Saturday, January 31, 2009


FoxNews commissioned a graphologist to examine the signatures of the most powerful politicians in Washington, D.C., including the president & vice-president, some members of Obama's cabinet, and the leaders of Congress.

Note the trait of secrecy common to all of them. Note also the attribute of "manipulative" in Obama's and Emanuel's profiles. Particularly alarming are the toxic personality profiles of two cabinet members, Eric Holder and Timothy Geithner.

For pics of the signatures, go to:,4644,6421,00.html

Barak Hussein Obama, President of the United States

The new president is a sensitive, secretive and cautious individual who functions emotionally, seeking everyone's best interest, said forensic handwriting specialist Ronald Rice. This will often cause him to make a decision that is 50/50 rather than 100 percent, in order to please both sides. He works in the present, more concerned with balancing the powers beneath him than about his future. While he is a sensitive and cautious individual, he can also scheme and manipulate to see his agenda through.

Joe Biden, Vice President

If Obama is oil, then Biden is water, said forensic handwriting specialist Ronald Rice. They are the perfect balance of caution and aggression. The vice president is highly emotional, extremely intense, and powerfully aggressive. He is sympathetic and understands the issues affecting American people, and is therefore able to relate to their problems. He is also secretive out of self-preservation, an often necessary and all-too-common tool used in Washington.

Rahm Emanuel, White House Chief of Staff

It is more whom Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel knows than what he knows, said forensic handwriting specialist Ronald Rice. He is extremely secretive, and though he can display great power, he can turn to putty in the hands of someone with the strength of Biden. He shares many of Obama's qualities, such as the ability to manipulate when necessary.

Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid enjoys and is comfortable with great power, but he can be extremely sensitive to criticism, said forensic handwriting specialist Ronald Rice. He, too, is secretive and manipulative, and he will likely align himself with powers such as Biden, Gates and Clinton.

Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates appears to be the most powerful of all, said forensic handwriting specialist Ronald Rice. He is extremely emotional, intense and secretive, though he can be yielding and submissive when he feels it is necessary. He is not someone to be underestimated; in fact, he appears to be Clinton's male counterpart, which could prove beneficial within the function of government.

Eric Holder, Attorney General

Attorney General Eric Holder's handwriting and signature reveal that he is an introvert, said forensic handwriting specialist Ronald Rice. Introverts are fearful of emotion and intimacy and live by the motto, "what is in the best interest of me and only me?" Introverts are not compatible with emotionally extroverted people, nor can they readily identify with pain and suffering. They are connivers and manipulators, cold, detached and contemptible toward those with whom they work and associate.

Timothy Geithner, Treasury Secretary

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's signature reveals a very secretive man, said forensic handwriting specialist Ronald Rice. He needs to be monitored, as he can be manipulative, sneaky, and narrow-minded. But he does not reveal his hand. His signature suggests a man who likes to use information when necessary, with a watchful eye on others.

Janet Napolitano, Homeland Security Secretary

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is incredibly powerful, and appears to be the ideal choice for such an important position, said forensic handwriting specialist Ronald Rice. She is hostile, resentful, stubborn, angry and aggressive, the sort of person we need at the helm of our nation's security. She cannot be bullied, and she will serve as the armor and shield in protecting our nation from attack.

Nancy Pelosi, House Speaker

House Sepaker Nancy Pelosi is smart, materialistic, secretive and powerful, said forensic handwriting specialist Ronald Rice. But she can also be immature and overly-cautious. Her sense of power pales in comparison to Clinton's. If Clinton is a cluster bomb, then Pelosi is a BB gun. She will have to be extremely cautious as she maneuvers through the columns of power.

Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid enjoys and is comfortable with great power, but he can be extremely sensitive to criticism, said forensic handwriting specialist Ronald Rice. He, too, is secretive and manipulative, and he will likely align himself with powers such as Biden, Gates and Clinton.

Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is emotional and extremely jealous, said forensic handwriting specialist Ronald Rice. He feels he is getting neither the respect nor the admiration he deserves. He is frugal, narrow-minded and cautious to a fault. He tends to get bogged down in detail and likes to exist in his own world, making him a misfit with the other new power brokers in Washington. If you toss McConnell in a room by himself and ask him to determine the distance to Mars, he will figure it out. But if he is distracted by the power of others, he is likely to be manipulated or shrink from public view.

John Boehner, House Minority Leader

House Minority Leader John Boehner is emotional, intense, aggressive, stubborn, strong, secretive, and incredibly quick-minded, said forensic handwriting specialist Ronald Rice. His personality is quite similar to Biden's and Clinton's, in that he has his own sense of strength and he radiates power. Therefore, he may either complement the administration or be a constant thorn in its side.

Saturday, January 10, 2009


Please read the following op-ed about a brave man and my friend, Dr. Wang Bingzhang, who is serving a life sentence in a prison in China. He has committed no crime, other than having spent most of his adult life advocating for democracy for China.

I have known Dr. Wang since 1983, when I joined the movement he founded, the Chinese Alliance for Democracy. The CAFD was the first overseas Chinese democracy movement.

My many years as a China scholar tell me that the Chinese government will succumb to international opinion and release a political prisoner only when there is much international publicity and outrage about that individual. Only then will Beijing decide that it's simply not worth it to continue incarcerating that individual.

Given that, I would be most grateful if you would:
(1) Forward this op-ed to as many people as possible who are on your e-mail list;
(2) After you've read the op-ed, please help secure Dr. Wang's release by writing your representatives in Congress at You need only to copy & paste this op-ed as your letter.

As Americans, we take our freedom for granted. It does not cost us anything to expend a few minutes of our time to do the above.

Thank you.

* * * * * * * *

Fighting for My Father's Freedom
By Ti-Anna Wang
Washington Post
Sunday, January 11, 2009; Page B07

When I was born in 1989, my parents named me Ti-Anna in commemoration of the Tiananmen Square massacre. Most of my friends started their first year of college last fall, but, instead of beginning my studies, I have taken a year off from school and moved to Washington. My father is a political prisoner serving a life sentence in China for opposing communism, and I am spending this year advocating for his freedom.

My father, Wang Bingzhang, founded the Chinese overseas democracy movement. He went to Canada in 1979 to pursue graduate studies at McGill University. Having lived through the Chinese Communist Party's Cultural Revolution and other political campaigns and purges, he was convinced that the Chinese people deserved a democracy ruled by law. Compelled by that ideal and his love of country, my father gave up a promising career in medicine to devote his life to the democratic transformation of China. He moved to New York in 1982 to gain the support of and to work with like-minded Chinese immigrants and expatriates in constructing the overseas Chinese democracy movement. For almost 20 years, my father dedicated himself to this cause. While he faced many challenges within and outside the movement, he was unwavering in his commitment to Chinese democracy.

In June 2002, my father traveled to Vietnam to meet with two fellow labor activists. They were conferring over lunch in a restaurant near the China-Vietnam border when several men speaking Chinese ordered them into a car. Beaten, blindfolded and gagged, my father and his two colleagues were abducted into China by boat. They were left in a Buddhist temple in Guangxi Province for the Chinese authorities.

My father was held incommunicado for six months, in contravention of China's own Criminal Procedural Law, after which he was charged with "offenses of espionage" and the "conduct of terrorism." His "trial" lasted one day and was held behind closed doors. During the proceedings, my father was not allowed to speak, nor was any evidence presented or witnesses called. He was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. The identities of his abductors have never been discovered.

Since his imprisonment, my family, with the assistance of lawyers, fellow activists and friends, has brought his case to the international community. The United States, Canada, Taiwan, the European Union, the United Nations and Amnesty International have all called upon the Chinese government to release him. Despite our efforts, though, my father remains in prison.
In the year leading up to the Summer Olympics in Beijing, we thought the world's scrutiny of China would motivate the Communist Party to demonstrate its professed modernization by addressing its problematic record on human rights. In our most misguided moments of naive optimism, we even entertained the notion that China would release people like my father to quell international criticism. Instead,the Games came and went, and the dominant theme of the world's media was China's success in the medal standings and as a world power. Forgotten were the many prisoners of conscience, such as my father, who continue to suffer in China's prisons and labor camps.

As the world celebrates the arrival of a new year, my father is beginning his seventh year of incarceration. He is no longer the young man who founded the overseas democracy movement; today, he is in his 60s, and since his imprisonment his health has deteriorated steadily. He suffers from chronic phlebitis, severe allergies and untreated depression. He has had three strokes in the past six years, all while being kept in solitary confinement. He is allowed one family visit per month that can last about 30 minutes. Our relatives have spent thousands and thousands of dollars to go halfway around the world to see him. While my father languished in prison, my grandfather passed away. My grandmother, who is unable to travel overseas, prays every day for his return, hoping against hope that she may live to see her son again.

This year, before I resume my schooling, I hope to raise awareness about my father's case and tell his story to remind people that despite China's economic success, it is still a country that has yet to embrace universally accepted values of human rights. Any government that jails its own people for political dissent still has a long way to go to become a respected member of the international community.

The values of freedom and democracy upon which America was founded are the same values that once inspired my father and are the ones to which he remains dedicated. Those values are not just every American's birthright; they are the fundamental rights of all human beings.

The writer lives in Washington. Her family maintains a Web site about her father and his imprisonment at


On February 21, 2006, Memri TV broadcasted an interview with an extraordinarily brave woman, Dr. Wafa Sultan, an Arab-American psychologist. Millions have seen the interview. To see the interview, go to

Because of the rapid-fire nature of the exchanges between Dr. Sultan and the host, I thought a transcript of the interview would be useful. Here it is, courtesy of

Transcript of Interview
February 21, 2006
Host: Faisal al-Qassam
Panelists: Dr. Wafa Sultan, Egyptian Professior of Religious Studies; Dr. Ibrahim al-Khouly.

Sultan: The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras.

It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings.

What we see today is not a clash of civilizations. Civilizations do not clash, but compete.

Al-Qassam: I understand from your words that what is happening today is a clash between the culture of the west and the backwardness and ignorance of the Muslims?

Sultan: Yes, that is what I mean.

Al-Qassam: Who came up with the concept of the clash of civilizations? Was it not Samuel Huntington? It was not Bin Laden. I would like to discuss this issue with you, if you don't mind.

Sultan: The Muslims are the ones who began using this expression. The Muslims are the ones who began the clash of civilizations. The Prophet of Islam said: "I was ordered to fight the people until they believe in Allah and His Messenger."

When the Muslims divided the people [between] Muslims and non-Muslims, and called to fight the others until they believe in what they themselves believe, they started this clash, and began this war. In order to stop this war, they must reexamine their Islamic books and curricula, which are full of calls for takfir and fighting the infidels.

My colleague has said that he never offends other people's beliefs. What civilization on the face of this earth allows him to call other people by names they did not choose for themselves? Once he calls them Ahl Al-Dhimma, another time he calls them the "People of the Book," and yet another time he compares them to apes and pigs, or he calls the Christians "those who incur Allah's wrath."

Who told you they are "People of the Book"? They are not the People of the book, they are people of many books. All the useful scientific books that you have today are theirs, the fruit of their free and creative thinking.

What gives you the right to call them "those who incur Allah's wrath," or "those who have gone astray," and then come here and say that your religion commands you to refrain from offending the beliefs of others?

I am not a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew. I am a secular human being. I do not believe in the supernatural, but I respect others' right to believe in it. I am not a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew. I am a secular human being. I do not believe in the supernatural, but I respect others' right to believe in it.

Al-Khouli: Are you a heretic?

Sultan: You can say whatever you like. I am a secular human being who does not believe in the supernatural.

Al-Khouli: If you are a heretic, there is no point in rebuking you, since you have blasphemed against Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran.

Sultan: These are personal matters that do not concern you. Brother, you can believe in stones, as long as you don't throw them at me.

You are free to worship whoever you want, but other people's beliefs are not your concern, whether they believe that the Messiah is God, son of Mary, or that Satan is God, son of Mary. Let people have their beliefs.

The Jews have come from the tragedy [of the Holocaust] and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror; with their work, not with their crying and yelling. Humanity owes most of the discoveries and science of the 19th and 20th centuries to Jewish scientists. Fifteen million people, scattered throughout the world, united and won their rights through work and knowledge.

We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people.

The Muslims have turned three Buddha statues into rubble. We have not seen a single Buddhist burn down a mosque, kill a Muslim, or burn down an embassy. Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them.

(Transcribed by Norman Manzon)