Sotomayor Supported Censoring Biblical Verse on Homosexuality from New York City Billboard

CYBERCAST NEWS SERVICE (CNSN.com) [Media Research Center] - By Adam Brickley - July 8, 2009 Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is again drawing fire from conservative groups, this time as the result of a 2003 ruling against a Christian group. In the case of Okwedy v. Molinari, decided in 2003, Sotomayor sat on a three-judge panel that upheld a lower court’s ruling (from 2001) against Keyword Ministries and its pastor, Kristopher Okwedy. The ministry had purchased billboard advertisements featuring Bible verses that condemned homosexuality. The ads were taken down after a local government official complained about their message to the company that owned the billboard, and Okwedy sued both the company and the government official who wrote the complaint. He claimed his rights were violated under the Free Speech, Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment; the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and several state laws. The advertisements featured various translations of Leviticus 18:22, which reads in the King James Version, “Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is an abomination.” Posted in the New York City borough of Staten Island, the messages were taken down after Guy Molinari, the borough president, sent a letter condemning them to PNE Media, LLC, which owned the billboards. His letter was printed on official New York City letterhead. “As Borough President of Staten Island,” Molinari wrote, “I want to inform you that this message conveys an atmosphere of intolerance which is not welcome in our Borough.” The advertisements were taken down later that day. In 2001, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed Okwedy’s lawsuit. An appeal was entered and the case went to a three judge panel of U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in April 2002. The judges on the panel were Fred Parker, Chester Straub and Sonia Sotomayor. In their “summary order” the judges ruled that the district court was correct to dismiss Okwedy’s claim that Molinari’s letter violated free speech rights. “Plaintiffs contend that Molinari violated their rights under the Free Exercise Clause by criticizing the billboards’ message as unnecessarily confrontational and offensive, and by creating an atmosphere of intolerance. In order to prevail on a Free Exercise Clause claim, a plaintiff generally must establish that ‘the object of [the challenged] law is to infringe upon or restrict practices because of their religious motivation,’ or that its ‘purpose . . . is the suppression of religion or religious conduct,’” said the judges. They continued: “Plaintiffs have alleged no facts that suggest that Molinari’s purpose or the purpose of the New York law was to single out plaintiffs’ religious expression. In fact, plaintiffs acknowledge that Molinari acted pursuant to the general policy against ‘intolerance’ and ‘bigotry’ expressed in New York law and the New York City Administrative Code § 8-101. … Therefore, because plaintiffs have not shown that Molinari lacked a rational basis for enforcing that policy, the district court correctly dismissed the Free Exercise Clause claim." But Michael DePrimo, a former litigation counsel for the American Family Association’s Center for Law and Policy, which argued the case on behalf of Mr. Okwedy, told CNSNews.com: “The Establishment Clause requires neutrality in religious matters by the government. They can’t be pro-religion; they can’t be anti-religion. You can’t favor religion; you can’t be hostile toward religion.” Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council (FRC), slammed the appeals court’s opinion. “The case raises troubling issues,” he said in a statement. “[T]he church was posting a purely religious message with no statements regarding public policy. The opinion suggests that Sotomayor may view the First Amendment through the lenses of political correctness.” “Would a billboard proclaiming ‘gay pride month,’ which is offensive to many Christians, have been similarly treated?” Perkins said. “Sotomayor should be asked.” DePrimo, now allied with the Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Alliance Defense Fund, said the way in which Sotomayor and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the case is questionable. “This was an issue of first impression in the Second Circuit,” he said. “I couldn’t find anything that was remotely like it.” In legal terms, “first impression” is used to describe an issue which a court has never taken up before. “So, instead of analyzing the issue and writing on it, and publishing it, and therefore setting a precedent that lower courts would be bound to follow, they took the unprecedented step of issuing a summary order that was unpublished” at the time DePrimo added. “How do you do that on an issue of first impression?” DePrimo also noted that the court issued two different opinions on the case, dismissing most of the case with the summary order, but writing a published opinion on one portion of the case that was sent back to the district court. “I have never seen before a court bifurcate an opinion,” he said. Asked whether Sotomayor showed a pattern of issuing summary orders on controversial cases, as she also did recently in the reverse-discrimination case of Ricci vs. DeStefano (involving firefighters in New Haven, Conn.), DePrimo said: “It appears to me that Judge Sotomayor simply refuses to analyze those questions or those issues that may result in a result that she doesn’t like.” He also asserted that the summary order cited a district court analysis that did not exist. The three-judge panel, including Sotomayor, “said that they relied upon the district court’s analysis of the Lemon test,” said DePrimo, referring to the guidelines set out for Establishment Clause cases in the 1971 case Lemon v. Kurtzman. “The district court didn’t analyze the case under the Lemon Test,” said DePrimo. “The district court made no mention of the Lemon Test. So to say that they were accepting the lower court’s analysis and reasoning obviously is not correct,” The three-pronged Lemon test, used to determine whether government violates the constitutional prohibition against government “establishment of religion,” requires the court to ask whether a government action has a secular purpose, has the purpose of advancing or inhibiting religion, or entangles religion and government. Had Sotomayor and the other members of the panel actually employed the Lemon Test, DePrimo claimed, Okwedy would have won. Furthermore, he claimed that Okewedy v. Molinari may actually present more issues than Ricci v. DeStefano. “In the Ricci case,” he said, “the reason that people are defending Sotomayor is they were saying the law in the 2nd Circuit was established, and therefore she was bound to follow the law, and therefore there was no reason for her to elaborately write on the issue in Ricci.” “That wasn’t the case in Okwedy,” he said. “There was no established law. This was a case of first impression. This is what courts of appeal do.” William Marshall , a professor of law at the University of North Carolina, expressed a different opinion of the case. Referring to the court’s written opinion, in which Okwedy’s free speech claim was returned to the lower courts for a new ruling, Marshall said, “The part that I saw, the speech piece of it, is a very pro-religious expression piece.” He went on to say, “I think what the per curiam opinion did was take the strongest count by the plaintiffs and remanded that for further consideration, overruling the district court. In that sense, it was pretty sympathetic toward the plaintiffs’ position.” Asked about the splitting of the decision into both an opinion and a summary order, Marshall said, “You see that occasionally. The Second Circuit does an awful lot of its business by summary orders.” Rob Boston, a senior policy analyst for Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, agreed with the court’s decision. “If you look at this case from the perspective of more of a church-state separation case,” he said, “I think it still is a difficult one for the churches to win, and here’s why: This is a case essentially that deals with a political issue that has religious overtones. It’s not pure religion.” Boston also said, “This is different because it’s an issue that the church was claiming they feel very strongly about. They have a sincere religious belief that homosexuality is wrong. But that’s not going to rise to the same level of a direct attack on a religious denomination by a government.” When asked whether Molinari’s action constituted an attack on the Bible, due to the fact that there was nothing but a Bible verse on Okwedy’s billboard, Boston said, “I can understand their argument. It’s a creative one, but I also can understand why it failed, because obviously in the context of an ongoing discussion on gay rights or same sex marriage or what have you, that quotation was designed to make a statement about a political issue.” “Some of the conservative groups that don’t like Sotomayor are casting around looking for something to use against her,” Boston said, “and this is one of a couple of cases that they’ve brought up recently.” “But, to be honest, I think the facts of this case are somewhat esoteric, they’re not really easy to grasp,” said Boston. “I doubt it’s going to resonate with the public, and I think, barring any unusual revelations at the last minute, Sotomayor’s going to go on the Supreme Court.” http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=50678 FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of religious, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

The Bilderberg Group: Are the people who 'really run the world' meeting this weekend?

The Bilderberg group, the topic of many conspiracy theories, is now meeting behind closed doors in Greece. HAARETZ [Schocken/DuMont Schauberg] - By Adam Abrams - May 14, 2009 From today until May 17, approximately 150 of the most influential members of the world's elite will be meeting behind closed doors at a hotel in Greece. They are called the Bilderberg Group or the "Bilderbergers," and you have probably never heard of them. The group, co-founded by Prince Bernard of the Netherlands, has been meeting in secret every year since 1954. This year, says the British broadsheet The Times, they are meeting at the Nafsika Astir Palace in Vouliagmeni. The individuals at the meeting come from such power houses as Google and the Wall Street Journal, the U.S. Senate and European royalty. Governments, the banking industry, big oil, media and even the world of academia are amongst the Bilderberg ranks. Those reportedly in attendance at last year's conference in Virginia include former U.S. senator Tom Daschle; Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner and his predecessor Henry M. Paulson; former U.S. secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and Condoleezza Rice; Microsoft executive Craig Mundie; senior Wall Street Journal editor Paul Gigot; World Bank President Robert Zoellick and Google CEO Eric Schmidt. There is no official list of who's who in Bilderberg and there are no press conferences about the meetings. This is because the group operates under the "Chatham House Rule," and no details of what goes on inside are released to the press. This secrecy has led to many claims that the Bilderberg Group are the world's real "kingmakers," and, some even suggest, behind the global financial crisis. There are also rumors concerning Bilderberg's 2008 conference in Virginia, claiming that the recent U.S. presidential election was decided upon in a secret meeting between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, courtesy of Bilderberg. Those involved in Bilderberg reject such claims outright, arguing that the forum offers a chance for world leaders to discuss international affairs openly and honestly. Former British cabinet minister, Lord Denis Healey, who was one of the founders of the group, branded assumptions of world domination as "crap!" and said that the group's aims were much purer. In an interview to journalist Jon Ronson of the Guardian, Healey said: "Those of us in Bilderberg felt we couldn't go on forever fighting one another for nothing and killing people and rendering millions homeless. So we felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing." Veteran Bilderberg-watcher Daniel Estulin says that the big topic on the agenda for this year is the global depression. Estulin quotes sources connected to the group as saying that the group is looking at two options, "either a prolonged, agonizing depression that dooms the world to decades of stagnation, decline, and poverty... or an intense-but-shorter depression that paves the way for a new sustainable economic world order, with less sovereignty but more efficiency." As the BBC's Jonathan Duffy noted in 2004, the air of mystery has fueled the increasingly popular conspiracy theory that the Bilderberg meetings are where decisions affecting the entire world are made. "No reporters are invited in and while confidential minutes of meetings are taken, names are not noted," Duffy wrote. "In the void created by such aloofness, an extraordinary conspiracy theory has grown up around the group that alleges the fate of the world is largely decided by Bilderberg." Recently, mainstream press coverage of the Bilderberg meeting has grown, largely due to the internet. This year's conference may have been covered by British broadsheets, but don't expect to see any coverage from U.S. news outlets such as The Wall Street Journal or the Washington Post - they will most likely be at the conference. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1085589.html FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of religious, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

The Dark Roots of the EU

THE BRUSSELS JOURNAL [Society for the Advancement of Freedom in Europe (SAFE), a Swiss non-profit organisation] - From the desk of Paul Belien - December 5, 2005 Belgium was founded exactly 175 years ago, in 1830. The cover of A Throne in Brussels, the book I wrote for its anniversary, depicts the map of the European Union in the Belgian colours. This is no coincidence. As Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt recently said: “Belgium is the laboratory of European unification. Foreign politicians watch our country with particular interest because it can teach them something about the feasibility of the European project.” Two peoples live within the Belgian state: Dutch-speaking Flemings and French-speaking Walloons. In 1830 the country was part of the Dutch-speaking Netherlands. The Belgian revolution was the work of French-speaking rebels who wanted to have it annexed to France. The international powers stepped in and, by way of compromise, decided to make Belgium an independent kingdom with at its helm a German prince, Leopold of Saxe-Coburg, who was a member of the British royal family. The French diplomat Talleyrand described the new country as “an artificial construction, consisting of different peoples.” His Austrian colleague Count Dietrichstein said that the Belgian nationality was “a political attempt rather than an observable political reality.” These are descriptions that fit the European project today. In 1865, the year of his death, Leopold I, the prince who had been given the crown of Belgium, told his son that “nothing holds the country together” and that “it cannot continue to exist.” To his secretary, Jules Van Praet, he said “Belgium has no nationality and […] it can never have one. Basically, Belgium has no political reason to exist.” Belgium’s history is the dramatic search of its leaders for unifying elements which would be able to compensate for the lack of nationhood and the absence of genuine and generous patriotic feelings in their country. By the late 19th century the Belgian political elite developed the ideology of “Belgicism.” This “Belgicism” bears a striking similarity to contemporary “Europeanism.” Just listen to what the Belgicist ideologue Léon Hennebicq, a Brussels lawyer, wrote in 1904: “Have we not been called the laboratory of Europe? Indeed, we are a nation under construction. The problem of economic expansion is duplicated perfectly here by the problem of constructing a nationality. Two different languages, different classes without cohesion, a parochial mentality, an adherence to local communities that borders on the most harmful egotism, these are all elements of disunion. Luckily they can be reconciled. The solution is economic expansion, which can make us stronger by uniting us.” His words foreshadow the Europeanist project of the 1950s which aimed for political unification through economic integration. Apart from a Belgicist, however, Hennebicq was also a socialist. He did not attach importance to economic growth for its own sake - the creation of wealth which would benefit the people - but because Belgium needed economic expansion in order to be able to literally buy the adherence of the Flemings and the Walloons to their artificial state. The Belgicists were aware that Belgium could only become a viable country, if it was turned into a huge redistribution mechanism, a welfare state. After the first World War the Belgicists imposed a social-corporatist system on Belgium. Since 1919, economic and social policies are no longer decided in parliament, but in consensus between the so-called “Social Partners.” These Social Partners include the Federation of Belgian Employers, which is the official representative of the employers versus the state. In addition it includes three specific trade unions (a Christian-Democrat, a Socialist and a Liberal one), which are recognised by the state as the only official representatives of the employees. The social partners are by nature Belgicist institutions: they operate in both Flanders and Wallonia and have huge financial and political interests in both parts of the country. Already at a very early stage, it dawned on the Belgicists that they could as easily apply their state-building experiment to Europe. Between 1900 and 1932, the Belgicist historian Henri Pirenne published a seven volume history of Belgium. Pirenne claimed that Belgium was not a 19th century “artificial construction” as Talleyrand had said. On the contrary, he described it as one of the oldest nations in the whole of Europe. Indeed, Charlemagne, the 8th century Frankish leader, had been a Belgian, Pirenne said. In Charlemagne’s Frankish Empire, people of Latin and Germanic origin had lived together. According to the Belgicists, Belgium, this union of Germanic Flemings and Latin Walloons, was the very core of the state of Charlemagne which in 1830 had reappeared like a phoenix. In order to fulfil its destiny it would have to expand into a united Europe, with the Germans in the position of the Flemings and the French in that of the Walloons. Pirenne created the myth of Charlemagne as the first Belgian and the first European. In the 1930s the idea of transplanting Belgicism to the European level, by creating a unified pan-European corporatist welfare state, was further elaborated on by Henri De Man, the leader of the Belgian Socialist Party, and by his deputy Paul-Henri Spaak. De Man called himself a national socialist, but explained that this had nothing to do with nationalism at all. In fact, one of his major books was called “Au delà du Nationalisme” (“Beyond Nationalism”). De Man knew that Belgium, as an artificial construct, did not really exist as a nation. The Belgian state was no more than the corporatist welfare system run by the “social partners.” All that being a Belgian nationalist meant was that one was attached to the Belgian welfare state. In a february 1937 interview De Man said: “What Spaak and I mean by national socialism is a socialism that attempts to achieve all that can be achieved within the national framework.” He went on to state that the Belgian welfare system could - and should - eventually be replaced by a pan-European or even a global welfare system. “I insist on being a good European, a good world citizen, as much as on being a good Belgian,” de Man said. He reckoned that if one had to live in an artificial welfare state, it would be better to live in one on as large a scale as possible. The Belgian model had to be applied at a European level. When Hitler invaded Belgium and France in May 1940, De Man saw this as a unique opportunity to establish a united Europe. He asked his followers not to oppose the German victory because “far from being a disaster, it is a deliverance. The Socialist Order will thereby be established, as the common good, in the name of a national solidarity that will soon be continental, if not world-wide.” In a speech in Antwerp on 20 April 1941 (Hitler’s birthday), De Man warned against Flemish secessionists who collaborated with the Germans in the hope that Berlin would abolish Belgium and grant Flanders its independence. De Man stressed that it was necessary to “transform Belgium, not abandon it”, through “an Anschluss to Europe.” What was needed, he added, “was as much federalism and as little separatism as possible,” so that “Belgium, exactly because it is not based on a unique national sentiment, can become the vanguard of the European Revolution, the principle on which the new European Order hinges.” De Man’s deputy, Paul-Henri Spaak, who had fled to France in May 1940, tried to return to Belgium during the Summer, but was not allowed in by the Germans. Hence, against his wishes he ended up in Britain. At the time he deplored this. Later it would turn out to have been his good fortune. Otherwise, like De Man, he would have ended up as a Nazi collaborator. Instead, Spaak survived the war on the winning side. Though Henri De Man is now forgotten by history, his political legacy is very much alive. Spaak remained loyal to De Man’s vision of Belgium as a multi-national social-corporatist welfare state that was to be elevated to the European level. Spaak became one of the Founding Fathers of the European Union. Though he was an arch-opportunist, with few loyalties, he did not betray De Man’s dream of one single European welfare state. According to Spaak’s 1969 memoirs, De Man was “one of those rare men who on some occasions have given me the sensation of a genius.” In 1956, Spaak authored the so-called Spaak Report which laid the foundation of the Treaty of Rome the following year. It recommended the creation of a European Common Market as a step towards political unification. From the beginning the views of the people about all this was deemed unimportant. In his memoirs, Spaak admits that “political opinion was indifferent. The work was done by a minority who knew what they wanted.” Given the roots of Europeanism in Belgicism, there is a lot to be learned from Belgium’s characteristics as an artificial non-national state. Verhofstadt is right when he says that foreign politicians watch his country with particular interest because it can teach them something about the feasibility of the European project. The European superstate shares more than just its capital with Belgium. If the so-called Europeanists have their way, it is also going to be a Greater-Belgium. In my book I describe three characteristics of Belgium that have already infected Europe. Firstly, as there is no genuine patriotism, the state has had to buy the adherence of the people by literally corrupting them. The absence of the virtue of generous patriotism forces the political leaders to make hard-headed calculated self-interest the foundation of the state. It is not a coincidence that Belgium is plagued by corruption to a degree that is higher than in neighbouring countries. It is not a coincidence that corruption is plaguing the European institutions also. A second characteristic of Belgium throughout its history has been the absence of the rule of law. If the existence of the state is at stake, laws and even the constitution will be ignored in order to secure the continued existence of Belgium. As the state is an artificial construct that is unloved by the people, this happens quite regularly. Many examples are to be found in Belgium’s 175 years of existence. In fact there never was a majority in the Belgian parliament to introduce the social-corporatist model of the Belgicists in 1919. About this episode the historian Luc Schepens wrote: “It is not inappropriate to state that the worst war casualties in Belgium were the Constitution and the parliamentary democracy - albeit out of necessity and in the name of the continuity of the State.” Today, out of necessity and in the name of the continuity of the European project, Europeanists want to ignore the rejection of the European Constitutional Treaty by the peoples of Europe. The third characteristic of an artificially constructed state is its unreliability in international relations. A state that is not committed to the rule of law, is not committed to its friends and allies either. Original Report http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/542 FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of religious, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

China’s REAL ID: Name Not on Our List? Change It, China Says

NEW YORK TIMES [NYTimes Group/Sulzberger] - By Sharon LaFraniere - April 20, 2009 BEIJING - “Ma,” a Chinese character for horse, is the 13th most common family name in China, shared by nearly 17 million people. That can cause no end of confusion when Mas get together, especially if those Mas also share the same given name, as many Chinese do. Ma Cheng’s book-loving grandfather came up with an elegant solution to this common problem. Twenty-six years ago, when his granddaughter was born, he combed through his library of Chinese dictionaries and lighted upon a character pronounced “cheng.” Cheng, which means galloping steeds, looks just like the character for horse, except that it is condensed and written three times in a row. The character is so rare that once people see it, Miss Ma said, they tend to remember both her and her name. That is one reason she likes it so much. That is also why the government wants her to change it. For Ma Cheng and millions of others, Chinese parents’ desire to give their children a spark of individuality is colliding head-on with the Chinese bureaucracy’s desire for order. Seeking to modernize its vast database on China’s 1.3 billion citizens, the government’s Public Security Bureau has been replacing the handwritten identity card that every Chinese must carry with a computer-readable one, complete with color photos and embedded microchips. The new cards are harder to forge and can be scanned at places like airports where security is a priority. The bureau’s computers, however, are programmed to read only 32,252 of the roughly 55,000 Chinese characters, according to a 2006 government report. The result is that Miss Ma and at least some of the 60 million other Chinese with obscure characters in their names cannot get new cards - unless they change their names to something more common. Moreover, the situation is about to get worse or, in the government’s view, better. Since at least 2003, China has been working on a standardized list of characters for people to use in everyday life, including when naming children. One newspaper reported last week that the list would be issued later this year and would curb the use of obscure names. A government linguistics official told Xinhua, the state-run news agency, that the list would include more than 8,000 characters. Although that is far fewer than the database now supposedly includes, the official said it was more than enough “to convey any concept in any field.” About 3,500 characters are in everyday use. Government officials suggest that names have gotten out of hand, with too many parents picking the most obscure characters they can find or even making up characters, like linguistic fashion accessories. But many Chinese couples take pride in searching the rich archives of classical Chinese to find a distinctive, pleasing name, partly to help their children stand out in a society with strikingly few surnames. By some estimates, 100 surnames cover 85 percent of China’s citizens. Laobaixing, or “old hundred names,” is a colloquial term for the masses. By contrast, 70,000 surnames cover 90 percent of Americans. The number of Chinese family names in use has tended to shrink as China’s population has grown, a winnowing of surnames that has occurred in many cultures over time. At last count, China’s Wangs were leading with more than 92 million, followed by 91 million Lis and 86 million Zhangs. To refer to an unidentified person — the equivalent of “just anybody” in English — one Chinese saying can be loosely translated this way: “some Zhang, some Li.” The potential for mix-ups is vast. There are nearly enough Chinese named Zhang Wei to populate the city of Pittsburgh. Nicknames are liberally bestowed in classrooms and workplaces to tell people apart. Confronting three students named Liu Fang, for example, one middle-school teacher nicknamed them Big, Little and Middle. Wang Daliang, a linguistics scholar with the China Youth University for Political Science, said picking rare characters for given names only compounded the problem and inconvenienced everyone. “Using obscure names to avoid duplication of names or to be unique is not good,” he wrote in an e-mail response to questions. “Now a lot of people are perplexed by their names,” he said. “The computer cannot even recognize them and people cannot read them. This has become an obstacle in communication.” But Professor Zhou Youyong, dean of Southeast University’s law school, said the government should tread carefully in issuing any new regulation. “The right to name children is a basic right of citizens,” he said. Miss Ma said that while her given name was unusual, bank employees, passport control clerks and ticket agents had always managed to deal with it, usually by writing it by hand. But when she tried to renew her identity card last August, she said, Beijing public security officials turned her down flat. “Your name is so troublesome and problematic,” she recalled an official telling her. “Just change it.” Miss Ma argues that the government’s technology should adapt, not her. “There were no such regulations when I was born, so I should be entitled to keep my name for my whole life,” she said. If she changes her name to get an identity card, she noted, it will be wrong on all of her other documents, like her passport and university diploma. Besides, she said, “I can’t think of another, better name.” Using the time-honored Chinese method of backdoor connections, Miss Ma was able to get a temporary card in January. She must renew it every three months but considers that a small sacrifice for keeping her name. Zhao C., a 23-year-old college student, gave up the fight for his. His father, a lawyer, chose the letter C from the English alphabet, saying it was simple, memorable and stood for China. When he could not get a new identity card in 2006, Zhao C. sued. But security officials convinced him that it would cost millions of dollars to alter the database, his father said, so he dropped the suit in February. His case might suggest that resistance against China’s powerful bureaucracy was futile. Still, the government’s plan to limit the use of characters has not gone all that smoothly. The new rules were originally supposed to be issued by 2005. Now, 70 revisions later, they have yet to be put in place. An official this week batted away questions, saying publicity might delay the rules even longer. Huang Yuanxi contributed research. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/21/world/asia/21china.html?th&emc=th FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of religious, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

NAU: Land of the free on the verge of extinction?

Note: This is an excerpt of the introductory essay for the Be Alert! published on September 27, 2007 that contains part of Scott Brisk’s personal testimony. In approximately 1979 I viewed the movie version of Hal Lindsey’s book The Late Great Planet Earth. Now looking back, at only twelve years old the movie had the most profound and life changing impact of anything in my childhood. I began to pay attention to world events and to expect certain things to happen and slowly over time those things indeed did begin to happen. I was brought up Roman Catholic, but my mother went through what I can only describe as a searching phase where we stopped attending mass and I was exposed to some evangelicals such as Pat Roberson and his 700 Club. In retrospect, I didn’t really know anything but some very basic truths and many lies and distortions, but I did have a personal trust in God the Father, and had a personal relationship with Him as best as I could based upon my limited understanding and I do now see that the Lord was calling me. I didn’t buy into Roman Catholicism (although I didn’t understand or think there was anything wrong with it either) or any denominations for that matter, I just knew a Christian was a Christian, but I couldn’t tell you why. Of course I was just a child and praise the Lord, had the faith of a child. Twice, I believe the Lord answered my prayers and healed, the first time being when I was maybe nine years old and sprained my ankle very badly the day before a large family function. I was very sad because I thought I would be laid up in bed and miss the event so I prayed to the Lord that He would heal my ankle and I awoke the next morning as if nothing had happened. The second time, only a few years later my pet cat was diagnosed with a fatal illness and was very sick. The vet said she would have to be put to sleep. Again I prayed and the next day she was better, no sign of the illness and our cat went on to live another ten years or so. As I progressed into my teen years I drifted away from my daily prayers and child-like trust in the Lord and slipped into rebellion and a party lifestyle, but in the back of my mind I always believed in the God of the Bible which made for some awkward moments when hanging around my stoned, drunken hippie and punk rocker friends. In my ignorance I made it a habit to blaspheme one friend’s statue of Buddha as much as possible as way of countering all of their blaspheming of God and Christ. However, the images from that movie stuck with me and as I watched world events unfold I knew that something about the Bible was true. I started to develop a hunger for reading the scripture and had a goal that sometime in my life I would read through the whole Bible. Of course, at that point in time it was very difficult to understand and some of it just made absolutely no sense and the stuff about “sin” I could understand but didn’t like to read. I just wanted to read the “good parts”, which for me always had to do with the end times. Finally as I grew older, conviction began to really take hold and I finally surrendered to the Lord in 1996 at the age of 29 while reading a book by Dave Hunt called How Close Are We? Suddenly the veil was torn and I could see and the Bible made complete sense, I was blind but now I could see! It was absolutely amazing hearing so many of those cliché’ terms over the years but now suddenly experiencing them. Through all those previous years however, I had kept one eye on world events and had built up some expectation of things that would come. Part of what brought me to surrender was seeing so many events pointing more and more towards what the Bible spoke concerning the time of Christ’s return. Today, many of those things are taking place at a frightening pace. One area that tends to always get a negative response from subscribers of the alert is that of the sudden increase in the destruction of personal rights, the growth of a police state and the birth of a fascist government here in the United Stated as well as other Western Democracies. When I say fascist I feel I must always explain myself by stating that I am not referring to what took place in Nazi Germany with Hitler but to the classic definition of fascism, which is a marriage of government and business. Adolph Hitler was a dictator who used fascism while those in power today sway people emotionally away from reason by throwing out words such as “Nazi” and names such as “Hitler”. This is done daily by politicians and the press to such a point that the public has become non-thinking puppets controlled by any emotion the puppeteers want to exploit rather than by using rational thought. This one-world trend I have expected for a very long time, so I am not surprised when I see it, but what does surprise me is how many Christians just don’t see it, don’t want to see it, won’t except it, or ridicule me and others for exposing it. Actually, as I have done research this trend began quite earlier in the history of America than most people realize. Numerous sources tend to agree that the original “free” America that we are all taught to believe in dissipated somewhere between the end of Andrew Jackson’s presidency in 1837 and the end of the Civil War, depending on what characteristics you focus on. It is interesting to note the timings of the last great revivals in this country also when considering these items. I have come to the conclusion that we have been living in Laodicea and a delusion for generations and hence the great difficulty in awakening Christians from the enormous stupor that has overtaken the church. `Because you say, "I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing," and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked, - Revelation 3:17 For instance, between High School and College I endured Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs teaching in at least ten different classes. These types of false teachings have been rammed down our throats for decades in now America and so most people including Christians don’t even question the truth, origins, etc… I believe if Christians back in the 1970’s or 1980’s could have looked ahead and see the reports you are about to see it would have taken their breath away! How I wonder if today many Christians have not had their “breath” really taken away, if I may say so in a typological sense. If you take time to look at the reports these are not “conspiracy theories” but facts backed up by the governments own reports and websites. Why do so many just blatantly disregard the facts? Is it too uncomfortable? Does it trample on a preconceived idea? Does it jeopardize your material goods and your bank accounts? Or does it put in jeopardy your dreams and plans for your future and that of your families? Probably the same reasons the plain truths of the Bible have been disregarded for fads, gimmicks and outright lies. I don’t really know the answer to these questions but I just observe what is happening around me and have seen a terrible shift over the years from an evangelical church looking forward to the return of Christ to one looking forward to the fruits of this life, to the pleasures the world has to offer, the great white picket-fence Disneyland delusion that has swept across America and the West. … I do not know of one major newspaper that will cover the North American Union although a few local papers will if they happen to be a considered a “local issue” (more on that in the media special also). Why? At the newspaper I work at trucks loaded with newsprint from Canada line up each night (last night 5 tractor trailers from Quebec) and I can’t help but wonder what financial benefit (because it all comes down to money) open borders will give the media as a whole. Could that be part of the reason along with the cheap labor pool that fills the many temp and part-time positions that are open at newspapers? What is interesting to consider is that in Canada and Mexico the story seems much different. A visiting Circulation Director from Halifax, Nova Scotia I spoke with was very familiar with the NAU as Canadians are mostly dead set against it. Their media and newspapers cover the issue. The Mexican government and Mexicans on the other hand are very much for it and so again the coverage is there. However, it seems that Americans are living up to there world-renowned reputation for being basically stupid when it comes to issues that effect the world only now it’s also in their own backyard. Also, there are much larger and complicated trade and financial issues to consider. In America the people have been lied to about the financial condition of the country and how the banking industry works for years. It is now starting to come to a head with the trade imbalance, Federal deficit, oil considerations, the credit and mortgage crises, countries that have or are threatening to change from the dollar to the Euro or to some other standard of backing not to mention the largest group of expected retirees starting next year. These things could easily bring the US to it’s knees unless something is done and turn the US and Canada along with Mexico into a competitor on the world state with more of a third world system that China and India already use may just be the sneaky solution to problem. Not to mention the China factor, Saudi Arabia also plays a big role in this whole mess. However, none of my ideas really matter. I am not trying to be political or offer a solution to these problems because I believe the return of Christ is very near and these one-world movements are signs pointing to that along with the bias, distortions and the cover-ups in the media which has become the mouthpiece of Satan unless you know how and where to look and the lens to read and view through which is the Word of God. The point of this alert is to warn you that the “land of the free” is on the verge of extinction along with her Western counterparts and this is all part of the enemy’s strategy to destroy God’s people, both Christians and Jews, who mostly are in desperate need of the truth and hearing of the gospel of the Kingdom. We need to be diligently spreading the truth and pulling as many out of the fire before that great and awesome day of the Lord comes. I pray that this may be a tool you can share with others as a way of opening that door. BE/\LERT!

10 Most Important Obama Faith Moments

10 Most Important Obama Faith Moments U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT [NY Daily News/Mortimer Zuckerman] - April 29, 2009 1. Rick Warren's Inauguration Day Invocation http://www.usnews.com/listings/ten-obama-faith-moments/rick-warren-invocation 2. Granting First TV Interview to Arabic Language Network http://www.usnews.com/listings/ten-obama-faith-moments/obama-on-al-arabiya 3. Reversing Mexico City Policy on Family Planning Providers Abroad http://www.usnews.com/listings/ten-obama-faith-moments/family-planning-abroad 4. Opening Rallies With Prayer George W. Bush started cabinet meetings with prayer and encouraged the formation of Bible study groups at the White House, but President Obama has gone a big step further in embracing religion by opening many of his public events with prayers that have been commissioned and vetted by administration aides. The prayers, which have kicked off at least a half dozen of the president's outside-the-beltway rallies, are written and read by local community members who've been selected by the White House. Interviews with former White House aides and official presidential archivists going back to the Carter administration turn up no evidence of similar programs. "If a similar thing had been done by President Bush's White House, I guarantee you there would have been a lot of people crying foul," says Bill Wichterman, President Bush's liaison to religious groups. The White House declined to comment about the program, other than to say that such prayers have been standard since Obama began his presidential campaign. http://www.usnews.com/listings/ten-obama-faith-moments/opening-rallies-with-prayer 5. Launching White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships http://www.usnews.com/listings/ten-obama-faith-moments/white-house-faith-office 6. Convening a Faith Advisory Council http://www.usnews.com/listings/ten-obama-faith-moments/faith-advisory-council 7. Joe Biden's Receiving Ashes on Ash Wednesday http://www.usnews.com/listings/ten-obama-faith-moments/biden-ash-wednesday 8. Lifting Restrictions on Federally-Funded Embryonic Stem Cell Research http://www.usnews.com/listings/ten-obama-faith-moments/stem-cell-research 9. Announcing Plans to Give Notre Dame's Commencement Address http://www.usnews.com/listings/ten-obama-faith-moments/obama-at-notre-dame 10. Speaking to Muslim World From Turkey http://www.usnews.com/listings/ten-obama-faith-moments FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of religious, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Barack Obama is a narcissist

Dr. Sam Vaknin is an Israeli psychologist. Interesting view on our new president. This can be checked out on Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/vaknin.asp Dr. Vaknin has written extensively about narcissism. Dr. Vaknin states "I must confess I was impressed by Sen.Barack Obama from the first time I saw him. At first I was excited to see a black candidate. He looked youthful, spoke well, appeared to be confident - a wholesome presidential package. I was put off soon, not just because of his shallowness but also because there was an air of haughtiness in his demeanor that was unsettling. His posture and his body language were louder than his empty words. Obama's speeches are unlike any political speech we have heard in American history. Never a politician in this land had such quasi "religious" impact on so many people. The fact that Obama is a total incognito with zero accomplishment, makes this inexplicable infatuation alarming. Obama is not an ordinary man. He is not a genius. In fact he is quite ignorant on most important subjects." Barack Obama is a narcissist. Dr. Sam Vaknin, the author of the Malignant Self Love believes "Barack Obama appears to be a narcissist.." Vaknin is a world authority on narcissism. He understands narcissism and describes the inner mind of a narcissist like no other person. When he talks about narcissism everyone listens. Vaknin says that Obama's language, posture and demeanor, and the testimonies of his closest, dearest and nearest suggest that the Senator is either a narcissist or he may have narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). Narcissists project a grandiose but false image of themselves. Jim Jones, the charismatic leader of People's Temple, the man who led over 900 of his followers to cheerfully commit mass suicide and even murder their own children was also a narcissist. David Koresh, Charles Manson, Joseph Koni, Shoko Asahara, Stalin, Saddam, Mao,Kim Jong Ill and Adolph Hitler are a few examples of narcissists of our time. All these men had a tremendous influence over their fanciers. They created a personality cult around themselves and with their blazing speeches elevated their admirers, filled their hearts with enthusiasm and instilled in their minds a new zest for life. They gave them hope! They promised them the moon, but alas, invariably they brought them to their doom. When you are a victim of a cult of personality, you don't know it until it is too late. One determining factor in the development of NPD is childhood abuse. "Obama's early life was decidedly chaotic and replete with traumatic and mentally bruising dislocations," says Vaknin. "Mixed-race marriages were even less common then. His parents went through a divorce when he was an infant (two years old). Obama saw his father only once again, before he died in a car accident. Then his mother re-married and Obama had to relocate to Indonesia, a foreign land with a radically foreign culture, to be raised by a step-father. At the age of ten, he was whisked off to live with his maternal (white)grandparents. He saw his mother only intermittently in the following few years and then she vanished from his life in 1979. She died of cancer in 1995". One must never underestimate the manipulative genius of pathological narcissists. They project such an imposing personality that it overwhelms those around them. Charmed by the charisma of the narcissist, people become like clay in his hands. They cheerfully do his bidding and delight to be at his service. The narcissist shapes the world around himself and reduces others in his own inverted image. He creates a cult of personality. His admirers become his co-dependents Narcissists have no interest in things that do not help them to reach their personal objective. They are focused on one thing alone and that is power. All other issues are meaningless to them and they do not want to waste their precious time on trivialities. Anything that does not help them is beneath them and do not deserve their attention. If an issue raised in the Senate does not help Obama in one way or another, he has no interest in it. The "present" vote is a safe vote. No one can criticize him if things go wrong. Those issues are unworthy by their very nature because they are not about him.. Obama's election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review led to a contract and advance to write a book about race relations. The University of Chicago Law School provided him a lot longer than expected and at the end it evolved into, guess what? His own autobiography! Instead of writing a scholarly paper focusing on race relations, for which he had been paid, Obama could not resist writing about his most sublime self. He entitled the book Dreams from My Father. Not surprisingly, Adolph Hitler also wrote his own autobiography when he was still nobody. So did Stalin. For a narcissist no subject is as important as his own self. Why would he waste his precious time and genius writing about insignificant things when he can write about such an august being as himself? Narcissists are often callous and even ruthless. As the norm, they lack conscience. This is evident from Obama's lack of interest in his own brother who lives on only one dollar per month. A man who lives in luxury, who takes a private jet to vacation in Hawaii, and who has raised nearly half a billion dollars for his campaign (something unprecedented in history) has no interest in the plight of his own brother. Why? Because, his brother cannot be used for his ascent to power. A narcissist cares for no one but himself. This election is like no other in the history of America. The issues are insignificant compared to what is at stake. What can be more dangerous than having a man bereft of conscience, a serial liar, and one who cannot distinguish his fantasies from reality as the leader of the free world? I hate to sound alarmist, but one is a fool if one is not alarmed. Many politicians are narcissists. They pose no threat to others..They are simply self serving and selfish. Obama evidences symptoms of pathological narcissism, which is different from the run-of-the-mill narcissism of a Richard Nixon or a Bill Clinton for example. To him reality and fantasy are intertwined. This is a mental health issue, not just a character flaw. Pathological narcissists are dangerous because they look normal and even intelligent. It is this disguise that makes them treacherous. Today the Democrats have placed all their hopes in Obama. But this man could put an end to their party. The great majority of blacks have also decided to vote for Obama. Only a fool does not know that their support for him is racially driven. This is racism, pure and simple. The downside of this is that if Obama turns out to be the disaster I predict, he will cause widespread resentment among the whites. The blacks are unlikely to give up their support of their man. Cultic mentality is pernicious and unrelenting. They will dig their heads deeper in the sand and blame Obama's detractors of racism. This will cause a backlash among the whites. The white supremacists will take advantage of the discontent and they will receive widespread support. I predict that in less than four years, racial tensions will increase to levels never seen since the turbulent 1960's. Obama will set the clock back decades... America is the bastion of freedom. The peace of the world depends on the strength of America, and its weakness translates into the triumph of terrorism and victory of rogue nations. It is no wonder that Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, the Castrists, the Hezbollah, the Hamas, the lawyers of the Guantanamo terrorists and virtually all sworn enemies of America are so thrilled by the prospect of their man in the White House. America is on the verge of destruction. There is no insanity greater than electing a pathological narcissist as president. FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of religious, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Do You Recognize Barack Obama in These Texts? - First Series

Sam Vaknin, Ph.D. - 3/2/2009 This is the first in a series of articles examining Obama's psychological makeup in minute detail. By now, the world had two years of exposure to Barack Obama. We all have followed his exploits and antics; have watched him on television; have heard his speeches; have witnessed his scripted and spontaneous interactions with family, subordinates, co-workers, and friends. You should read this text with a few grains of salt. Scroll to the bottom to review the disclaimers. I also recommend that you get acquainted my previous article: "Barack Obama: A Narcissist, or Merely Narcissistic?" http://www.narcissistic-abuse.com/obama.html Following are descriptions of narcissistic and psychopathic traits. They are common among people diagnosed with the Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) ( http://www.narcissistic-abuse.com/npdglance.html ) and the Antisocial Personality Disorder (psychopaths). Read these texts. Do you recognize Barack Obama in them? Narcissists are self-sufficient and consider themselves peerless. The Narcissist's "friends", companions, and acolytes provide the narcissist with an obsequious, unthreatening, audience and with the kind of unconditional and unthinking obedience that confirms to him his omnipotence. They are sufficiently vacuous to make the narcissist look sharp and omniscient - but not so asinine as to be instantly discernible as such. They are the perfect backdrop, never likely to attain centre stage and overshadow their master. Rings a bell? Continue to read about this specific trait or behavior here: The Narcissist and His Friends http://www.narcissistic-abuse.com/journal85.html In the narcissist's surrealistic world, even language is pathologized. It mutates into a weapon of self-defence, a verbal fortification, a medium without a message, replacing words with duplicitous and ambiguous vocables. Narcissists (and, often, by contagion, their unfortunate victims) don't talk, or communicate. They fend off. They hide and evade and avoid and disguise. In their planet of capricious and arbitrary unpredictability, of shifting semiotic and semantic dunes - they perfect the ability to say nothing in lengthy, Castro-like speeches. Rings a bell? Continue to read about this specific trait or behavior here: The Weapon of Language http://www.narcissistic-abuse.com/journal34.html The narcissist is the guru at the centre of a cult. Like other gurus, he demands complete obedience from his flock: his spouse, his offspring, other family members, friends, and colleagues. He feels entitled to adulation and special treatment by his followers. He punishes the wayward and the straying lambs. He enforces discipline, adherence to his teachings, and common goals. The less accomplished he is in reality - the more stringent his mastery and the more pervasive the brainwashing. Rings a bell? Continue to read about this specific trait or behavior here: The Cult of the Narcissist http://www.narcissistic-abuse.com/journal79.html The "modesty" displayed by narcissists is false. It is mostly and merely verbal. It is couched in flourishing phrases, emphasised to absurdity, repeated unnecessarily - usually to the point of causing gross inconvenience to the listener. The real aim of such behaviour and its subtext are exactly the opposite of common modesty. It is intended to either aggrandise the narcissist or to protect his grandiosity from scrutiny and possible erosion. Such modest outbursts precede inflated, grandiosity-laden statements made by the narcissist and pertaining to fields of human knowledge and activity in which he is sorely lacking. Narcissistic leadership often poses as a rebellion against the "old ways": against the hegemonic culture, the upper classes, the established religions, the superpowers, the corrupt order. Narcissistic movements are puerile, a reaction to narcissistic injuries inflicted upon a narcissistic (and rather psychopathic) toddler nation-state, or group, or upon the leader. Rings a bell? Continue to read about this specific trait or behavior here: The False Modesty and Fake Folksiness of the Narcissist http://www.narcissistic-abuse.com/faq36.html Narcissistic and Psychopathic Leaders http://www.narcissistic-abuse.com/15.html The narcissist's lies are not goal-orientated. This is what makes his constant dishonesty both disconcerting and incomprehensible. The narcissist lies at the drop of a hat, needlessly, and almost ceaselessly. He lies in order to avoid the Grandiosity Gap - when the abyss between fact and (narcissistic) fiction becomes too gaping to ignore. The narcissist lies in order to preserve appearances, uphold fantasies, support the tall (and impossible) tales of his False Self and extract Narcissistic Supply from unsuspecting sources, who are not yet on to him. To the narcissist, confabulation is not merely a way of life - but life itself. Rings a bell? Continue to read about this specific trait or behavior here: The Confabulated Life and Biography of the Narcissist http://www.narcissistic-abuse.com/journal75.html The narcissist is confident that people find him irresistible. His unfailing charm is part of his self-imputed omnipotence. This inane conviction is what makes the narcissist a "pathological charmer". The somatic narcissist and the histrionic flaunt their sex appeal, virility or femininity, sexual prowess, musculature, physique, training, or athletic achievements. The cerebral narcissist seeks to enchant and entrance his audience with intellectual pyrotechnics. Many narcissists brag about their wealth, health, possessions, collections, spouses, children, personal history, family tree - in short: anything that garners them attention and renders them alluring. Rings a bell? Continue to read about this specific trait or behavior here: The Narcissist as a Pathological Charmer http://www.narcissistic-abuse.com/case05.html The narcissist has a complicated relationship with his parents (mainly with his mother, but, at times, also with his father). As Primary Objects, the narcissist's parents are often a source of frustration which leads to repressed or to self-directed aggression. They traumatise the narcissist during his infancy and childhood and thwart his healthy development well into his late adolescence. Rings a bell? Continue to read about this specific trait or behavior here: The Narcissist's Dead Parents http://www.narcissistic-abuse.com/faq54.html The narcissist perceives every disagreement - let alone criticism - coming from people whom he does not consider to be his "peers" (e.g., the media) as nothing short of a threat. He reacts defensively. He becomes indignant, aggressive and cold. He detaches emotionally for fear of yet another (narcissistic) injury. He devalues the person who made the disparaging remark. By holding the critic in contempt, by diminishing the stature of the discordant conversant - the narcissist minimises the impact of the disagreement or criticism on himself. This is a defence mechanism known as cognitive dissonance. Rings a bell? Continue to read about this specific trait or behavior here: Narcissists, Disagreement and Criticism http://www.narcissistic-abuse.com/faq73.html The narcissist constantly consumes (really, preys upon) adoration, admiration, approval, applause, attention and other forms of Narcissistic Supply. The normal person is likely to welcome a moderate amount of attention - verbal and non-verbal - in the form of affirmation, approval, or admiration. Too much attention, though, is perceived as onerous and is avoided. Destructive and negative criticism is avoided altogether. The narcissist, in contrast, is the mental equivalent of an alcoholic. He is insatiable. He directs his whole behaviour, in fact his life, to obtain these pleasurable titbits of attention. He embeds them in a coherent, completely biased, picture of himself. He uses them to regulates his labile sense of self-worth and self-esteem. To elicit constant interest, he projects to others a confabulated, fictitious version of himself, known as the False Self. The False Self is everything the narcissist is not: omniscient, omnipotent, charming, intelligent, rich, or well-connected. The narcissist then proceeds to harvest reactions to this projected image from family members, friends, co-workers, neighbours, business partners and from colleagues. If these - the adulation, admiration, attention, fear, respect, applause, affirmation - are not forthcoming, the narcissist demands them, or extorts them. Money, compliments, a favourable critique, an appearance in the media, a sexual conquest are all converted into the same currency in the narcissist's mind. Rings a bell? Continue to read about this specific trait or behavior here: Narcissists, Narcissistic Supply and Sources of Supply http://www.narcissistic-abuse.com/faq76.html "Haughty" body language - The narcissist adopts a physical posture which implies and exudes an air of superiority, seniority, hidden powers, mysteriousness, amused indifference, etc. Though the narcissist usually maintains sustained and piercing eye contact, he often refrains from physical proximity (he is "territorial"). The narcissist takes part in social interactions - even mere banter - condescendingly, from a position of supremacy and faux "magnanimity and largesse". But he rarely mingles socially and prefers to remain the "observer", or the "lone wolf". Rings a bell? Continue to read about this specific trait or behavior here: How to Recognise a Narcissist? http://www.narcissistic-abuse.com/faq58.html Two narcissists of the same type (somatic, cerebral, classic, compensatory, inverted, etc.) cannot maintain a stable, long-term full-fledged, and functional relationship. There are two types of narcissists: the somatic narcissist and the cerebral narcissist. The somatic type relies on his body and sexuality as Sources of Narcissistic Supply. The cerebral narcissist uses his intellect, his intelligence and his professional achievements to obtain the same. The cerebral narcissist is a know-it-all, haughty and intelligent "computer". He uses his awesome intellect, or knowledge (real or pretended) to secure adoration, adulation and admiration. To him, his body and its maintenance are a burden and a distraction. Thus, if both members of the couple are cerebral narcissists, for instance if both of them are scholars - the resulting competition prevents them from serving as ample Sources of Narcissistic Supply to each other. Finally the mutual admiration society crumbles. Consumed by the pursuit of their own narcissistic gratification, they have no time or energy or will left to cater to the narcissistic needs of their partner. Moreover, the partner is perceived as a dangerous and vicious contender for a scarce resource: Sources of Narcissistic Supply. This may be less true if the two narcissists work in totally unrelated academic or intellectual fields. But if the narcissists involved are of different types, if one of them is cerebral and the other one somatic, a long-term partnership based on the mutual provision of Narcissistic Supply can definitely survive. Rings a bell? Continue to read about this specific trait or behavior here: Narcissistic Couples and Narcissistic Types http://www.narcissistic-abuse.com/faq60.html The Cerebral vs. the Somatic Narcissist http://www.narcissistic-abuse.com/faq60.html God is everything the narcissist ever wants to be: omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, admired, much discussed, and awe inspiring. God is the narcissist's wet dream, his ultimate grandiose fantasy. But God comes handy in other ways as well. The narcissist alternately idealizes and devalues figures of authority. In the idealization phase, he strives to emulate them, he admires them, imitate them (often ludicrously), and defends them. They cannot go wrong, or be wrong. The narcissist regards them as bigger than life, infallible, perfect, whole, and brilliant. But as the narcissist's unrealistic and inflated expectations are inevitably frustrated, he begins to devalue his former idols. Rings a bell? Continue to read about this specific trait or behavior here: For the Love of God: Narcissists and Religion http://www.narcissistic-abuse.com/journal45.html The narcissist is not really interested in publicity per se. Narcissists are misleading. The narcissist appears to love himself - and, really, he abhors himself. Similarly, he appears to be interested in becoming a celebrity - and, in reality, he is concerned with the REACTIONS to his fame: people watch him, notice him, talk about him, debate his actions - therefore he exists. The narcissist goes around "hunting and collecting" the way the expressions on people's faces change when they notice him. He places himself at the centre of attention, or even as a figure of controversy. He constantly and recurrently pesters those nearest and dearest to him in a bid to reassure himself that he is not losing his fame, his magic touch, the attention of his social milieu. Truly, the narcissist is not choosy. If he can become famous as a writer - he writes, if as a businessman - he conducts business. He switches from one field to the other with ease and without remorse because in all of them he is present without conviction, bar the conviction that he must (and deserves to) get famous. Rings a bell? Continue to read about this specific trait or behavior here: The Narcissist's Addiction to Fame and Celebrity http://www.narcissistic-abuse.com/faq19.html Psychopaths are said to be fearless, imperturbable, and sang-froid. Their pain tolerance is very high. Still, contrary to popular perceptions and psychiatric orthodoxy, some psychopaths are actually anxious and fearful. Their psychopathy is a defense against an underlying and all-pervasive anxiety, either hereditary, or brought on by early childhood abuse. Rings a bell? Continue to read about this specific trait or behavior here: The Psychopath and Antisocial http://www.narcissistic-abuse.com/personalitydisorders16.html (To be Continued in the Second Series) DISCLAIMERS 1. I am not a mental health professional. Still, I have dedicated the last 12 years to the study of personality disorders in general and the Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) in particular. I have authored nine (9) books about these topics, one of which is a Barnes and Noble best-seller ("Malignant Self-love: Narcissism Revisited"). My work is widely cited in scholarly tomes and publications and in the media. My books and the content of my Web site are based on correspondence since 1996 with hundreds of people suffering from the Narcissistic Personality Disorder (narcissists) and with thousands of their family members, friends, therapists, and colleagues. 2. Only a qualified mental health diagnostician can determine whether someone suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) and this, following lengthy tests and personal interviews. But, in the absence of access to Barack Obama, one has to rely on his overt performance and on testimonies by his closest, nearest and dearest.Sam Vaknin ( http://samvak.tripod.com ) is the author of Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited and After the Rain - How the West Lost the East. He served as a columnist for Global Politician, Central Europe Review, PopMatters, Bellaonline, and eBookWeb, a United Press International (UPI) Senior Business Correspondent, and the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory and Suite101. Visit Sam's Web site at http://samvak.tripod.com You can download 22 of his free ebooks in our bookstore http://www.globalpolitician.com/25489-obama-narcissist-psychopath-usa-president FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of religious, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Obama's Christian "Point Man": 'The Perfect Hybrid'

At 26, Joshua DuBois has already been a pastor and a congressional fellow, and is now the President's faith-based point man. CHRISTIANITY TODAY [CTI Publications] - By Sarah Pulliam - May 13, 2009 At 26, Joshua Dubois has already rubbed shoulders with more religious leaders than most religious leaders will in their lifetime. And he's starting to do a lot more of the same as President Obama's director of the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. He'll be rubbing shoulders with the President, too. In fact, nearly everyone who knows DuBois believes he holds a special bond with the new President, an asset previous directors of the office say will be vital in order for his priorities to gain any attention. During the campaign, DuBois put together a daily devotional for Obama, using passages of Scripture and other religious books. Now he's helping him choose a church home in Washington, D.C. On his first day in office, Obama was ushered to a prayer service at the National Cathedral, where clergy, including Katharine Jefferts Schori, the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, greeted the new President in private. "Katharine is very formal in a good Episcopalian way," said Wes Granberg-Michaelson, general secretary of the Reformed Church in America. "She has this staff, like a crosier, a big ornate thing. Obama looks at the staff, and playfully says, 'Joshua, I want one of those.' " That interaction demonstrated to Granberg-Michaelson that Obama and DuBois share a comfortable, close friendship. And if evangelicals want to have a voice in the new administration, DuBois is their window, said Granberg-Michaelson. "He has a tremendous amount of trust and relationships that span the theological spectrum."

Dividing Lines DuBois speaks openly about faith without going into many details. He's quick to clarify that, because of his new role, he wants to welcome all faiths. When asked whether he describes himself as an evangelical, he didn't directly respond. "In my role with the federal government," he explained, "I try to be clear that I'm not ashamed of my faith, but I try not to get into too many labels." Similarly, those who know him say that DuBois avoids the traditional religious dividing lines in his work as he meets with conservative organizations like the Family Research Council and liberal groups like Faith in Public Life. "He's not interested in the old ways in which we've sliced and diced communities," said Melissa Rogers, director of the Wake Forest University School of Divinity Center for Religion and Public Affairs and a member of the office's advisory council. DuBois has also built relationships with people not known for political advocacy, such as Blue Like Jazz author Donald Miller and Relevant magazine founder Cameron Strang. "If you want to appeal to conservative evangelicals, you don't necessarily go to an organization," said Joel Hunter, senior pastor of Northland Church in Longwood, Florida. "You think in terms of individuals instead of institutional leadership. That's part of the makeup of the coming generation of evangelicals." During the campaign, DuBois met repeatedly with Hunter and other religious leaders from all over the country. He met with Granberg-Michaelson at Wrigley Field in Chicago. "We talked about how I worked with a Christian senator, Mark Hatfield, how a church relates to the issues of political power, and how those in politics relate to those in the Christian community," Granberg-Michaelson said. "We just had an awful lot in common and a lot to talk about. In the 2004 election, the job of Democratic religious outreach often seemed like being a tourism director for Gary, Indiana."

A Family of Faith DuBois grew up in Nashville, where his stepfather is a minister in an African Methodist Episcopal church. DuBois grew up listening to stories of his grandmother being spat on when she participated in the 1960 Nashville lunch counter sit-ins. "I've been proud of my family and their history and speaking up for what they think is right," he said. "But we are not a family of radicals. In fact, I probably listened to much more Focus on the Family than Pacifica Radio. "I probably had many dreams as a kid of living in Whit's End," DuBois said, referring to the Focus show Adventures in Odyssey. "I used to have Psalty the Songbook tapes. Those were my favorite songs." But even though DuBois grew up in a Christian home, he said it wasn't until attending Boston University that he began to have a personal relationship with Jesus. "Maybe there are some preachers' kids who had a similar experience, maybe because I was so close to the church in some ways, I was further away from it. Maybe I thought I knew everything," he said. "It really took me leaving home to realize that something was missing in my life." Eugene Schneeberg, DuBois' college friend and prayer partner to this day, invited him to Calvary Praise and Worship Center, a small African American Pentecostal congregation in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Just two years later, DuBois became the church's associate pastor. (He also still preaches in his father's pulpit on occasion.) Warren F. Collins, pastor of the church, was startled when DuBois showed up to preach one Sunday in a hooded sweatshirt and sweatpants. His nerves calmed as DuBois used his outfit as a sermon illustration, removing his sweats to reveal a suit underneath. "He was showing that you can't judge a person by how they look initially. If you hold on to a person, they will evolve into what is expected of them," Collins said. "The one thing I always say about Joshua is that he is wise beyond his years." DuBois also recently preached from the Book of Job about getting through trials. "When my mom and biological father divorced, she was left pretty destitute and we spent some time not having a place to live. Seeing her fortitude in that period has always provided me with strength," DuBois said. "Trying to get through political challenges in the White House is nothing compared to a single mom with a young kid trying to get a roof over her family's head." Like the President, DuBois is still looking for a permanent church home in Washington. He has been attending National Community Church, whose congregation of mostly 20-somethings meet in several movie theaters in the District. The church, pastored by Mark Batterson, is aligned with the Assemblies of God, the Willow Creek Association, and the Mosaic Alliance—which may be ideal for someone who is constantly trying to reach out to many denominations.

A Political Career Emerges During DuBois' freshman year, a jury in New York acquitted four police officers whose 41 bullets had killed unarmed Guinean immigrant Amadou Diallo. DuBois joined the protests, holding a sign inscribed with "No More" at a Martin Luther King Jr. memorial in Boston for 41 hours. "As with many teenagers, I didn't give a tremendous amount of thought to anything spiritual or political before college," DuBois said. "It was something that kind of shook me a little and got me thinking about my relationship with the wider world." DuBois graduated from Boston U. in 2003 with a degree in political science and worked for Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) and Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) while earning a master's degree in public affairs from Princeton. Shortly before starting his law degree at Georgetown, DuBois saw Obama at the Democratic National Convention in Boston in 2004. He was struck in particular by the line, "We worship an awesome God in the blue states." It took him three tries before he was hired by Obama's Senate office. But once involved in Obama's presidential campaign, he gained a reputation for coordinating religious outreach, from the Saddleback Civil Forum to a small Chicago gathering with several dozen evangelicals, including Strang from Relevant. "He has the perfect hybrid of experience," Strang said. "He has the relationships to get things done, and he has the pastoral experience to understand how a church works."

Facing Criticism Despite his rapport with the President, it's unclear how much access DuBois has. "It'll be interesting to see how much attention it gets," said John Bridgeland, who served as Bush's director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, which oversaw the previous faith-based office. "The office is most active and gets the most presidential attention when people have direct access to the President." The first two directors of the office under Bush reported directly to the President, but DuBois will report to Melody Barnes, who now oversees the White House Domestic Policy Council. Barnes said that having that office in her council will keep it from becoming segregated. "The President knows Joshua well and respects his work. That will mean that we have robust activity going on in this office," Barnes said. "Having the relationships with people in the community, understanding the issues, and having the trust of the President make him a very important person." Barnes said that faith has always played a large role in her own life, so she takes a special interest in the new office. When asked about criticism of the office, she responded, "They will know us by the work that we do." DuBois defends the office by saying much of its work will be behind the scenes. "Our job is to communicate the opportunities and to provide technical assistance, like how to write a good application," DuBois said. "We're not necessarily having a press conference every time we move forward." Some observers criticize Obama for hiring someone from his political campaign rather than someone with experience in social policy. "Can you imagine the uproar if President Bush had appointed an evangelical pastor to the faith-based initiative?" asked Jim Towey, a former director of the office. Towey said he's concerned about how issues will be handled on a case-by-case basis, how the office will be able to tackle such a large agenda, and how DuBois will balance his time working with several federal agencies while handling a new advisory council. "I think President Obama gets credit for not sticking the faith-based initiative in the Smithsonian," Towey said. "Josh will always be able to get the President's ear, just by the force of his friendship, it seems. The challenge for him will be to produce results." Sarah Pulliam is online editor for Christianity Today and oversees the CT Politics blog (blog.christianitytoday.com/ctpolitics). http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/may/24.46.html

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of religious, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

What will the mark of the beast be?

MORIEL MINISTRIES > BE ALERT! - By Scott Brisk - February 24, 2009 Each time I send out an alert concerning technological advances such as those covered below, a number of people send me information or links as to what they think the mark of the beast may actually be. There are in fact, a number of different and interesting interpretations and not all of them involve some type or form of technology. At the first coming of Christ, very few if any had interpreted the scriptures correctly, as to how they would be fulfilled. That should be a great lesson to us and I always take heed concerning that fact and am comfortable in not understanding every prophecy regarding Christ's second coming. It should be a warning sign when someone claims to have 'everything figured out'. As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out on what the mark of the beast will actually be and if it will be a worldwide or localized Middle Eastern event. I definitely lean towards it being worldwide yet I am open to the fact that it may not involve some sort of technology. However, technology is already being implemented to monitor those deemed extremists, and I believe that will eventually and unfortunately include Bible believing Christians. Another point is that some may say that as long as we are law-abiding citizens as we should be if we are Christians we should have nothing to fear regarding laws or technology. As Romans 13:3-4 tells us: For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. ... This is obviously true, however, anything fallen man can use for good he can also use for evil and we are about to enter the most evil time in the history of the world, and I do not trust anything our leaders tell us regarding what or why they do. Beyond that, the evil one is not omniscient as God is and I believe he and the powers and principalities with him are a motivating factor behind much of this surveillance society. I have always envisioned a day when tracking technology would be used to stop the spread of the gospel and imprison believers. That said, I could see a day where the world cries out for the mark. The rising tide of lawlessness and never ending monetary scandals where people lose their life savings should give us a clue as to why. I have heard a number of people ask as to why the authorities have blundered so badly in allowing these scandals to happen under their nose for so long, and my thought is this is the perfect scheme to further implement their long term desire for a one world, cashless system. Beyond this, I pray that those reading this have already believed in their heart that God raised Christ from the dead and have confessed this with their mouths as they are saved (Romans 10:9). If not, today is the day of salvation. May the Lord bless you and keep you, BE/\LERT! Scott Brisk FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of religious, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.