explain biologically why this is so. Imagine if the world had been ruled by women instead of men? How different would history read?

REUTERS
By Patricia Reaney

LONDON (Reuters) – Germans have a word for it — schadenfreude — and when it comes to getting pleasure from someone else’s misfortune, men seem to enjoy it more than women.

Such is the conclusion reached by scientists at University College London in what they say is the first neuroscientific evidence of schadenfreude.

Using brain-imaging techniques, they compared how men and women reacted when watching other people suffer pain.

If the sufferer was someone they liked, areas of the brain linked to empathy and pain were activated in both sexes.

Women had a similar response if they disliked the person experiencing the pain but men showed a surge in the reward areas of the brain.
http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=10904684&src=eDialog/GetContent