The Fundamental Option

Conversion of "Son of Sam" Serial Killer David Berkowitz

2010-02-24T13:58:00.000-08:00

Sorry for not having posted on this blog for so many months. Due to the urgency of America's critical political-economic-cultural condition, I am devoting my time and energy on informing Americans about the deterioration. A good blog I frequent is Fellowship Of The Minds.

I just came across this series of 3 videos on serial killer David Berkowitz, whom many probably remember as the infamous "Son of Sam" who had terrorized New York city for one year (1976-77) with a series of random shootings, killing six and wounding seven. I had read of his conversion in prison, becoming "born again" as a follower of Christ. But the accounts I had read were quite dismissive, suggesting that Berkowitz's converison was inauthentic.

After seeing him for myself in these videos, I believe he genuinely repented and converted. These videos are a compelling testimony that Satan and demons are real but God's mercy and love are infinite, and that there is hope for even the worst among us.

God bless.

Here are the links to the videos:
Video #1
Video #2
Video #3

OBAMA TO DESTROY AMERICA'S TWO-PARTY SYSTEM

2009-05-14T08:26:00.000-07:00

On February 6, 2009, on the "Smoking Gun" radio show, a caller by the name of "Chicago Bob" claimed that Obama has put in place a plan to obliterate the Republican Party and transform the United States into a one-party system.

Describing himself as "a conservative democrat from Chicago who now feels betrayed," Chicago Bob said he was in a meeting after the '08 election in which he was told by "a Democratic official that we'll get billions of dollars coming down the pipeline" which will be used "to build an army of Democrats" - much larger than ACORN - via the same corrupt job patronage system Democrats had used to make Chicago a single-party city.

Sounding quite distraught, Chicago Bob said that there'll be "more people working for the Democrats than for the U. S. Army." The jobs will be "camouflaged in a million different ways" -- there'll be jobs for cities, for states.

When the 2012 election comes, this "army" of Democrat "clients" will feel obligated to work for the Democrats, "to completely freeze out Republicans forever and forever" so that the two-party system will be completely destroyed.

Here's the audio of "Chicago Bob":

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGafMHsV4Ug&feature=player_embedded]
.........................

I find Chicago Bob to be credible because what he said is consistent with:

1. The corrupt party machine in Chicago. Indeed, as the Encyclopedia of Chicago chronicles, "In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Chicago sustained a strong two-party tradition that prevented the development of a centralized political machine." All that changed when Anton Cermak, a Bohemian immigrant of working-class origins, secured control of the Democratic Party hierarchy and became mayor in 1931. His successor as mayor, Edward Kelly, together with Democratic Party chairman Patrick Nash, constructed the corrupt job patronage system -- doling out jobs, political appointments, and favors to a broad spectrum of ethnic groups, including the budding black population that would increase dramatically in the coming years. The system was "greased" through an alliance with organized crime, the city government turning a blind eye to gambling, prostitution, and other forms of vice. Kelly was reelected three times.

Under the long tenure of Democratic mayor Richard J. Daley, who was reelected 5 times, his party controlled an estimated 35,000 patronage jobs, the use of which ensured party discipline and relegated the local Republican Party to insignificance. Daley even circumvented civil service regulations by repeatedly hiring the same loyal Democrats to “temporary” jobs that were not subject to the regulations. As government workers died or retired, the machine filled their positions temporarily pending civil service exams that were never given.

2. Obama and some of his close associates, e.g., White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, had cut their teeth on precisely that Democratic Party machine and the corrupt political culture of Chicago.

3. What "Chicago Bob" said is consistent with what Obama has done since he took office. Despite record unemployment figures in the private sector in the U.S., workers for the federal government however have increased. More than that, federal hiring is packed into the multibillion dollar "stimulus" package and the multitrillion dollar budget deficit, which means that this trend will continue. In fact, even before he was elected president, Obama already began wooing federal employees' votes in a series of letters to them describing how he intends to add muscle to specific government programs, give new power to bureaucrats and roll back some Bush administration policies.

4. The only thing that “Chicago Bob” omitted reinforces his case -- this is that Obama is quickly weakening America's private sector by bringing the big corporations (banking, other financial, auto, and now health) to heel via multibillion dollar bailouts (to foster their dependency on the federal government), outright nationalization, and Mob-like tactics of threats and intimidation.

Through all this, the liberal Mainstream Media have been cooperative and complicit, foresaking their constitutional role of checking and balancing government power.

I cannot believe that the media are so blinded by left-wing ideology that they will sit by while America degenerates into an effective single-party state. They should heed the words attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) who tried to warn the compacent German people about the Nazi rise to power:

"They came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist; And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist; And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew; And then... they came for me... And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

PERFECT POSSESSION

2009-05-06T17:14:00.001-07:00

The following article is published in the May 2009 issue of New Oxford Review http://www.newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=0509-chang. If you found this article to be interesting and worthwhile, please consider subscribing to the NOR. A year's subscription to the print edition costs only $19, and to the online edition (which gives you access to NOR's entire archive of past issues), only $25 a year, which is less than a restaurant dinner for two. To subscribe, go to https://www.newoxfordreview.org/subscribe.jsp

...............

REBELS AGAINST THE LIGHT
PERFECT POSSESSION
May 2009
By Maria Hsia Chang
(Maria Hsia Chang is a professor emerita at the University of Nevada, Reno, and the author of "Peering Into the Abyss" in the October 2008 issue of the NOR. )

Author's Note: Many readers will find this article, a study of the nature of evil, difficult to read. In fact, psychiatrist M. Scott Peck noted that our instinctive reaction to evil is revulsion. Difficult though it may be, it is important that we know and comprehend evil's nature because that knowledge can help us recognize and combat evil, and protect ourselves from its effects. Remaining ignorant of it can only play into the hands of the Evil One himself.

It may be helpful for the reader to know my own experience of studying evil, which began some years ago. Simply put, I was frightened by what I found -- what human beings are capable of doing to one another. That first reaction of fear, however, was soon replaced by a melancholia that endured for quite some time. When I told my best friend, Judge Patricia Chaffin, about my constant sadness, she said, "Offer your suffering to Christ, who understands your melancholia more than anyone. Imagine the sorrow that Christ has, knowing all the sins of humanity." At that, I broke down and wept, tears streaming down my face.

But the melancholia also left me, then and there. Since that epiphany, although I still get alarmed, shocked, and repulsed by the subject, I am no longer fearful or depressed. Prudently guarded and cautious, I now am steadfast and determined, for "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me" (Phil. 4:13).

Lastly, from the very beginning of my study, I have had an abiding love and respect for St. Michael the Archangel, and all the good angels who choose to submit to and obey the Triune God. I pray for their protection daily.

* * * * * * * * * *

Thanks to Hollywood movies such as The Exorcist, most people know something about demonic possession, although many no doubt dismiss it as superstitious hocus pocus. Few, however, including Catholics, are aware that cases of possession that come to the attention of exorcists are only of the partial or incomplete variety. There is something worse -- total or perfect possession -- which is rarely spoken of even by the Catholic Church.

References to perfect possession are sparse. One won't find them in the books of Fr. Gabriele Amorth, the Vatican's chief exorcist and president of the International Association of Exorcists. The diligent and careful reader will, however, find allusions in the works of Frs. Jeremy Davies and Malachi Martin.

In his 1992 book Hostage to the Devil: The Possession and Exorcism of Five Living Americans, Fr. Martin wrote, "In every case of possession that comes to the point of Exorcism, the subject has reached a crucial crossroads. Some small corner of reservation remains, some glimmer or recollection of the light of Jesus still shines." It is from that last redoubt that the possessed manages to muster sufficient autonomy of will to call for help. That is why their possession is only partial instead of complete.

Not so with the perfectly possessed. Fr. Davies, in his 2008 book Exorcism: Understanding Exorcism in Scripture and Practice, observes that the far more terrible state is that of the possessed who are complacent. He calls such cases "perfect possession" because the individual has freely given himself totally to evil. It is instructive to note that although the Gospels recount numerous instances of Christ casting out demons, Our Lord did not exorcise Judas, nor did St. Peter exorcise Ananias, nor St. Paul Elymas. Those three did not want to be exorcised, and God always respects our free will. As Fr. Martin put it, unlike cases of partial possession, those who are perfectly possessed do not want the demons to leave.

So, who are the perfectly possessed?

To answer that question, we might begin with the factors that can render a person vulnerable to demonic possession in the first place. Fr. Amorth is of the opinion that a person can become possessed because of another's evil spell, or by associating with evil people or places, or as a result of a grave and hardened sinful condition (An Exorcist Tells His Story, 1999). The first factor is clearly not the person's fault. The individual does bear some responsibility for the second factor because he chose to associate with evil, becoming contaminated as a result. As for the third factor, it clearly is operative in cases of perfect possession because the individual has freely assented to evil either via an explicit pact with the Devil or as a result of habitual sinning.

Fr. Martin, however, disagreed with the no-fault view, insisting that no one can become possessed without some degree of consent: "The effective cause of Possession is the voluntary collaboration of an individual, through his faculties of mind and will, with one or more of those bodiless, genderless creatures called demons." For that matter, the individual does not even have to intentionally engage the demonic. Fr. Martin maintained that simply dabbling in the occult -- by playing a Ouija board or attending a séance or practicing transcendental meditation or the enneagram -- can dispose a person to possession because he has made himself an "aspiring vacuum" to "whatever happens along."

It is not just the occult that poses a danger. Any activity that impairs our mind and will is a threat to the integrity of our selfhood. The activity can be engaging the occult, abusing alcohol and drugs, or indulging in "malogens." The latter is a word coined by former public defender Jay Gaskill to refer to malevolent ideas, images, and themes in popular culture that are "as dangerous to the developing mind as biological pathogens are to the developing body." Transmitted through pornography, death-obsessed music, violent movies and television, and macabre role-playing computer games, malogens celebrate violent, even homicidal imagery, and a nihilist, anti-life ethos. Teen subcultures are especially vulnerable because they are among the most under-protected targets in American society.

Fr. Davies counsels that it is partly through our faculty of reason that God protects us, so any activity that involves an abandonment of self-control can provide an opening to the demonic. Since nature abhors a vacuum, the invitation is extended for something or someone to enter in to fill the void. In that light, it is interesting that an Alcoholics Anonymous counselor once told this writer that a recovering alcoholic's mental age is much less than his chronological age; it is the individual's biological age when he first began drinking. In other words, the person was not really present during the alcohol-soaked years, which raises the troubling question of who -- or what -- was there instead.

The Catholic Church has supplied a collection of signs and indicators for partial possession, including blasphemous and vituperative language, preternatural knowledge, preternatural physical strength, levitation, the ability to speak an unknown language, a violent aversion to the holy, and voices in the mind saying evil things. But neither the Church nor her exorcists have given us the signs that point to perfect possession. Worse still, Fr. Martin warned that being absolutely controlled by evil, the totally possessed gives no outward indication, no hint whatsoever, of the demonic residing within. The individual will not cringe at the sight of a crucifix or violently react to the touch of holy water or hesitate to discuss religious topics with equanimity.

But how can this be? Human beings consciously and unconsciously telegraph the kind of person we are in a myriad of mundane ways -- our clothing and facial expressions, even how we walk and shake another's hand. What Fr. Martin probably meant was that those who are perfectly possessed do not display the usual symptoms that the Church attributes to partial possession. Given this, how can a perfectly possessed person be recognized?

Perhaps the answer is in the principle of Occam's Razor, commonly understood as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." It is here proposed that the person actually tells us -- by demeanor, word, and deed -- that he is perfectly possessed. Demeanor refers to an individual's appearance and comportment. Words refer to what the individual says about himself, specifically speaking of himself as a "monster" and a "devil," or of an alien or demonic presence residing within his body. Deeds are acts of great depravity, unspeakable cruelty, and the murder of innocents, as well as explicitly demonic acts of Satanic pacts and the employment of Satanic symbols and rituals.

Demeanor

Fr. Martin observed that the most obvious and striking effect common to all possessed persons is the great loss in human quality, in humanness. Since we are made in the very image of God, the spirits who hate God seek to thwart His purpose by attacking and perverting our very nature. A key attribute of humanness is empathy, which precisely is lacking in serial killers and mass murderers who count as among the most evil. Indeed, forensic psychiatrist Helen Morrison, in her 2004 book My Life Among the Serial Killers: Inside the Minds of the World's Most Notorious Murderers, describes the serial killers she had studied and interviewed as "completely, utterly inhuman."

Empathy is the ability to infer and experience another's emotions. As such, empathy is the very foundation of altruism and human morality: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Scientists tell us that empathy is an innate human trait and that infants less than a year old already display a primitive form of "global empathy" when they bawl upon hearing another baby cry.

A person who tortures and kills innocent human beings would have to be devoid of empathy and compassion. Indeed, Morrison identifies their emotional disconnection to their victims as the most chilling attribute of serial killers: "For them, killing is nothing, nothing at all."

The notorious Charles Manson cult family, who in August 1969 slaughtered seven people, including actress Sharon Tate, certainly lacked empathy. Susan Atkins, one of the killers, said that she looked the eight-and-a-half-months pregnant Tate straight in the eye and said, "I don't care about you. I don't care if you're going to have a baby.... You're going to die, and I don't feel anything about it." When asked how she felt about the victims, Atkins responded, "They didn't even look like people.... I didn't relate to Sharon Tate as being anything but a store mannequin.... She kept begging and pleading and pleading...and I got sick of listening to her, so I stabbed her."

A more recent example is Dennis L. Rader, a Boy Scout leader and elder of the Lutheran Church in Wichita, Kansas. Dubbed the "BTK killer" for his penchant of binding, torturing, and killing his victims, Rader received ten consecutive life sentences in 2005 for murdering ten people between 1974 and 1991. In an interview with police after his arrest, Rader mocked his victims' pleadings as "yada yada yada." Detective Kelly Otis described Rader's casual demeanor in the interview: "It was like we were talking over a coffee, as if he were relaying a fishing story."

Scott Dyleski also lacked empathy. In 2006 the 17-year-old was convicted and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for bludgeoning to death his 52-year-old neighbor Pamela Vitale in her Lafayette, California, home. The murder was both senseless and brutal. After killing her, Dyleski carved a symbol resembling a double-crossed "T" into Vitale's back. At his sentencing, prosecutor Harold Jewett reminded the court of Dyleski's "depth of depravity," not just in murdering Vitale but in the casual remark he made to a housemate two days afterward that "these things happen." Judge Barbara Zuniga made an even more astute observation. Addressing Dyleski directly, she said:

This was a deliberate, planned murder.... As she [Vitale] lay dying at your feet, you proceeded to stab her. That was very unnecessary. It struck me from looking at the photos [of Vitale's corpse], you were emulating the serial killers you read about. And the mark [you carved into her back] shows you were proud of your work.... People have commented on the lack of affect [you displayed throughout this trial], but they were wrong. The one time when I saw an emotion was when the autopsy photos were projected on the wall. I saw you lean forward, mouth open.... You were absolutely fascinated by what you did. You do not deserve to be among decent people.

Lacking the essential human quality of empathy, the killers feel they're dead inside. On trial for conspiracy to commit murder, Charles Manson said on the stand, "I'm already dead, have been all my life." How many times have survivors of some murderous spree described the killer as an emotionless automaton? Fifteen-year-old John Jason McLaughlin, who killed two of his high-school classmates on September 24, 2003, in Cold Spring, Minnesota, was described by a classmate as having a vacant look: "It didn't seem like he was there." A more recent example is Seung-hui Cho, who on April 16, 2007, perpetrated the worst shooting massacre in modern U.S. history, killing 32 students and professors at Virginia Polytechnic Institute. Survivor Derek O'Dell recalled that Cho's demeanor was unfeeling, "like a stone."

Words

Psychological professionals have identified lack of empathy as among the defining attributes of sociopaths or psychopaths. What the professionals do not address and cannot explain are certain curious statements made by sociopathic killers about themselves. Taken at face value, their words strongly suggest a supernatural dimension to their pathology.

As an example, Peter William Sutcliffe, an English serial killer dubbed the Yorkshire Ripper, was convicted in 1981 and sentenced to life in prison for murdering 13 women. Sutcliffe told Morrison that he had "company" during his work as a gravedigger and that he was "haunted" by voices he believed to be God's. As the months went by, however, the voice that initially had been comforting now urged Sutcliffe to go on a mission "to get rid of" prostitutes. He eventually went from killing prostitutes to any female he desired to attack or kill.

In a letter to Houston television station KTRK, "Railway Killer" Angel Maturino Reséndiz, who was executed in 2006 for murdering at least 15 people, wrote of a "scary creature" inside him: "I've been fighting this creature all of my life and now I know it is me, so I fear, yes I fear and shake." When one of their victims asked the Manson killers who they were and what they were doing there, one of them replied, "I am the Devil and I'm here to do the Devil's business." Dennis Rader allowed that, although he knew his victims were human beings, he did not care because "I'm a monster." He also said, "I know it is a dark side that controls me. I personally think...that it's demons within me, at some point when I was young that controlled me."

Nazi Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels admitted he did not really know Adolf Hitler, although he worked with and saw the Führer almost every day. Goebbels told his aide-de-camp, Prince Schaumburg-Lippe, that there were times when Hitler gave him "the chills." After 1934 Hitler's insomnia became worse and his minimal sleep was frequently interrupted by crying spells. Hermann Rauschning, a Nazi leader who later fled to the U.S., claimed that Hitler was controlled by "malefic influences of which he was no longer the master." In his 1939 book Hitler Told Me, Rauschning related that Hitler regularly had night terrors, during one of which,

Hitler was standing there in his bedroom, stumbling about, looking around him with a distraught look. He was muttering: "It's him! It's him! He's here!" His lips had turned blue. He was dripping with sweat. Suddenly, he uttered some numbers which made no sense, then some words, then bits of sentences. It was frightening. He used terms which were strung together in the strangest way and which were absolutely weird. Then, he again became silent, although his lips continued to move. He was given a massage and something to drink. Then, all of a sudden, he screamed: "There! Over there! In the corner! Who is it?" He was jumping up and down, and he was howling. They reassured him that everything was all right, and he gradually calmed down.

Then there is Joseph Edward Duncan III, a convicted high-risk sex offender who began his criminal career at age 17 in 1980. On April 24, 2005, Duncan wrote in his online journal that there was a battle "of epic proportions" between him and "demons," and that the demons had him "tied to a spit and the fire has already been lit." He darkly warned that "a lot of people will be badly hurt" if the demons won, but that he no longer knew if the right choice was even an option any more. On May 11, 2005, Duncan ominously wrote in his blog that the demons were "loose" and the "bogeyman was alive." Four days later, he bound and bludgeoned to death Brenda Groene, her 13-year-old son, and her fiancé in their home near Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. Duncan then kidnapped Brenda's remaining children, nine-year-old Dylan and eight-year-old Shasta, torturing and eventually killing Dylan with a shotgun.

In 2006 Duncan was sentenced to three consecutive life sentences for the Idaho murders. In 2008 a federal jury found him guilty of the kidnapping, sexual abuse, torture, and murder of Dylan Groene, for which he received three death sentences. The jury reached a decision after enduring nearly three weeks of gruesome testimony that included a videotape of the torture and murder in which Duncan screams, "The devil is here, boy, the devil himself.... The devil likes to watch children suffer and cry!" Duncan periodically breaks into shouting, and at one point sings the Lord's Prayer in a high voice.

Satanic Signs

Richard Macek told Morrison that as a child he had horrible dreams of being attacked by a pink eraser. Under hypnosis, he recalled starting a fire in the apartment of one of his victims, to cover his tracks. As he recounted the incident, dime-sized red blisters appeared on his fingers -- a phenomenon Morrison called "an almost supernatural event...completely out of the realm of what I had learned or had ever experienced."

It was Hitler's deeds that convinced many he was possessed. As one author asked, "By what sorcery could a man, starting with nothing, in the space of a mere ten years totally vanquish seemingly insurmountable obstacles blocking his ascent to power, and how could such a man capture the confidence of millions of people: the unemployed, the workers, the middle class, the intellectuals?" Another writer noted the rise in 1920s Germany of occultism and the practice of the black arts by myriad secret societies, most notably the Thule Society. More recently, in an interview with Vatican Radio, Fr. Amorth said, "I am convinced that the Nazis were all possessed. All you have to do is think about what Hitler...did. Almost certainly they were possessed by the Devil. You can tell by their behaviour and their actions, from the horrors they committed and the atrocities that were committed on their orders." In fact, recently released Vatican documents revealed that wartime pontiff Pope Pius XII had attempted a long-distance exorcism of Hitler. But the effort failed because, as Fr. Amorth explained, the possessed person must be consenting and willing and in the presence of the exorcist for the demon-banishing to succeed.

Then there are deeds that are explicitly Satanic.

The most notorious Satanist in the 1980s was Richard Ramirez, whom newspapers dubbed the "Night Stalker." In 1989 Ramirez was convicted and sentenced to death for 13 murders committed over the course of a year in Los Angeles. An acolyte of the Church of Satan and a fan of heavy metal bands such as AC/DC that sang about Hell and the Devil, Ramirez would enter homes surreptitiously in the night. When he was arrested, Ramirez reportedly said he was a minion of Satan sent to commit the Dark One's dirty work. At his trial he flashed a pentagram tattooed onto the palm of his hand and shouted, "Hail Satan!" in open court. He said he did not fear death because he believed in his heart he would go to Hell, where he would sit at the Devil's right hand.

Susan Atkins told her prison psychiatrist that before she met Charles Manson in San Francisco in the late 1960s, she had entered into her "Satanic period" and became involved with Anton LaVey, founder and high priest of the Church of Satan. Another Manson family killer, Patricia Krenwinkel, would doodle during the Tate/LaBianca murder trial. Her two favorite subjects, according to bailiff Bill Murray, were devils' heads and the Mendes goat, both Satanist symbols.

The Satanic also held a morbid fascination for Scott Dyleski. Described by many as intelligent and artistic, he was a former Boy Scout, a vegan, and an animal-rights advocate. But there was a dark side to the teenager. By the time he was 16 years old, he had already consumed a veritable cornucopia of illicit drugs -- heroin, marijuana, cocaine, ecstasy, LSD, and absinthe, a liquor-like spirit made from the herb wormwood which contains a neurotoxin. Dyleski was also a fan of the nihilistic Goth-industrial rock group, Velvet Acid Christ, whose song titles include "Dead Flesh," "Decay," "Fun With Drugs," "Fun With Knives," "Hell Two," "There Is No God," "Hopeless," "Misery," "Murder the World," "Serial Killer 101," and "Satan Complex #42."

For about a year beginning when he was 13, Dyleski dyed his hair black and wore dark makeup (black eyeliner, lipstick, and nail polish) and black clothing, shoes, and socks. Even his underwear was black. Dyleski's interior life matched his morbid outward appearance, as evidenced in his drawings and poetry. One poem ends with the following: "You raised me to hate, and hate I will / Because now I, live for the kill / For the kill, for the kill, for the kill." In its entirety, another poem reads: "Freak god, lifeless / meaningless and pointless / mysterious emptiness." Dyleski also wrote two odes to the fallen angel, titled "Genesis of the Angel" and "Serpentine," in which he calls Satan "sweetest flower" and "sweetest angel." If these poems can be outdone, it would be by Dyleski's macabre drawings, some of which are of knives, razors, and autopsied human body parts. Several drawings portray a Dyleski-look-alike boy holding knives dripping with blood. One drawing is particularly striking and disturbing: It depicts a devilish seated figure with a goat's head and human body, whose right arm clasps a small grinning boy holding a severed human head.

Conclusion

With the exception of those such as Seung-hui Cho who killed themselves rather than be captured by the authorities, all the murderers discussed here had been examined by psychiatrists and judged to be mentally sane and competent to stand trial for their crimes. They were not dissociated from reality and knew precisely what they were doing, but still chose to torture and kill because they are without conscience and empathy.

Psychologists describe these sane killers as psychopaths or sociopaths, or as having anti-social personality disorder, the current favored term. By whatever label, these individuals are notable for their lack of empathy, lack of affect (or hollowness), narcissism that borders on grandiosity, and remorselessness. Psychologists also would have us believe that the "demon," "monster," or "bogeyman" referred to by killers like Duncan and Rader is really the individual's superego. Freud had called the superego a special psychical agency that constantly watches the ego and measures it by that ideal. Recognition of the superego, Freud advised, enables us to understand "the so-called delusions" of being watched, which are symptomatic of the paranoid diseases: "Patients of this sort complain that all their thoughts are known and their actions watched and supervised; they are informed of the functioning of this agency by voices which characteristically speak to them in the third person." Freud further maintained that this "power" that watches and criticizes exists "in every one of us in normal life" and is none other than the superego -- the "censoring agency" experienced in those who revolt against it "as a hostile influence from without."

In calling serial killers psychopaths, what psychologists have done is to describe the most evil among us and give them a diagnostic label. Simply naming something, however, does not explain the phenomenon, and the problem is that psychology cannot tell us the etiology of psychopathy -- whether it is genetic, biological, chemical, or developmental. Likewise, calling "demonic possession" the workings of the "superego" is nothing more than substituting one term for another, albeit for a word that is more acceptable to our secular culture. As Fr. Martin observed, "technical names and jargons...are nothing more than descriptive terms," and descriptive terms are simply tags for phenomena; they do not explain.

Secularists eschew "possession" in favor of "superego" because they reject a priori the existence of pure spirits, of fallen angels, although the same skeptics readily countenance the reality of other non-observable phenomena. But the Church believes that there is an invisible power, a spirit of evil, and that this spirit can take possession of a human being. The simple truth is that psychologists can no more confirm the existence of superego than we can of demons. Perfect possession therefore is at least as good a label as psychopathy; it is also more useful and illuminating.

The concept of perfect possession reminds us that human beings are free agents, created with free will. Although we may have certain predispositions, whether by nature or nurture, we still exercise autonomy of will within those parameters. The person who becomes a serial killer is not overcome by infectious pathogens but has chosen to do evil. As Jeffrey Burton Russell, a professor of religious studies, put it, "Each of us has within us a ‘still, small point' of freedom of will where we can stand and decide for good or for evil. We are not entirely determined by our genes and our milieu." The concept of perfect possession also reminds us that those who make a Satanic compact for whatever self-interested gains will eventually be betrayed because the Devil is no fool. His agenda is not our agenda; he hates humanity and is the father of all lies. Above all, the notion of perfect possession provides a much-needed warning to our postmodern culture, which is saturated in moral relativism and malogens, that the consequence of habitual sinning is deadly.

Before he was executed on January 24, 1989, infamous serial killer Ted Bundy granted his only interview to psychologist James Dobson, founder and president of the evangelical organization Focus on the Family. Bundy had confessed to thirty murders, although the actual total number of his victims remains unknown and may exceed one hundred. In the interview, Bundy related how, despite having been brought up with regular church attendance in "a wonderful home" by "dedicated and loving parents," his obsession with pornography, especially violent pornography, which began in his teen years, eventually led him to murder. In his words, although he had "very strong inhibitions" against criminal and violent behavior, simple porn was no longer enough, which led him to seek "more potent, more explicit, more graphic kinds of material." He called the grip that pornography had over him as "almost a separate entity inside" and as "being possessed by something so awful and alien." Alcohol further reduced his inhibitions. Eventually there came a point where he "couldn't control it anymore." He began to crave "something which is harder" that could give him a greater sense of excitement which pornography could no longer deliver -- "that jumping off point" of actually "doing it" instead of just reading about and looking at it. And so he killed his first victim. After each killing, however, satiation was only temporary. And so he killed again.

In other words, Bundy was describing the enslaving effect of repeated sinning. Psychoanalyst Erich Fromm observed that if a human being does evil, he becomes more evil. Abiding in evil, the heart will harden "to a point where no more change or repentance is possible." Oscar Wilde, in his astute portrait of evil, The Picture of Dorian Gray, likewise warned that when a nature is dominated by "the passion for sin," the individual eventually loses freedom of will and moves to his "terrible end as automatons move." The more we sin, the less our autonomy of will, until a point is reached when perfect possession takes over. As theologian Thomas R. Kopfensteiner explains:

This kind of moral tragedy occurs over time.... Our orientation toward the good can become dulled through repeated offences and omissions.... As we make individual decisions the contours of our moral identities take shape...to the point that there emerges a profound consistency and transparency between our identity and our actions, between who we are and what we do.... It becomes progressively more difficult and increasingly less probable that we will regain our moral equilibrium. We are beset by a progressive moral decline.... We truly experience the death of our souls.

In his last statement before he was executed by lethal injection, "Railway Killer" Reséndiz said, "I know I allowed the Devil to rule my life. I just ask you to forgive me and ask the Lord to forgive me for allowing the Devil to deceive me." Bundy, too, at the end of his interview with Dr. Dobson confirmed that he had sought Christ's forgiveness and had become a convert. He expressed sorrow for the pain and grief he caused the parents of the children and young women he had harmed. He did not expect their forgiveness because that kind of forgiveness is only "of God."

Admittedly, there are skeptics who maintain that Bundy's conversion was just a last-ditch effort at obtaining clemency. They point out that if his conversion experience were genuine, he would have confessed to all his killings, as well as revealed the location of more bodies. We will never know.

At the same time, however, we are reminded that we are not our own, "for you have been purchased at a price" (1 Cor. 6:20). We cannot simply dismiss the possibility that, given the infinite mercy and grace of God, even the perfectly possessed can repent and find redemption. As the Church teaches, the only unforgivable sin is the stubborn refusal to be penitent, presuming that a creature's sin can actually exceed the Creator's infinite capacity to forgive.

WHY THE INSISTENCE ON EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH?

2009-03-10T10:49:00.000-07:00

On March 9, 2009, on the 48th day of his presidency, Barack Hussein Obama signed an executive order lifting the restriction on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. In so doing, Obama overturned former President George W. Bush’s 2001 policy that barred the National Institutes of Health from funding research on embryonic stem cells beyond using 60 cell lines that existed at that time. Obama justified his executive order by saying, “In recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values.”

Nothing can be further from the truth. In fact, embryonic stem cell research is both scientifically ill-advised as well as immoral.

Below is an article written in 2005 by Bishop Vasa about the immorality of embryonic stem-cell research. Aside from its immorality, embryonic stem cells also have enormous practical problems that adult stem cells do not have, which raises the question of why scientists, politicians, and President Obama are so hell-bent on funding embryonic stem cell research.

Here are some quotes about the practical problems with embryonic stem cells, from http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id
=125ef73a-31f4-4a87-aba0-44fd30a2b82a:

"Embryonic stem cells have too many limitations, including immune rejection and the potential to form tumors, to ever achieve acceptance in our lifetime. By that time, umbilical cord blood stem cells will have been shown to be a true gift from the gods." -Dr. Roger Markwald, Professor and Chair of Cell Biology and Anatomy at the Medical University of South Carolina, quoted in "CureSource Issues Statement on Umbilical Cord Blood Stem Cells vs. Embryonic Stem Cells," BusinessWire, May 12, 2004, also at http://curesource.net/why.html.
"We're not against stem-cell research of any kind, said [Tulane University research professor Brian] Butcher. But we think there are advantages to using adult stem cells. For example, with embryonic stem cells, a significant number become cancer cells, so the cure could be worse than the disease. And they can be very difficult to grow, while adult stem cells are easy to grow." --Heather Heilman, "Great Transformations," The Tulanian (Spring 2004 issue), at http://www2.tulane.edu/article_news_details.cfm?ArticleID=5155.
"Harvard researchers, trying to create human embryonic stem cell lines that are more clinically useful than those now available, find that their new cell lines are already genetically abnormal." --C. Cowan et al., "Derivation of Embryonic Stem-Cell Lines from Human Blastocysts," New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 350 (March 25, 2004), pp. 1353-6 at 1355.
"Transplanting a mixed population of cells could cause the growth of unwanted tissues. The worst case could see stem cells morphing into teratomas, particularly gruesome tumors that can contain hair, teeth, and other body parts." --Jonathan Bor, "Stem Cells: A long road ahead," Baltimore Sun, March 8, 2004, p. 12A. [Emphases supplied]

Here's Bishop Vasa's essay. Note that those, such as former First Lady Nancy Reagan and actor Michael J. Fox, who are applauding Obama's signing of an executive order approving federal funding for embryonic stem cell research are complicit with evil.

~Wishing you Peace in Christ.

***

"Embryonic stem-cell research is crime against human beings"
By Bishop Robert Vasa
6/3/2005
http://www.sentinel.org/node/1474

BEND - The national discussion has again focused on the issue of embryonic stem cell research and the appropriateness of extending federal funding to this research. It hurts me to say it, but I suspect many Catholics, otherwise pro-life, do not recognize or acknowledge the extent of the evil involved in this proposal. One of the arguments touted in the latest attempt to use your and my tax dollars to fund this research is that the embryos would be discarded anyway, and since they are slated for destruction, it would be better to use them for the advancement of medical science.

It is important for us to recognize that the direct, intentional destruction of these frozen embryos is itself a categorical evil which cannot be condoned, and thus the recognition that someone is determined to destroy these embryos cannot be used as a justification for turning them over to a research laboratory. There these tiny human persons would be allowed to develop to a certain number of useful cells and then be dissected and killed so that some of their parts could be used for research.

It is conceded that these embryos are not yet gifted with consciousness nor do they experience any anxiety or pain. The use of these criteria to justify the wholesale slaughter of innocent, pre-born human persons, even for a purportedly very good cause, places utility above both sound reason and humanity. The very concept attempts to objectify the embryo from the status of a 'who' to that of a 'what.'

If the human embryo, that unique and morally unrepeatable biological entity of human origin, was only a thing, an 'it,' then experiment away. The human embryo, however, is somewhat more than a collection of cells, a biological entity, a frozen life form, a potential source of stem cells, or a 'potential' human being. The human embryo is a living human. One need only ask, 'Is it legitimate or conceivable that certain, completely innocent, members of our species should be selected out for destruction based on the hope that their destruction could result in great good for the rest of us?' If you hesitate, it means you have forgotten a fundamental moral principle, 'It is never licit to do evil in order that good might come from it.'

It is necessary to recognize that the principle which underlies the attempt to justify research on these innocent humans is precisely the opposite. It is, in the mind of scientists, most legitimate to perpetrate even great evil, provided that such evil can be couched in politically correct and acceptable euphemisms, in order to produce the next marvel of medical science. It is the abandonment of what Pope John Paul II, in Memory and Identity, called 'the just good (bonum honestum).' He distinguished this from the 'useful good (bonum utile) and the pleasurable good (bonum delectabile).' Pope John Paul wrote: 'These three types of good are intimately bound up with human action. When he acts, man chooses a certain good, which becomes the goal of his action. If the subject chooses a bonum honestum, his goal is conformed to the very essence of the object of his action and is therefore a just goal. When on the other hand the object of his choice is a bonum utile, the goal is the advantage to be gained from it for the subject. The question of the morality of the action remains open: only when the action bringing the advantage is just and the means are just, can the subject's goal also be seen to be just.'

In the case of embryonic stem cell research the action 'bringing the advantage,' legitimate scientific research, may be deemed to be just. This is clearly seen by the fact that adult stem cell research is progressing and offering many legitimate health benefits. It is certain, however, with embryonic stem cell research that the means are not just, for the means necessitate the direct and intentional destruction of human subjects.

When one looks only at the proposed personal advantage to be gained and fails, at the same time, to see the impact this has on others, even helpless, frozen, but living others, then one has chosen to live in the world Jesus came to save us from.

In that world, man seeks the useful and the pleasurable without regard to the human, without regard for the bonum honestum. Each acting and choosing subject is set in competition with and even opposition to other human persons. Others are seen as useful or pleasurable objects, not as living human persons, full of dignity and worthy of respect. This is the world of prostitution and pornography. This is the world of child abuse and promiscuity. This is the world of corporate greed and cutthroat economics. This is the world of gangs and drive-by shootings. This is the world of Nazi death camps and slavery. This is the world of embryonic stem cell research.

Many of those involved in these horrors failed and fail to recognize what they are doing. As far as they can see they are only trying to advance their own cause, seek the bonum utile or the bonum delectabile, or the cause of their particular group, society, state or nation. In doing so, however, they are, in reality, committing crimes against humanity.

The advancement of embryonic stem cell research is the advancement of crimes against humanity. No child, however tiny, should be the subject of human experimentation or research, much less undergo destruction so that such research could progress. It is absolutely inhumane!

Whether the child is conscious of or 'feels' the destructive actions of the scientist is immaterial. We are aware of what is being done in the name of science. We are the guilty bystanders who see and know and fail to speak; fail to act. It is, after all, our elected representatives who are proposing this funding.

Some of us perhaps even anticipate the medical progress hoped for so that we may take advantage of it. To do so is to become even more complicit in the evil now being considered for federal funding. It is bad enough that some choose to pursue this heinous research. It is worse to consider forcing conscientious Americans to pay for it.

It is, beyond this, even more distressing to think that many Catholics, otherwise pro-life, do not recognize or acknowledge the extent of the evil involved in such proposals. The willful destruction of innocent human life so that others may have a better life is to choose the bonum utile and abandon the bonum honestum. This evil is already being done by private enterprises. I pray we never adopt this as national policy. I pray that, as a nation, under God, we never stoop to such inhumanity.

BITCHIN' RIGHTS

2009-02-16T10:53:00.000-08:00

Guest column by retired attorney Glenn Neal.

I want to cover two topics in this post: the first is "bitchin' rights," the second is Obama's birth certificate. Although on first glance they may seem widely disparate, in fact they are closely related.

We have a tradition in my family that if you don't vote, you forfeit your right to "bitch" if you don't like the person who is elected. According to the United States Census Bureau, about 201 million citizens would have been voting age and eligible to vote in the 2008 election. Sixty-seven percent of them registered to vote.[1] Of those registered voters, sixty-three percent actually voted.

That means that of the potential eligible voters (both registered and those who could have registered but didn't) about forty-two percent actually voted. Obama won the presidency by around fifty-two percent of votes cast (best estimate at the time of this writing), so he was elected by twenty-two percent of the potential eligible voters who might have voted if they made the effort.

I can only speculate on the reasons people don't register to vote; some just don't care, some care but believe their vote doesn't count and they cannot change the outcome of an election, still others who did register don't vote for any number of reasons. Incidentally, those who believe their vote doesn't count are absolutely right. Their vote doesn't count--if they stay home.

What does this all have to do with Obama's birth certificate? I'm glad you ask.

Seventy-eight percent of eligible voters did not vote for Obama. Of that seventy-eight percent of eligible voters, some of the small number of voters who did vote against Obama--and still have their bitchin' rights--have filed lawsuits challenging whether Obama is even eligible to be president because, they suspect, he is not a natural born American as required by article II of the Constitution.

Obama, according to press reports has three law firms working to keep him from having to produce a birth certificate. That has to be a major distraction for the president at a time the nation is facing a severe financial crisis which needs all the attention he can give it. Why waste time on what appears to be a trivial matter of a birth certificate if you have nothing to hide? What's the big deal?

When I went to apply for my first driver's license I had to produce a birth certificate; when I enlisted in the U.S. Navy, I had to show my birth certificate. I once had a military-related civilian job that required a security clearance. I had to have a birth certificate. I never gave that a second thought, I just considered it the cost of doing business. So why is Obama so adamant about not allowing anyone to examine his?

Perhaps the birth certificate is not the issue at all. Maybe the refusal to present a valid birth certificate is a red herring--something to draw attention and keep the public, and the few curious journalists who question Obama's bona fides, chasing a phantom which keeps them from seeing there may be something more sinister Obama is really hiding. This is all speculation, of course.

But in the final analysis, Obama is spending a lot of time, energy and political capital to keep from doing something the rest of us do routinely--show a birth certificate when we deal with our government. Intuitively, it doesn't make sense.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] For a discussion of voting age population (VAP) vs. voting eligible population (VEP) and their effect on calculating voter turnout, see http://elections.gmu.edu/APRS%20McDonald%20and_Popkin_2001.pdf (accessed February 11, 2009)

THE SECOND COMING

2009-02-12T05:48:00.000-08:00

As the news from both within and without the United States gets worse with each day, I am reminded of the poet W. B. Yeats' immortal words, in his "The Second Coming":

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in the sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

HANDWRITING ANALYSES OF OBAMA AND OTHER POWERFUL POLITICIANS

2009-01-31T08:53:00.000-08:00

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: http://www.foxnews.com/photoessay/0,4644,6421,00.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.

HELP SAVE A RIGHTEOUS MAN

2009-01-10T09:11:00.000-08:00

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 https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml. 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
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/09/AR2009010903166.html

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 http://www.wangbingzhang.com.

WHAT A BRAVE WOMAN!

2009-01-10T06:29:00.000-08:00

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 http://www.messianicassociation.org/ezine03sultan.htm

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 http://www.messianicassociation.org/ezine03sultan.htm:

Transcript of Interview
MEMRI TV PROJECTAl-Jazeera TV (QATAR)
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 t akfir 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)

THE NIGHT WE WAVED GOODBYE TO AMERICA

2008-12-30T08:28:00.000-08:00

This is simplest the best essay on the 2008 presidential race. It's by Peter Hitchins, a Brit who writes for the UK's Daily Mail.

The night we waved goodbye to America... our last best hope on Earth
10th November 2008
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1084111/PETER-HITCHENS-The-night-waved-goodbye-America--best-hope-Earth.html

Anyone would think we had just elected a hip, skinny and youthful replacement for God, with a plan to modernise Heaven and Hell – or that at the very least John Lennon had come back from the dead.

The swooning frenzy over the choice of Barack Obama as President of the United States must be one of the most absurd waves of self-deception and swirling fantasy ever to sweep through an advanced civilisation. At least Mandela-worship – its nearest equivalent – is focused on a man who actually did something.

I really don’t see how the Obama devotees can ever in future mock the Moonies, the Scientologists or people who claim to have been abducted in flying saucers. This is a cult like the one which grew up around Princess Diana, bereft of reason and hostile to facts.

It already has all the signs of such a thing. The newspapers which recorded Obama’s victory have become valuable relics. You may buy Obama picture books and Obama calendars and if there isn’t yet a children’s picture version of his story, there soon will be.

Proper books, recording his sordid associates, his cowardly voting record, his astonishingly militant commitment to unrestricted abortion and his blundering trip to Africa, are little-read and hard to find.

If you can believe that this undistinguished and conventionally Left-wing machine politician is a sort of secular saviour, then you can believe anything. He plainly doesn’t believe it himself. His cliche-stuffed, PC clunker of an acceptance speech suffered badly from nerves. It was what you would expect from someone who knew he’d promised too much and that from now on the easy bit was over.

He needn’t worry too much. From now on, the rough boys and girls of America’s Democratic Party apparatus, many recycled from Bill Clinton’s stained and crumpled entourage, will crowd round him, to collect the rich spoils of his victory and also tell him what to do, which is what he is used to.

Just look at his sermon by the shores of Lake Michigan. He really did talk about a ‘new dawn’, and a ‘timeless creed’ (which was ‘yes, we can’). He proclaimed that ‘change has come’. He revealed that, despite having edited the Harvard Law Review, he doesn’t know what ‘enormity’ means. He reached depths of oratorical drivel never even plumbed by our own Mr Blair, burbling about putting our hands on the arc of history (or was it the ark of history?) and bending it once more toward the hope of a better day (Don’t try this at home).

I am not making this up. No wonder that awful old hack Jesse Jackson sobbed as he watched. How he must wish he, too, could get away with this sort of stuff.

And it was interesting how the President-elect failed to lift his admiring audience by repeated – but rather hesitant – invocations of the brainless slogan he was forced by his minders to adopt against his will – ‘Yes, we can’. They were supposed to thunder ‘Yes, we can!’ back at him, but they just wouldn’t join in. No wonder. Yes we can what exactly? Go home and keep a close eye on the tax rate, is my advice. He’d have been better off bursting into ‘I’d like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony’ which contains roughly the same message and might have attracted some valuable commercial sponsorship.

Perhaps, being a Chicago crowd, they knew some of the things that 52.5 per cent of America prefers not to know. They know Obama is the obedient servant of one of the most squalid and unshakeable political machines in America. They know that one of his alarmingly close associates, a state-subsidised slum landlord called Tony Rezko, has been convicted on fraud and corruption charges.

They also know the US is just as segregated as it was before Martin Luther King – in schools, streets, neighbourhoods, holidays, even in its TV-watching habits and its choice of fast-food joint. The difference is that it is now done by unspoken agreement rather than by law.

If Mr Obama’s election had threatened any of that, his feel-good white supporters would have scuttled off and voted for John McCain, or practically anyone. But it doesn’t. Mr Obama, thanks mainly to the now-departed grandmother he alternately praised as a saint and denounced as a racial bigot, has the huge advantages of an expensive private education. He did not have to grow up in the badlands of useless schools, shattered families and gangs which are the lot of so many young black men of his generation.

If the nonsensical claims made for this election were true, then every positive discrimination programme aimed at helping black people into jobs they otherwise wouldn’t get should be abandoned forthwith. Nothing of the kind will happen. On the contrary, there will probably be more of them.

And if those who voted for Obama were all proving their anti-racist nobility, that presumably means that those many millions who didn’t vote for him were proving themselves to be hopeless bigots. This is obviously untrue.

I was in Washington DC the night of the election. America’s beautiful capital has a sad secret. It is perhaps the most racially divided city in the world, with 15th Street – which runs due north from the White House – the unofficial frontier between black and white. But, like so much of America, it also now has a new division, and one which is in many ways much more important. I had attended an election-night party in a smart and liberal white area, but was staying the night less than a mile away on the edge of a suburb where Spanish is spoken as much as English, plus a smattering of tongues from such places as Ethiopia, Somalia and Afghanistan.

As I walked, I crossed another of Washington’s secret frontiers. There had been a few white people blowing car horns and shouting, as the result became clear. But among the Mexicans, Salvadorans and the other Third World nationalities, there was something like ecstasy.

They grasped the real significance of this moment. They knew it meant that America had finally switched sides in a global cultural war. Forget the Cold War, or even the Iraq War. The United States, having for the most part a deeply conservative people, had until now just about stood out against many of the mistakes which have ruined so much of the rest of the world.

Suspicious of welfare addiction, feeble justice and high taxes, totally committed to preserving its own national sovereignty, unabashedly Christian in a world part secular and part Muslim, suspicious of the Great Global Warming panic, it was unique.

These strengths had been fading for some time, mainly due to poorly controlled mass immigration and to the march of political correctness. They had also been weakened by the failure of America’s conservative party – the Republicans – to fight on the cultural and moral fronts.

They preferred to posture on the world stage. Scared of confronting Left-wing teachers and sexual revolutionaries at home, they could order soldiers to be brave on their behalf in far-off deserts. And now the US, like Britain before it, has begun the long slow descent into the Third World. How sad. Where now is our last best hope on Earth?

WHAT'S GOING ON?

2008-12-26T11:52:00.000-08:00

Guest column by Robert Chapman, retired U.S. intelligence officer.

Even before the Cold War, the Soviet Union suppressed the freedom of the press in the countries it controlled as well as the Soviet Union itself. The public was deprived of truth which led to the West’s beaming VOA, RFE and BBC radio broadcasts to inform the Russians and Eastern Europeans. Thinking they knew what the listeners wanted, the broadcasts were of international happenings, but it was soon apparent the listeners craved to know what was happening in their own country.

At the time I wondered how awful it must be to not know what was happening in one’s own country; but after the past primary and presidential election, I know.

The past lingers with us; however, now more importantly, what will the future bring? The President-Elect’s cabinet choices are middle-of-the-road people, but outside of the secretary of state and the secretary of defense, what role will they play in changing our country?

The paramount question is whether the President-Elect will veer toward the center as his cabinet choices indicate or will he stick with his friends of 25 years and support the political philosophy they shared? He is indeed a Manchurian candidate. From his youngest days, from the time of his mother, he’s been immersed in far leftist, communist, Marxist ideology. Will he shake this off?

But there has never been a better time to go to the far left. Our economy is shattered. With globalization, jobs are gone. Factories are gone, the machinery of many shipped overseas. Skills are gone. Unemployment is going through the roof, and our debt reaches hopelessness. My fear is the situation is much worse than we know. “We’ve been done in.” The people want change and rightly so.

The juxtaposition of the stars foretells the President-Elect can do about anything he wants to do. By two steps he can implement his leftist ideology, if it’s still part of him, and change our country to one different from what we are. The first is to create jobs which are directly paid by the national government or by federal subsidies through the states. In effect, they become “federalized employment,” which creates a dependency by the jobholders upon the continuance of the administration or one like it. The troubling aspect is the President-Elect has talked about militia-type employment, the “National Civilian Security Force” as well as forming auxiliaries of Homeland Security, which normally are adjuncts of police states. Hopefully, this is not to be.

CHRIST-MAS DAY, 2008

2008-12-25T13:22:00.000-08:00

In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.

He was in the beginning with God.
All things came to be through him,
and without him nothing came to be.

What came to be through him was life,
and this life was the light of the human race;
the light shines in the darkness,
and the darkness has not overcome it.

A man named John was sent from God,
He came for testimony, to testify to the light,
so that all might believe through him.
He was not the light, but came to testify to the light.
The true light, which enlightens everyone,
was coming into the world.

He was in the world,
and the world came to be through him,
but the world did not know him.
He came to what was his own,
but his own people did not accept him.

But to those who did accept him
he gave power to become children of God,
to those who believe in his name,
who were born not by natural generation
nor by human choice
nor by a man's decision but of God.

And the Word became flesh
and made his dwelling among us,
and we saw his glory,
the glory as of the Father's only Son,
full of grace and truth.

John testified to him and cried out, saying,
"This was he of whom I said,
The one who is coming after me ranks ahead of me
because he existed before me."

From his fullness we have all received,
grace in place of grace,
because while the law was given through Moses,
grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

No one has ever seen God.
The only Son, God,
who is at the Father's side,
has revealed him.

John I:1-18

FREEDOM OF RELIGION, REVISITED

2008-12-24T06:52:00.000-08:00

Guest column by Glenn Neal, retired-lawyer-turned-writer

Merry Christmas!

I respectfully request that you read all the way to the end, then see my comments re: the illegality of the Supreme Court decisions restricting religious freedom.

(Note: the author of "T'was the month before Christmas" is unknown)

T'was the month before Christmas
When all through our land,
Not a Christian was praying
Nor taking a stand.
See the PC Police had taken away,
The reason for Christmas - no one could say.
The children were told by their schools not to sing,
About Shepherds and Wise Men and Angels and things.
It might hurt people's feelings, the teachers would say,
December 25th is just a 'Holiday.
Yet the shoppers were ready with cash, checks and credit
Pushing folks down to the floor just to get it!
CDs from Madonna, an X BOX, an I-pod,
Something was changing, something quite odd!
Retailers promoted Ramadan and Kwanzaa
In hopes to sell books by Franken & Fonda.
As Targets were hanging their trees upside down,
At Lowe's the word Christmas - was no where to be found.
At K-Mart and Staples and Penny's and Sears
You won't hear the word Christmas; it won't touch your ears.
Inclusive, sensitive, Di-ver-si-ty
Are words that were used to intimidate me.
Now Daschle, Now Darden, Now Sharpton, Wolf Blitzen
On Boxer, on Rather, on Kerry, on Clinton!
At the top of the Senate, there arose such a clatter
To eliminate Jesus, in all public matter.
And we spoke not a word, as they took away our faith,
Forbidden to speak of salvation and grace.
The true Gift of Christmas was exchanged and discarded,
The reason for the season, stopped before it started.
So as you celebrate 'Winter Break' under your 'Dream Tree,'
Sipping your Starbucks, listen to me.
Choose your words carefully, choose what you say,
Shout MERRY CHRISTMAS , not Happy Holiday!

Please, all Christians join together and wish everyone you meet MERRY CHRISTMAS. Christ is "The Reason" for the Christ-mas Season! --(Anonymous)

............

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another." --U.S. Supreme Court, Everson v. Board of Education.

There is a problem with that. It’s WRONG! The Constitution does not say that. The only two references to religion are the Freedom of Religion Clause in the First Amendment and a prohibition in Article VI against applying any religious test as a condition for holding public office under the federal Constitution.

Joseph Story[1] wrote,

In some of the states, episcopalians constituted the predominant sect; in others, presbyterians; in others, congregationalists; in others, quakers; and in others again, there was a close numerical rivalry among contending sects. It was impossible, that there should not arise perpetual strife, and perpetual jealousy on the subject of ecclesiastical ascendancy, if the national government were left free to create a religious establishment. . . .Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments.[2] [Capitalization as in original].

The Supreme Court had no power over the control of religion in the states. The Court unlawfully seized the power to rule against freedom of religion in Everson v. Board of Education.[3] We didn’t protest. The unlawful power became de facto[4] power.

What if we disobey the Court and do what our conscience demands? There would be consequences, of course. But Christ did not promise that Christianity would be easy. Only that it would be worth it. Civil disobedience anyone?

-----------------------------------------------------------
[1] Joseph Story was a poet, scholar, prolific writer, Supreme Court Justice, and Harvard Law Professor. His Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) is still considered the standard treatise on the subject.
[2] Story, Book III, §1873
[3] 330 U.S. 1 (1947).
[4] In its legal definition, de facto “is used to characterize an officer, a government, a past action, or a state of affairs which must be accepted for all practical purposes, but is illegal or illegitimate.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th affairs which must be accepted for all practical purposes, but is illegal or illegitimate.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th ed.

DON'T WASTE AN AMENDMENT

2008-12-14T15:19:00.000-08:00

Guest column by Glenn Neal, retired-attorney-turned-writer

A website is raising the alarm in an attempt to stop the Ohio legislature from voting for a Constitutional Convention for the United States in the fear that it will become an open convention.[1] Their fears are unfounded. Article V of the Constitution permits the states to demand "a Convention for offering Amendments . . . [to] this Constitution" [emphasis added], and nothing more. Reinforcing that limitation is a law passed by Congress that the convention cannot consider anything that is not in the call for the convention. You can be sure the people in power will not give up any unless you strictly follow the letter of the law.

I could not confirm that thirty-two states have called for the convention--Google "constitutional convention" and you will come up with 448,000 hits. Do a Google search on "con con" (an abbreviation in the blogosphere for constitutional convention) and get 138,000,000 hits. Obviously, I did not check all of the sites. I'll continue to research this. It may be the subject of a future post.

What I did find is several states have proposed a convention for amending their own state constitutions; Illinois in particular is in the news right now because of Governor Blagojevich's arrest. And there are countries like the Philippians who want to amend their national constitutions.

Nonetheless, this provides an excuse for me to put in my own 2¢ worth: a convention to propose just a balanced budget amendment would be a horrendous waste.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, dissenting in Olmstead v. U.S. (1928), wrote,

Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.

The balanced budget amendment is an important amendment but so is term limiting Congress; a more vital amendment is reigning in the unlimited power of the United States Supreme Court.

In the year 2000, Justice Scalia stated in his dissent in the Dickerson case that the Supreme Court had given itself the power to amend the Constitution. The only remarkable thing about Dickerson is the Court came out and openly stated (in lawyer-speak, of course) that it could amend the Constitution. In fact, it had been covertly amending the Constitution at least since the Warren Court of the 1950s.

It will never be possible to amend the Constitution fast enough and often enough to keep up with an illegitimate, activist Supreme Court. Of some ten thousand amendments proposed during the history of this nation, only twenty-seven have been ratified to become a part of the Constitution.

If several amendments compete for the public's attention, it diminishes the probability that any one of them will be adopted. Instead, the people should unite in support of a Convention for offering amendments under Article V. of the Constitution.

When the Supreme Court seized power in Marbury v. Madison (1803), the people, acquiesced and allowed it to happen. But the country still belongs to the people. The idea that this is a government "of the people, by the people and for the people" did not die when Abraham Lincoln was shot.. We can still do something about it.

The Constitution does NOT give the Court the right of judicial review (overturning an Act of Congress) nor does it give the Court the power to amend the Constitution. See, U. S. Const., Art. V here: http://www.usconstitution.net/. In drafting the Constitution the founders considered, and specifically rejected, the notion that the Court could overturn an Act of Congress. Nonetheless, the Court seized that power in Marbury v. Madison (1803).

We need to take the power back.

MY DEMOCRATIC DILEMMA

2008-12-09T11:08:00.000-08:00

Guest column by "ex-spook" Robert Chapman, retired U. S. intelligence officer

All my life I believed in one man, one vote. I criticized the South for poll taxes and literacy tests. Now, I don't know. I am confused.

I live in eastern North Carolina in what is called the "Prettiest Town in the South" which was spared the ravages of the Civil War. We have the ocean, the sounds, all kinds of fishing, hunting, golf; the people are kind and polite. Our problem, which afflicts so much of America, is our county is 61% illiterate. The county to the north is the same, but the larger one to the south reaches an illiterate rate of 81%. Ipso facto, public education ranks low. There's no quest to learn. And there's nothing even over the far horizon that this will change. One must wonder what people think about, talk about or know.

Our county had a nest egg of $20 million coming from the sale of our hospital to a state university. It was a good deal. Interest could be spent for town betterment, but the investment was not to be touched. However, our county commissioners, all from the Democratic Party, unschooled in governance, wrongly allowed the moneyto be spent for extravagant town buildings. Perhaps the townspeople should have known but instead mistakenly trusted government. The shock came when the town learned millions of dollars were due on government loans, and the nest egg had whittled down to $100,000 orso. From the housetops, responsible people shouted to get the rascals out of office. For the first time in the town's history, Republican businessmen and farmers ran for county commissioner seats to repair the damage in the best way possible.

The 2008 Presidential Election came upon us. The Obama campaign sent community organizers to our region from 500 or more miles away. Aided by local Democrats a massive voter registration program began sweeping the poor, the illiterate, and the uneducated into a previously unknown voting block. Tragedy followed.

The new voters had never voted before. They flocked to the polls. Unbelievable stories abounded. The voters knew only that a black man, Obama, was running. Some thought Palin was his running mate. They were totally uninformed. One poor illiterate came into the poll to vote. He did not know if he was an American citizen. Patient poll workers questioned him and found he remembered being born in town. They asked for whom he wanted to vote, and when he answered "Obama," they registered him as a Democrat and let him to vote.

The Democratic organizers and their cohorts wanted North Carolina to go Democratic and as the uneducated approached the polling station they were instructed to vote the straight Democratic ticket. They did. The most intelligent man running for the county commission was crushed in the voting.

The same incumbent county commissioners who caused our fiscal crisis were voted back into office. We are falling into county bankruptcy.

ANIMUS TOWARD RELIGION

2008-12-06T20:19:00.000-08:00

Guest column by Glenn Neal, retired-lawyer-turned-writer

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between a man and his God;… I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." —Thomas Jefferson, letter to the Danbury, Connecticut Baptist Association.

The United States Supreme Court likes to claim the Constitution built a "wall of separation between Church and State." That is patently false. It is the Supreme Court that erected the wall of separation as we know it today.

In 1947, the Court in Everson v. Board of Education declared, "The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another."

But that is the Court's interpretation, not the history of America.

Joseph Story, whose Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) is still considered the standard treatise on the subject, wrote,

Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions; and the Catholic and the Protestant, the Calvinist and the Arminian, [sic] the Jew and the Infidel, may sit down at the common table of the national counsils, [sic] without any inquisition into their faith, or mode of worship.

The guarantee of freedom of religion in the First Amendment did not promise freedom from religion. President John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

By the year 1702, all thirteen American colonies had some form of state-supported religion. Support varied from tax benefits to religious organizations to requirements to restrict voting or serve in the legislature.

Imagine the turmoil if the federal government had chosen the Anglican faith established in Virginia and applied it nationwide—-to the Quakers in Pennsylvania, to the Puritans in New England and to the Baptists and Jews wherever they may be found.

Although Delaware quit government support for religion as early as 1792, some states continued state support for religion and/or restrictions on anyone but Protestants holding public office until after the American Civil War. The last states to cease all government support for religion were Maryland (1867), South Carolina (1868), North Carolina (1875), and New Hampshire (1877).

Maryland's law requiring that one must believe in God to hold public office was not overturned by the U. S. Supreme Court until 1961.

It should be obvious to everyone but the Supreme Court that the Constitution did not bar establishing a religion. It just prohibited the federal government from establishing a national religion. The Supreme Court of the United States, in direct violation of the First Amendment, is prohibiting the free exercise of one's religion in any public events where there is state or federal government involvement.

Religious observations are deeply imbedded in our laws: religious holidays, opening sessions of Congress and other public functions with prayer, the Declaration of Independence, which refers to the "protection of divine Providence," the swearing of oaths on the Bible, and in other ways too numerous to mention.

Why do we let a few atheists, the ACLU and the United States Supreme Court dictate how and where we worship our God?

TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION

2008-12-02T10:39:00.000-08:00

Guest column by Glenn Neal, retired-lawyer-turned-writer

As President-elect Barrack Obama moves toward his inaugural, and maybe the highest taxes in history, there is a more sinister taxing body many people don't even know about. Do you remember voting for a delegate to represent you on the United States Supreme Court? I don't.

Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, "An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation." The Supreme Court seems to have forgotten that.

In Missouri v. Jenkins (1990), the Court affirmed the right of federal courts to levy taxes. Justice Anthony Kennedy criticized that part of the decision giving the federal courts the power to levy taxes directly. He called it, "An expansion of power in the Federal Judiciary beyond all precedent. Today's casual embrace of taxation imposed by the unelected, life-tenured Federal Judiciary disregards fundamental precepts for the democratic control of public institutions."

There are also indirect taxes. When the courts require local governments to build new, more "humane" jails, for example, the argument is not about whether the court has jurisdiction to do that. It doesn't, actually--the Constitution confers no authority for the federal courts to impose unfunded mandates on the states. The court just assumes it has jurisdiction and the Supreme Court allows it to happen.

Direct and hidden taxes levied by the federal courts are separate from taxes levied by Congress. Over the past ten years, federal taxes enacted by Congress have averaged 19% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

The director of CBO testified earlier this year that if entitlements continue to expand at their present rate, by the middle of this century the tax to pay for just three of the entitlements -- Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- will be 21% of GDP, up from 4.1 %in 2004. The cost of running the government, the military, foreign aid, the farm subsidies, the bailout and all other federal giveaways would be in addition to that.

So what can we do about it?

To believe that you can successfully "lobby" the average heroin addict to give up his habit voluntarily, without drastic intervention by some outside force, is naïve. To believe Congress or the Court will restrain itself from imposing taxes goes beyond naiveté to delusional. For there to be meaningful tax reform and/or limitedgovernment, there must be some draconian action by the people to impose limits that Congress--and the Supreme Court--cannot avoid.

President Lincoln at Gettysburg called on those gathered there, "to be dedicated here to the unfinished work . . . that this nation,under God, shall have a new birth of freedom--and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." We need to follow his lead.

Stay with me, I'll tell you how.

HOW IT WAS DONE

2008-11-19T13:28:00.000-08:00

Guest column by Robert Chapman, retired US intelligence officer

When my Democratic candidates in the primary were knocked down to Hillary and Obama, I began to look into Obama’s background and became alarmed at what I found. But I was fascinated. What I was finding was not reported by the media. It was like being back in intelligence, similar to a counterintelligence analyst, putting pieces of information together.
With all its resources why didn’t the Republican Party investigate the background of the Democratic candidate?

The starting point is Chicago. Saul Bellows wrote of its South Side as a boiling, seething caldron of blacks. A few escape to the top and crawl out, we applaud, and hail their success, but millions of are left behind. The problem becomes bigger.

Chicago became the seat of black power in the United States and the home of the foremost black political leaders. There was no better place for political power advocacy. Among them are Louis Farrakhan, Jessie Jackson, and Jeremiah Wright--the latter for his promotion of the black liberation theology. However, importantly, there was Saul Alinsky (1909 – 1972), whom the media deliberately brushed off as of no consequence.

Saul Alinsky

He is identified by his supporters as “far left” and by others as a radical Socialist, Marxist or Communist, depending on whom you talked to. Some of my friends say he was an “out and out” Communist. One of his books, Rules for Radicals, defines his political orientation. To promote and advance his political philosophy, he organized the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF) to teach community organizers the methodology to recruit and organize political communities. How many people he taught or how many, in turn, did they teach and organize is unknown but certainly it is in the thousands. Or, it could be much, much more as the IAF exists today with its national headquarters in Chicago and offices in the District of Colombia, 21 states and Canada, Germany and the United Kingdom. [The national media never publicized the national and international scope of Alinsky’s school of thought and support. While the organizations implement Alinsky’s orientation and philosophy, they bear different names, such as the Gamaliel Foundation, and are located in inner cities.]

The following are Alinsky’s statements:

“organizing is a euphemism for revolution . . . [the] systematic acquisition of power by the oppressed segment of the population . . . A people’s organization is dedicated to eternal war. . . [The war] is dedicated to the ‘have-a-little, want-mores,’ the majority of the U.S. population.”
“Penetrate institutions, churches, unions and political parties . . . a slow, patient process.”
A major goal is “the redistribution of wealth.”
“The most effective means are whatever will achieve the desired result.”
“Foment public discontent, moral confusion and chaos to spark social upheaval, collapse of the status quo and follow the charismatic radical organizer."
[Force the enemy to abide by the rules of the highest good conduct] and “express shock when the enemy cannot live up to the rules of his faith.” [Vividly followed in the 2008 election.]
[Use leading questions to lead the discontented to the place where the organizer wants them to go. There is a recorded instance where Obama used this technique on a homeless man to become one of the “want, mores.” Was this the technique used in Obama’s speeches? There was little of positive substance in his interpretation of Martin Luther King and John F. Kennedy.]

Alinsky writes instructions to form people’s organizations. The organizations must be a local level and staffed by local people. They are political fronts. The leaders must be local sympathizers.

And there is more.

Alinskyism is a mix of Marxism, Communism and Marxist-Leninism.

College

Prior to his bid for the Presidency, there was little I could find of Obama’s personal accomplishments that in any way equaled the accomplishments of other presidents. [For information on Obama’s early formative years, see the previous column “Raising Obama.”] He first attended Occidental College in California. There has been no probe into his academic record except one:

An Occidental professor was queried but had difficulty recalling Obama as a student. When he was told Obama was reading Nietzsche and similar philosophers, the professor was surprised.
Unfortunately, the university records of Obama and his wife, Michelle, were sealed, and their academic records are unknown.

From Occidental Obama enrolled in Colombia University where he received a degree in political science.

While attending Colombia he sought out leftist friends and courses taught by Communist professors. [An orientation he probably acquired while growing up in Hawaii where he was influenced by his grandfather’s buddy, Frank Davis, the island’s top communist.] He then had a job in a Ralph Nader-type off-shoot office. He tired of it and writes he answered a trade journal ad for a Chicago community organizer. He was hired by Jerry Kellman. [Kellman was a Vietnam War protester and an Alinsky protégé and now works with a Catholic Church in Chicago’s South Side.]

What was happening in Chicago was that Alinsky graduates were organizing in the Chicago ghettos but they realized and concluded they needed a black organizer to spearhead their work.
[Some thought Bill Ayers recruited Obama in New York when he attended Colombia at the same time as Obama. It will be noted Ayers played a greater role in Obama’s life than previously reported. They had a close professional and “family” relationship for close to 30 years. It is the first time in our nation’s history a president-elect had a long, personal, even a “family” relationship with a known terrorist.]

Obama returned to Chicago and was trained by the Alinsky IAF as a community organizer. He moved on to the Developing Communities Project which was tied in with other such organizations as the Alinsky method Gamaliel Foundation. There was, and is, a proliferation of such organizations in Chicago, probably because of its fertile, boiling South Side caldron.
In addition to training others and organizing communities, Obama trained other community organizations, such as ACORN, in Alinsky methodology.

Obama’s was enmeshed with far-left contacts during his community organizing. He became [closely] acquainted with Antoin Rezko who was obtaining Chicago multimillion dollar construction projects in the slum communities where Obama was organizing. He would later play a shady part in Obama’s life. If it were not for Obama’s media defense, the Rezko affair would have been enough to knock Obama out of the presidential race.

The Harvard Effect

After two years of community organizing [more accurately the Alinsky machine was a “political organization”], Obama enrolled at Harvard Law. Something is missing in the public record as to how his decision to enroll came about. Was the idea his or was he recommended by someone. To my knowledge Harvard Law is difficult to get in to. Did he have an influential Chicago sponsor or did he enter through affirmative action as did his wife, Michelle?

It was reported that while attending Harvard, Obama kept his foot into Alinsky methodology and traveled to Los Angeles to attend an eight-day Alinsky training course. [There is no record who paid for the trip but I assume it was the IAF.] The trip reveals the size and scope of the IAF and that while in Harvard, the IAF considered Obama a key member. I found only one report of this trip.

After his first year in law school, Obama returned to Chicago to spend the summer as a trainee at the high-brow law firm of Sidley Austin where he met Michelle Robinson who became his wife.
The high point for Obama’s career was his election as the President of the Harvard Law Review which he parlayed into his presidential campaign. However, as background of how this occurred, during a period of intense struggle between liberal and conservative students, Obama was a compromise candidate who was elected on the ninth ballot. It is customary for the President to write for the Review but there is no record of any writing by Obama.

Return to Chicago

After Obama was elected President of the Harvard Law Review, Rezko offered to hire him. The record is he refused but on his return to Chicago, he chose to work for the leftist law firm of Miner, Barnhill & Galland--not Sidley Austin, where he was a summer trainee. [From Obama’s background, it was natural for him to choose a leftist firm rather than a stogy, conservative one.] However, Miner, Barnhill & Galland was the firm which handled Rezko’s business. On query, Miner, Barnhill & Galland said [in defense of Obama] he handled only four or five of Rezko’s transactions. Nevertheless, while Obama rejected Rezko’s job offer, he worked for the firm which handled Rezko’s legal transactions [which may have been the job Rezko offered him as there appears a patent connection in the job offer and Obama’s work for Miner, Barnhill.]

It is difficult to follow exactly what Obama did in Chicago. It is not known whether he quit Miner, Barnhill & Galland while he was engaged in numerous foundations. A principal one was the Chicago Annenberg Challenge where he and Ayers worked together and shared successive chairmanships for six years. The objective was to improve education and the Annenbergs put up a huge amount of money estimated to be $1 million, or $1.5 million or more. It is believed most went into the black South Side where Reverend Michael Phleger’s church received a considerable grant. [He was the guest Catholic priest who ridiculed Hillary Clinton from Rev. Wright’s pulpit.]

During the campaign Obama promised that during his first year in office he would grant $500 million [additional?] to faith-based programs.

The Church

As Obama organized the black communities, colleagues suggested if he was going to deal with black people he best join a church. He chose the Trinity United Church of Christ.

Trinity is the foremost church, the advance spearhead of the Black Liberation Theology. [See prior column “Black Liberation Theology’ for a fuller explanation and Rev. Wright’s connection to James Cone.] In summary, the theology, which is Marxist in origin, advances the ideology that there is a “center,” where people live with wealth and a shadowy “periphery” where the unfortunate and the poor reside. The ideology calls for the redistribution of wealth. It is the same redistribution theme that runs through Alinsky's ideology.

Obama and his wife attended Trinity for 22-23 years. One would assume attending a church and hearing the sermons, he would agree with the message, particularly as Obama himself was teaching Alinsky’s wealth distribution ideology. Additionally, Trinity’s pastor, Wright, is a friend of the Obama family, having married Barack and Michelle, baptized their two daughters, and was the spiritual advisor for Obama’s presidential campaign until he was let go after Wright's “damn America” sermon became known.

Michelle is more of an open book. She was more openly discontented with white society. She wrote her Princeton thesis on her black isolation in the university milieu, and she openly speaks of being in the “periphery.” There seems no doubt she is an adherent to the black liberation theology Wright taught. Although she criticizes white society she is forgetful her scholastic grades were not good enough to enter the Ivy League universities but was admitted under the affirmative action programs.

What is startling is Trinity has a membership of 8,000 of Chicago’s black elite. The members are people who succeeded financially and professionally in the United States and yet believe in the “redistribution of wealth,” thus they, too, apparently, believe they live in “the periphery.” [Probably more than 99% of Americans do not know what a church that practices the theology of black liberation is all about.]

When Obama ran for the Illinois State Senate skullduggery was involved and he won through a technicality. His role in the legislature is credited in the presidential campaign as a major accomplishment but he didn’t do anything except helped enact a bill aimed at preventing police brutality. In truth, however, Obama was the protégé of Senator Emil Jones, Jr. and with his tutelage and support Obama helped pass what would seem to be a popular bill.] Jones had a reputation for nepotism in office. Obama used him as a stepping stone and Jones was soon discarded.

Anti-War Speech

Throughout the presidential campaign, Obama’s claim to fame was he was against the military invasion of Iraq. In his speech of October 2, 2002 in Chicago he said he was against the war. He did not and could not claim he voted against the war. He was in no position to do that from his seat in the Illinois State Legislature.

There is more to the story. The speech was sponsored by Marilyn Katz [a major Obama fund raiser] and several of her cohorts [SDS] at an anti-war rally attended by about 200 people. [It is assumed the 200 were assembled through Katz and her cohorts]. It was there Obama announced he was against the war.

Marilyn Katz was the head of security for the Students for Democratic Society (SDS) during the Chicago Riots of 1968. The SDS was a non-violent but activist student movement against the Vietnam War. She is a friend of Bill Ayers while he was still a SDS member before he broke away from the SDS and founded the violent Weather Underground. [To investigate Obama and his associates the name of one colleague leads to another who are of Marxist-stripe or war protester, Marxist, etc.]

The Joyce Foundation

For eight years, Obama was a paid board member of the Joyce Foundation. The Foundation gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to anti-gun organizations.

Political Allies

Without records it is not possible to identify all the Alinsky motivated organizations and others which were part of the Obama presidential campaign. Several are ACORN, Rainbow Push, the Arab American Action Network, with the active participation of Move-On, and many others linked to left-leaning Alinsky followers.

Of importance is ACORN with its 42,000 plus members and chapters in 110 cities and 40 states. It received Federal Government funding to register voters and is linked to Obama’s Operation Vote. The Obama campaign funded Operation Vote with $800,000 for diverse organizations to get out the vote; and when asked, the Obama campaign answered it did not know how much of Operation Vote’s money went to ACORN. [The campaign’s records would show the amount, but ACORN was under investigation for fraudulent voter registration.] As with all the other accusations, Obama’s campaign gave the questions the cold shoulder and ignored them.

The Campaign

Early in the primary campaign, a friend with intelligence-gathering knowledge reported that Obama’s campaign organization resembled the Communist Party’s cell structure of the 1930s. To some extent it was. As a founding member of the '60s radical student group, Weather Underground, Bill Ayers certainly has practical knowledge of cell structure and operation. The Weather Underground was organized with “independent, self-directing cells’ which operated independent of each other and without direction of a headquarters. The Weather Underground publication “Punch With The Red Army” stated, “No cell can remain inactive waiting orders from above. Its obligation is to act.”

While Obama and Ayers chaired the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, they used its funds to organize Local School Councils (LSC) throughout the South Side. Resembling Parent Teachers Associations, the LSCs were empowered with the authority to dismiss the principals of their respective schools. They were in effect cells which could turn out the vote. [Ayers and others of the Alinsky school were close to Chicago Mayor Daley. There was criticism of Ayers and Obama using Annenberg’s funds for political not educational purposes.]

Ayers and Obama have a long relationship, possibly close to 30 years. Ayers cannot be written off, as the media has done, as a former revolutionary. He cannot be compared, say, to Jane Fonda, as he was a bomb maker. He has remained unrepentant and was quoted as saying that as a Marxist-Leninist oriented revolutionary, “they did not do enough,” a step above a pacifist anti-war protester. There are many reports that Ayers went to Venezuela in 2006 and joined a Chavez mass rally, shouting to the crowd, “Education is the Revolution.”

Ayers is one of the authors of the Weather Underground’s book Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-Imperialism: Political Statement of the Weather Underground. The book is dedicated to listed revolutionaries including Sirhan Sirhan, the assassin who killed Robert Kennedy.

In 1970 Ayers’ wife, Bernadine Dohrn, was also a Weather Underground member. She pled guilty to criminal charges related to the violent days of Rage in Chicago in 1969 and received three years probation. Later she refused to testify in front of a Grand Jury convened to investigate a bank robbery carried out by her former comrades from the Weather Underground. For contempt of court she served seven months in jail. [The robbery probably refers to the 1981 Brinks robbery. A mix of Weather Underground and Black Liberation Army activists robbed a Brinks Armored car and, when caught in Nyack, New York, killed two policemen and one security guard.]

This is a tough bunch of people; the likes of which have never appeared before in any U.S. presidential election. With his close associations with questionable friends and supporters, Obama never would have been approved for a national security clearance. In view of his background, unlike the totality of the Obama platform and his speeches, why did Obama vote to continue the strengthened Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)?

Caucuses

When Obama won the Iowa caucus and established himself as a major presidential candidate a friend of mine suspected organized communist activity secured his win, i.e. the operation of cell organizations. Obama won all the Caucus states.

In a caucus election, a small number of voters turn out from the overall electorate. The candidate with the best grass-root organization wins.

Depending upon the honesty of precinct leadership, there is a greater possibility of voter fraud. The vote is not by secret ballot but by personal vote. There were reports of voter intimidation. From Las Vegas there were reports pro-Hillary supporters were afraid to vote.

Texas has both a state-wide election and a caucus. Hillary won the election and with a smaller vote Obama won the caucus but both shared an electoral count.

The Media

The media is of 92% liberal orientation but in the primary and the 2008 presidential election it imploded as never before, possibly to promote the historic candidacy of a black candidate. The media became a willing adjunct of the Obama campaign. At least 90% of the foregoing information on the background of Obama, his colleagues and the campaign was never reported.

The media unanimously protected Obama and his campaign from every allegation made against him, and, in turn, became an assault dog against his contenders.

In revolutions, insurgencies and coups, the rule [according to Alinsky] is to destroy present and future contenders for political power. It is done by executions, forced exile or the destruction of political reputation [as was attempted on Republican VP candidate Governor Sarah Palin]. Sometimes the destruction is done by the appointment of a contender to a powerless political office [like Hillary as Secretary of State].

During the primary, the Obama campaign and media slammed Bill Clinton. Currently, other than Obama, no Democrat of presidential potential remains on the horizon. On the Republican side, only Sarah Palin [with grass roots support] has national potential. The media has already begun the process to remove her from the scene.

The media intentionally did not do its job to protect the American public. It was a performance without precedent.

Conclusion

I have written this paper because of a conversation I heard between two Republicans. Both felt the 2008 election was a fluke. They believed within four years the Democratic coalition will disappear. The youth-inspired voters will not return to the polls and it will be the same with the blacks.

I believe differently.

Incredibly, for an organized entity, the Republican Party did not know what it was up against or what hit them at the polls.

The Democratic Party leadership did have to put together the grass roots organization to get out the vote. In my rural area, an Obama organizer from Indiana came from at least 500 miles away. Also, an Obama lawyer from the next county was present at the polling place to make certain black voters were in no way disenfranchised. It was a well-oiled machine and done well in advance of the primary. There were grass root organizations everywhere. They were in the Alinsky organizations: Project Vote, ACORN, etc. Leadership had only to direct. On the other hand, the Republican Party had to begin at the beginning and could never match the grass roots organization that already existed for the Democratic Party.

The assembled coalition was put together not by the Democratic Party but by Obama-styled “organizers.” The ideology began 50 or 60 years ago and its implementation began in protest to the Vietnam War and continued afterwards. It was slow, slow, patient, pragmatic organization mixed with hard, never before seen campaign tactics derived from Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.

The 2008 election organization and planning was not for the sole objective of winning that election but to win that election and then use the presidency to further expand and consolidate the grass roots electoral coalition. Otherwise, the patient 60 years of preparation make little sense.

So it is as we see it.

Outside of unpredictable events, we don’t know if the Republican Party is capable of organizing and defeating the post-Obama Democratic Party. The Republican Party is composed of the general, non-confrontational middle class voters, diametrically opposed to the “organizers” of the Alinsky School. To win this time the Republicans must go deep into the heart of America and organize methodically in ways never done before.

Robert Chapman
Patrick Flynn

RAISING OBAMA

2008-10-30T13:30:00.000-07:00

A guest column by Robert Chapman, an "ex-spook" now retired from the U. S. Intelligence service.

A friend told me she knew little about Barak Obama’s early life and I realized neither did I. So I looked.

His mother, Ann Dunham, met Barak Hussein Obama (Sr.) in a Russian class at the University of Hawaii. In a short time, they went to Maui and when they returned, they said they’d married. “When Obama was in his early twenties, his mother would reveal to him that her parents were livid about the marriage.” However, in his autobiography Obama wrote that his grandfather, Stanley, viewed the interracial relationship with a sense of pride. It was not so with the grandmother.

There never was a sign of a marriage license, and later in life Ann told a friend “marriage is not essential.” Whether this might have had any effect on her son, Barak Obama Jr., born August 4, 1961, is not known; however, Obama Sr. left her and son, two years later, and it is said she divorced him.

Obama Sr. left Ann to pursue his education and later returned to Kenya with an American white woman he married and who bore him two children. One, a son, is reported to be a mathematician living in China. There is no verification of this. All in all, Obama Sr. fathered nine children.

Ann then married Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian student studying in Hawaii. This was her second bi-racial marriage which was extremely rare in the late ’50s and ’60s. In many ways she was an extremely unusual woman. Some report her as a communist but without verification. At that time she would be considered by most mainstream Americans as a left wing kook. That, however, might be as a reflection of her family and the “wildly romantic streak” she shared with her father.

I found little about Lolo Soetoro. I don’t know what he was like, where he worked, if he did. Previously, we’re told, he was a soldier in the Indonesian Army and projected the tough masculine image to his son. The most remarkable information is “After spending two years in Hawaii, he was forced by political upheaval in his native Indonesia to suddenly return to Jakarta.” What does this mean?

A year later, Ann and her son joined him. This begins a period of controversy whether Barak Jr. is or was a Muslim.

At times Ann and Barak Sr. are described as atheists; at other times they are said to be Muslims. For sure Lolo was Muslim. I’m inclined to think Barak Sr., by his wealth and marital style, was a Muslim. Ann? I don’t know; but according to Maya, her daughter by Lolo, “Ann pushed Barry and Maya to assimilate to Indonesian culture as much as possible....” And I’ve known Americans, living abroad, to get taken in by the culture. The only bearing is what role if any religion played in the Jakarta household.

As for Barak Jr., for his elementary schooling, he entered the Roman Catholic Franciscus Assisi Primary School in Jakarta on January 1, 1968 and was registered under the name Barry Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen, whose religion was listed as Islam. Catholic schools, worldwide, accept non-Catholics, who are exempt from religious instruction.

Three years later, in 1971, Barak enrolled as a Muslim in the Besuki Primary School, a government school. All Indonesian students are required to study religion in school and Barak would have been required to study Islam daily in school. He would have been taught to say his prayers, read and recite from the Koran and study the laws of Islam.

In his autobiography Dreams From My Father Barak Obama mentions studying the Koran and describes the school as Muslim.

Fitting into this, in Ann’s obituary in the New York Times it states in Jakarta she woke up her son at 4 a.m. each morning to take a correspondence course in English. It appears he must have been losing his English ability in school.

From the above I conclude Obama was raised a Muslim. What he is today I don’t know. The Trinity church, which he quit for political reasons, accepted all religions. He then joined another church.

Ann separated from Lolo and returned to Hawaii and began studying anthropology.

In the early ’70s Obama Sr. visited Ann and family. A strange incident occurred. Barak was watch the TV presentation of “Tthe Grinch who Stole Christmas.” Obama Sr. exploded. A given explanation was that he felt Barak was studying too hard and should have been resting rather than watching TV. But Obama Sr. knew little about his son’s studying. It’s possible the explosion was something he viewed as apostate in his son’s giving up Islam for another religion, Christmas. It is only my speculation.

In 1977 Ann told Barak she had to return to Indonesia to do field work for her university degree. She was going to study rural blacksmithing. Rural blacksmithing? She asked Barak to return with her and Maya but he didn’t want to.

This raised a question in my mind. What mother would leave her (bi-racial) teenage son in high school to go to a far off country? Wouldn’t most mothers wait until their son finished high school before going? What effect, I wondered, would this have on her son? There is a natural loneliness.

There was the question of arranging for the grandparents to take over raising Barak. The grandmother, Madelyn, didn’t like it. As we know, during the campaign, Barak “threw her under the truck” when, in defending Reverend Wright, he recalled her racial slurs.
In an incident, Madelyn was angry with her husband, Stanley. She had been accosted by a black man and did not want to take the bus to town. She wanted Stanley to drive her. He refused.

It was in this environment that Barak lived.

In another incident, sometimes contested by Obama supporters, Barak became pals with a boy he describes in his autobiography as “Ray.” Ray is Keith Kakugawa. He, too, was bi-racial, I believe black and Japanese, and had come to Hawaii from Los Angeles. He and Barak smoked pot and talked of their loneliness.

Ray later became addicted and served a prison term. On release, he hit upon Barak for money but was refused.

Barak’s time in Hawaii does not appear a happy one but a lonely one.

In his autobiography, he writes of a man “Frank.” He writes Frank was the man who had the most decisive influence in helping him find his identity.

Frank is Frank Marshall Davis who was a drinking buddy of Barak’s grandfather, Stanley. Frank, a black man, was a leading member of the Hawaiian segment of the Communist Party of America (CPUSA). Herbert Romerstein, whom I knew, was the Congressional investigator of the CPUSA. Romerstein wrote that the CPUSA sent Frank Davis from Chicago to Hawaii to organize the island’s Communist Party. Frank was also a journalist who wrote for the “Record,” the island’s Communist Party’s newspaper.

Frank was admittedly bi-sexual and by many was called a pervert. He was an author and wrote Sex Rebel: Black (Memoirs of a Gourmet Gash), which was hard core pornographic with explicit sex memoirs. It was published under the alias Bob Greene. Another of his books but unpublished is Mixed Sex Salad. He also wrote Livin’ the Blues.

This is the most influential man who helped Obama find his identity? When Obama wrote of “Frank,” didn’t he realize Frank’s identity would be tracked down?

And what of Stanley, the grandfather? A drinking buddy of Davis! Introducing him to his grandson!
Such was Obama’s youth.

In the early 1990s, Ann returned from Indonesia and had a job in New York City at the Women’s World Bank. The bank dealt with micro-financing with small loans to start and finance micro-businesses. She was stricken with cancer and returned to Hawaii where she died in 1995.

This happened before most of us knew of Obama. I wonder if they had contact after she returned. Did he go to New York to visit her? Did he know she was failing? Did she stop in Chicago en route to Hawaii? In his speeches Obama says she worried if she could pay her medical bills. He regrets not visiting her deathbed.

Good Lord! In a presidential election that affects all of us, the media has told us of a loving, caring childhood, not this. Unbelievable!

In my past life, I met, had contact with and knew people who were born poor and impoverished in the rural boondocks of Latin America. They had limited education, suffered a hard, hard life and joined the Communist Party. Recognizing their talent, the Party educated them and trained them into leadership roles in which they flourished. I conclude from Obama’s youth and experiences; it was the Alinsky machine that made Obama.

BLACK THEOLOGY OF LIBERATION (Guest Column)

2008-10-20T11:43:00.000-07:00

This guest column is written by Robert Chapman, who is a retired U. S. intelligence officer.

In the early 1980s I gave a lecture on the Theology of Liberation – “the Liberation Theology” - at a prestigious northeastern college. The audience was senior citizens, many of them Irish Catholics, and on hearing the lecture, they rose in protest and reported their displeasure of me to the program director. They disputed vigorously that church leaders would preach a revolutionary doctrine. Thereafter, I let Liberation Theology just lay there. It was too hot for religious American lay people.

However, at least one American religious order, the Maryknoll, embraced Liberation Theology, and we read of their struggles and deaths in Central America in the conflict between revolutionaries and the governments of Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador.

Many who studied the subject believe Liberation Theology began in 1961 when in an unprecedented act, the World Council of Churches (WCC) invited the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) to join the organization. Unknown to the WCC, the ROC was a KGB appendage, staffed by intelligence officers. I know this well because of my experience in Israel and Jerusalem.

The Soviets took advantage of the invitational opportunity and sent Metropolitan Nikodim (then of Leningrad), the ROC’s second ranking prelate, to the WCC assembly. He espoused a doctrine known as Liberation Theology which was eagerly accepted by Latin American priests and bishops. Its revolutionary philosophy soon became a vehicle for violent change in Latin America as well as Africa and Southeast Asia. Nikodim did not write the Liberation Theology but was its messenger. Its authors were most probably in Moscow headquarters.

The doctrine’s theme is Jesus Christ was a revolutionary whose purpose on earth was to liberate the masses from the economic slavery of capitalism. It states capitalism produces a “center” and a “periphery.” The center is filled with wealth, progress and riches which are enjoyed by a few. The periphery, the shadow of the center, is a barren wasteland of social imbalance, political tension, overwhelming poverty and out-and-out misery for the rest. The task, the theology states, is to continue Jesus’ task of destroying capitalism.

As liberation theology caught on with the Latin American Catholic clergy, Gustavo Gutierrez, a Peruvian Jesuit, wrote The Theology of Liberation which spread Nikodim’s doctrine everywhere as a bible for revolutionary change.

Gutierrez wrote, “Capitalism and its society are to be wiped out, eliminated by violent revolution. In its place there must be implanted a government with state ownership and management of all sources of goods and energy, education of transportation.”

Latin American masses blindly believed a man of God, and the doctrine spread and spread. In scarcely twenty years, Malachi Martin, the advisor to Popes John XIII and Paul VI, estimated two-thirds of the priests and nuns in Latin America and one-third of the bishops were Marxists who promoted liberation theology. Bishop Sergio Mendez Arceo of Cuernavaca declared, “The kingdom of heaven can come about in our day only through Marxism.”

The Vatican could not allow Latin America, its largest religious constituency, to become Marxist, and it’s highly probably for this reason it chose John Paul II, who resisted communism in Poland. A confrontation between Pope John Paul II and the bishops promoting the liberation theology took place at the Conference of American Bishops (CELAM 3) in Puebla, Mexico. So strong and deeply entrenched were the bishops, the meeting ended in a tie. The Pope kept Latin America within its constituency, and the bishops, priests and nuns continued with liberation theology.

A friend with strong connections to the Catholic Church recently traveled to Latin America and returned to say liberation theology remains alive and well.

It is from this background of Latin America’s liberation theology that James T. Cone, Distinguished Professor of Systematic Theology at Union Theological Seminary brought liberation theology to mostly liberal, dissatisfied American blacks. He is the author of numerous articles and books on the subject, including A Black Theology of Liberation.

In many ways his theology is more radical and extreme than the Latin American version as it is based not only on wealth but on color. He writes,

“It is evident, therefore, that this book is written primarily for the black community, not for whites. Whites may read it and to some degree render an intellectual analysis of it, but an authentic understanding is dependent of the blackness of their existence in the world. There will be no peace in America until whites begin to hate their whiteness, asking from the depths of their being: How can we become black?”

“My style of doing theology was influenced more by Malcolm X than by Martin Luther King.”

“If Jesus Christ is white and not black, he is an oppressor, and we must kill him. The appearance of black theology means that the black community is now ready to do something about the white Jesus, so that he cannot get in the way of our revolution.”

“The definition of Christ as black means that he represents the complete opposite of the values of white culture.”

“One of the tenets of black theology is that every American is responsible for the plight of the blacks.”

All of the above have a bearing on today’s presidential campaign. The foremost church, the religious spearhead which advances the Black Theology of Liberation, is the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. It is the church where former Pastor Jeremiah Wright’s mentor is James Cone. It is also the church where Barack Obama and his wife attended for over 22 years. Can a man attend a church for 22 years and not be influenced by its doctrine?

Pastor Wright married Obama and his wife; he is Obama’s close friend and until recently was Obama’s campaign' spiritual advisor. He hastily resigned only because of public exposure of his unpatriotic remarks.

In Obama’s capacity as head of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, he promulgated a need for an “Educational Fund.” The reason, roughly, “You cannot release people from slavery without educating them to deal with the outside world.” He has since announced he will increase President Bush’s faith-based charities by $500 million annually to help poor children read.

I write because I am ticked-off. Not at the liberation theologies, which might be another story, but at our national media. Twenty years ago I was almost driven out of town because I gave a lecture on the liberation theology. Today, the same subject is an unmentioned but germane part of the presidential campaign and the media will not touch it with a ten foot pole. What has happened to the once mighty American press?

LOOKING INTO THE ABYSS

2008-10-04T06:33:00.000-07:00

by Maria Hsia Chang

Published in New Oxford Review (vol. LXXV, no. 9, October 2008), pp. 20-24, http://www.newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=1008-chang The version below contains footnotes and a couple of minor passages that were edited out of the published article.

“I think the Joker killed Heath Ledger.”

So writes licensed attorney and former public defender Jay Gaskill in his review of The Dark Knight.1 Gaskill is not being melodramatic; he is simply stating what other reviewers only hint at.2

The Dark Knight, the latest Hollywood incarnation of the superhero Batman, broke records for best opening weekend at $158.4 million. The movie ranked top in box office for four consecutive weekends, which pushed its domestic total to a staggering $461 million, making The Dark Knight second only to the all-time ticket revenue champion, The Titanic.3

No doubt, many went to see The Dark Knight out of a macabre curiosity because of the untimely death of one of its main actors. On January 22, 2008, six months before the movie’s opening, Ledger was found unconscious in his Manhattan apartment. Paramedics called to the scene could not revive him. The medical examiner later determined that the 28-year-old had died from an accidental overdose of prescription drugs—a lethal brew of sleeping pills, anti-anxiety medication, and the painkillers oxycodone and hydrocodone.

Reviewers have lauded The Dark Knight for its fine acting. In particular, Ledger’s “electrifying” performance is singled out for praise; there is increasing talk of a posthumous Academy Award. His face caked with moldy makeup, with black-shadowed eyes, a red-smeared mouth, and yellowing teeth,4 Ledger’s Joker is more than a master criminal. Instead, reviewers use the language of the supernatural, calling him “demonic” and “diabolical,”5 “a hound fresh out of hell,”6 “a vivid, compelling picture of naked, nihilistic evil . . . with almost preternatural power,”7“a truly frightening vision,” and “like Satan.”8 Michael Caine, who plays Batman’s butler Alfred, said that he found Ledger’s performance so terrifying and disturbing that he sometimes forgot his lines.9

At the time of his death, Ledger had only recently completed his work for The Dark Knight, which was in post-production. Reportedly, the Joker role had taken a decided toll on the actor’s health. For weeks, he was unable to sleep, averaging only two hours a night. He told a New York Times reporter in November 2007 that even after taking two sleeping pills, “I couldn’t stop thinking. My body was exhausted, and my mind was still going.”10

What is less known are Ledger’s film roles both before and after The Dark Knight. Before he assumed the Joker persona, Ledger already was emotionally drained from playing a heroin addict in the Australian film, Candy. To make matters worse, after the Batman movie, Ledger immediately went to work on another dark-themed film, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, without taking a break. The latter is a retelling of the Dr. Faust story, wherein the leader of a traveling theater troupe makes a compact with the Devil and takes audience members through a magical mirror into a fantastic universe of limitless imagination. Ledger’s part was that of Tony, a “charming” and “mysterious outsider” who joins the troupe.11

An Oscar nominee for his acting as a gay cowboy in Brokeback Mountain, Ledger was known for his total absorption into his film roles. He told a reporter that “the only way that I can act” was to climb inside the skin of the person he was playing. This was Ledger’s way of compensating both for his feelings of insecurity as an actor (he had no formal training in acting) and for an abiding sense of impermanence from having spent his formative years shuttling between the homes of his divorced parents. Though born in Australia, Ledger allowed in an interview that “I’m not a resident of Australia. I’ve never voted in Australia.” At the same time, although he owned homes in Los Angeles and New York, he was a non-resident of the United States. Giving voice to his rootless and uncertain identity, the actor admitted that “I’m not really sure where I belong.”12

To prepare for his part in Candy, Ledger had spent time with a real-life junkie in the dark, troubled milieu of Sydney’s red light district. For The Dark Knight, he spent a month alone in a hotel room to work on his character and voice, perfecting an unhinged cackle that sends shivers up the audience’s spine. But by immersing himself in the role of the Joker, Ledger might well have gazed too deeply into the abyss.

“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you.” This famous but cryptic quote by Friedrich Nietzsche is understood to be a warning against too close a contact with evil. As one interpretation has it, if a person gazes too long at evil, it will become a part of him or her.13 Did Ledger fall prey to this mysterious phenomenon?

Nietzsche’s adage is not our only warning about evil. Aldous Huxley opined that “No man can concentrate his attention upon evil, or even upon the idea of evil, and remain unaffected . . . . The effects which follow too constant and intense a concentration upon evil are always disastrous.”14 Similarly, psychiatrist M. Scott Peck cautioned that “an exclusive focus on the problem of evil is actually extremely dangerous to the soul of the investigator . . . . The dangers exist . . . for anyone who becomes preoccupied with the subject of evil. There is always the risk of contamination, one way or another. The more closely we rub shoulders with or against evil, the more likely it is that we may become evil ourselves.”15

Like Heath Ledger, the brilliant historian and journalist Iris Chang, who wrote The Rape of Nanking (1997), seemed to have been another moth that flew too close to the flame. Her book has the distinction of being the first English-language full-length nonfiction account of the Imperial Japanese Army’s massacre of 100,000 to 300,000 Chinese civilians in 1937. It remained on the New York Times’ bestseller list for ten weeks.

In August 2004, Chang had a nervous breakdown, which her family and doctors attributed in part to constant sleep deprivation. At the time, she was several months into research for her fourth book on yet another atrocity perpetrated by the Japanese military. It was the Bataan Death March in 1942, when some 75,000 American and Filipino prisoners-of-war (POWs), many of them ill and severely malnourished, were forced to march sixty miles in tropical heat from the Bataan peninsula to prison camps. The Japanese inflicted great cruelties on the POWs, including the withholding of food and water, bayonet stabbings, rapes, beheadings, and disembowelments.

Friends and colleagues said Chang was deeply disturbed by her research. She was in Kentucky, en route to the city of Harrodsburg to listen to audio recordings by U.S. servicemen who had survived the march, when she was overcome with acute depression. She was admitted into Norton Psychiatric Hospital in Louisville and diagnosed with reactive psychosis. But her depression persisted even after she was released from the hospital. On the morning of November 9, 2004, she was found dead in her car parked on a rural road not far from her home. The beautiful 36-year-old wife and mother of a two-year-old, whose “celebrated life . . . most people believed had been perfect,”16 had shot herself in the mouth with a revolver.

In the suicide notes she left, Iris Chang wrote: “I am doing this because I am too weak to withstand the years of pain and agony ahead . . . . Each breath is becoming difficult for me to take — the anxiety can be compared to drowning in an open sea.”17

There are others besides Ledger and Chang whose work also brings them into evil’s proximity. Among them are FBI agents who specialize in the most difficult cases, such as murders by serial killers. In his book, FBI veteran Robert Ressler revealed that “many of us” in the bureau’s Behavioral Science Unit had experienced weight losses, pseudo heart attacks, and “other problems”18 such as suicides. Contributing factors for suicides by FBI agents include, most commonly, depression, as well as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).19

PTSD also seems to be an occupational hazard of soldiers and police officers. A recent U.S. Army study of the mental health of troops who had fought in Iraq found that about one in eight (or 18 percent) reported PTSD symptoms. Before deployment, the PTSD rate in the armed forces was 5 percent, about the same as the general U.S. population. Studies done years after the Vietnam and Persian Gulf wars showed the PTSD rate at the time was 15 percent for Vietnam veterans and 10 percent for Gulf War veterans.20

More alarming than the high incidence of PTSD is the steep increase in suicides among active-duty soldiers. In 2007 those suicides reached their highest level since 1980 when the Army began keeping such records. In 2007, 121 soldiers took their own lives, nearly 20 percent more than in 2006. Since the Iraq war began, there has also been a sharp rise in the number of attempted suicides or self-inflicted injuries in the Army. That number was 2,100 in 2007, which is a sixfold increase from the 350 soldiers who injured themselves or attempted suicide in 2002. The increase in suicides is attributed to servicemen’s repeated redeployment due to the military’s stop-loss policy.21

Suicides, PTSD, and other symptoms of distress are also prevalent among police officers who, in their daily work, encounter the grim underside of life that most people rarely see. The police are usually first at the scene when babies are killed, when wives are battered, when addicts die of an overdose, or when people are killed or maimed in accidents and homicides. All of which exacts an emotional and physical toll on even the most hardened officer.

A study of 2376 policemen in Buffalo, New York, found that they had higher mortality rates for cancer, suicide, and heart disease than the white male population at large. Research also shows police suffer a substantially higher divorce rate. Whereas the national divorce rate is 50 percent, estimates for police officers range from 60 to 75 percent.22

Suicide rates within law enforcement are also much higher—perhaps two or three times higher—than those in the general population. A recent study found that New York City officers killed themselves at a rate of 29 per 100,000 a year, more than double the rate of 12 per 100,000 among the general population. The real suicide rates of police officers may even be higher because many suicides go unreported to avoid stigmatizing families and to allow them to collect insurance claims and other compensation. This much is known: more police commit suicide than die in the line of duty. According to a study by the National Association of Police Chiefs, nationally, twice as many cops—about 300 annually—commit suicide as are killed in the line of duty.23

Some of the most vivid warnings about evil’s insidious effects are by writers of fiction. As an example, J. R. R. Tolkien in The Lord of the Rings used the motif of the One Ring to convey the seductive and corrupting power of evil. So terrible is that power, the wizard Gandalf—whom Tolkien identified to be an angel in the incarnate form of an old man24—would not risk taking the Ring into his possession. In the end, even the valiant ringbearer Frodo became so consumed by the Ring that he could not bring himself to toss it into the fires of Mount Doom. Were it not for Gollum, the arduous quest of the Fellowship of the Ring would have failed.

J. K. Rowling is another popular fiction writer who has expounded on the pernicious effect of evil. In the third book of her phenomenally popular series, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Rowling introduced demonic creatures called dementors, “among the foulest creatures that walk this earth.” They are soul-less and soul-sucking wraiths who guard the wizard prison of Azkaban until the return of the dark lord Voldemort frees them to wreak havoc upon the world. Dementors are about ten feet in height and have a generally human shape beneath dark, hooded cloaks. Protruding from their cloaks are hands, “glistening, grayish, slimy-looking, and scabbed, like something dead that had decayed in water.” Where eyes should be, there is only “thin, gray scabbed skin, stretched blankly over empty sockets.” And instead of a mouth, there is “a gaping, shapeless hole, sucking the air with the sound of a death rattle.”25

Infesting the darkest, filthiest places, dementors are visible only to wizards but exert the same baleful effect on wizards and muggles (non-magic folks) alike. The very presence of a dementor makes the surrounding atmosphere grow cold and dark. Along with the cold is a feeling of despair that descends upon the person, who is drained of all happiness and good memories. It is a hopelessness so profound that, as Ron Weasley puts it, “I felt . . . I’d never be cheerful again.” Feeding on its victim’s positive emotions, the wraith eventually performs the Dementor’s Kiss and sucks out the person’s soul. The victim is left in a state worse than death, an empty shell with the brain and heart still working but with neither memory nor a sense of self.26

Given the ill effects of too close a contact with evil, one would think that writers on this subject would provide us with more information than enigmatic warnings about the dangers. Alas, like Nietzsche, those who have broached this subject are hazy on exactly how or why a person can become contaminated by a preoccupation with evil. Worse still, the writers are also vague on whether and how we can protect ourselves should we peer into the abyss.

And so we are left to our own conjectures and speculations.

To begin with, who are the potential victims? It appears that “looking into the abyss” refers to anyone whose work or interests bring them into a close proximity with evil. It can be an actor, such as Heath Ledger, who immerses himself too deeply into portraying evil and, in so doing, invites malefic forces into himself. It can be a writer, such as Iris Chang, whose subject is an historical account of man’s inhumanity toward man. It can be FBI agents, soldiers, and police who enter the arena to directly confront and fight evildoers.

There may be others. If chroniclers of historical instances of evil put themselves at risk, it stands to reason that even more are philosophers and psychologists who aim to unearth evil’s very nature and essence. If FBI agents who specialize in the behavioral analysis of criminal psychopaths gaze too deeply into the abyss, so too must psychotherapists who, in Peck’s words, “tangle therapeutically with an evil patient.” Peck thought that since the ultimate objective of all good psychotherapy is to combat lies by shining the light of truth, such therapists in effect are lay versions of exorcists who wrestle with the demon-possessed. Indeed, Peck maintained that all psychotherapy is but “a kind of exorcism.”27

But how exactly does evil exert its nefarious influence on a person? Evil’s baneful effect may be likened to the invisible, odorless, and deadly radiation emitted by uranium. While it is wholly conceivable that writers such as Iris Chang would be perturbed by their research, why should it trigger such an acute depression that life becomes unbearable and relief is sought only in suicide? All of which leads one to wonder just what is this evil that lurks in the abyss.

It may be that those who sound warnings about the abyss cannot but be vague because the phenomenon is other worldly, beyond our empirical realm.

It is oft said that the greatest achievement of the Devil is to convince us that he does not exist. Catholic priest and scholar Malachi Martin called this “the ultimate camouflage.” As he explained, “If your will does not accept the existence of evil, you are rendered incapable of resisting evil. Those with no capacity of resistance become prime targets for Possession.”28

Today, many among the Christian clergy eschew speaking of the Devil or of Hell. Some no longer believe;29 others are convinced that such talk would only alienate their flock.30 Along with colleges and universities,31 it seems that churches have also succumbed to the relentless drive of the market. Indeed, in an interview in 1984 on the state of the Catholic Church, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger noted that “no other topic unleashes such a storm of indignation among the mass-media of secularized society as that of the ‘devil’.” The attitude of many people, including Christians, is that the Devil is a “vestigial piece of folklore,” something which is “unacceptable to mature faith.”32

What is curious about the clerical reticence is that the Scriptures are replete with references to the Devil. The word “Satan” appears 18 times in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, the word “devil” appears 35 times and the word “demon” appears 21 times. More importantly, Christ made references to the fallen angels throughout the Gospels. He spoke of “the devil and his angels” in Matthew 25:41, and of “Satan” in Matthew 12:22-28, Mark 3:22-27, and Luke 11:15-22. He referred to “the wicked one” and “the devil” in Matthew 13:38-39, and to “unclean spirits” in Matthew 12:43-45 and Luke 11:24-26. Jesus cured those afflicted with physical diseases and mental illnesses, but also undertook numerous exorcisms,33 thereby making a distinction between mental sickness and demonic possession. Christ also made evident that evil exists and is embodied in personal entities who actively work against God and man. He called the leader of these evil spirits “the father of all lies” and “a murderer from the beginning.”34

The clergy’s reluctance to speak of the Devil and of Hell is all the more ironic because available evidence points to the laity’s belief in both. Gallup polls of American adults found that in 2001, 71 percent believed in Hell. Increasing numbers also believed in a personal entity of evil called the Devil, from 55 percent of U.S. adults in 1990 to 70 percent in 2004. The percentage of Americans who believed that “people on this earth are sometimes possessed by the devil” also rose from 37 percent in 1991 to 41 percent in 2001.35

If the Devil wants most of all to have us think he doesn’t exist, then he would have every reason to target those who study and expose evil because they are shedding the light of truth on what would prefer to remain in the shadows. In so doing, the scholars of evil have identified themselves as belonging to the opposing camp, just as much as FBI agents and police officers who take on evildoers in direct combat. No wonder the patron saint of policemen and soldiers is none other than the good Archangel Michael who leads the heavenly host against Lucifer and his co-rebels.

So how should someone who peers into the abyss arm himself ?

Huxley observed that “To be more against the devil than for God is exceedingly dangerous. Every crusader is apt to go mad. He is haunted by the wickedness which he attributes to his enemies; it becomes in some sort a part of him.”36 Peck, for his part, warned that psychotherapists who have evil patients “may be placing themselves in great jeopardy” and advised against young therapists taking on such patients. Peck also recommended that the therapist “thoroughly cast the beam out of his or her own eye, for a weak-souled therapist will be the most vulnerable.”37

Huxley’s and Peck’s recommendations are not unlike the prescriptions in the Catholic Church’s Roman Ritual of Exorcism, which instructs that the priest chosen to be an exorcist “should be of mature age and be respected as a virtuous person.” He must have “no greed for material benefit,” but only “the necessary piety, prudence and personal integrity.” Above all, the exorcist must prepare himself with prayer and fasting so as to “perform this most heroic work humbly and courageously, not relying on his own strength, but on the power of God.”38

Contrary to the recommendations of both Peck and the Roman Ritual that it should be a mature seasoned individual possessed of a firm and sure sense-of-self who duels with evil, both Heath Ledger and Iris Chang were young. It is also instructive that in all the media accounts of their deaths, there is no mention of either having or actively practicing a religious faith. In the end, the answer to the question of how one who peers into the abyss fortifies himself is found in St. Paul’s letter to the Ephesians (6:10-16):

Finally, draw your strength from the Lord and from his mighty power. Put on the armor of God so that you may be able to stand firm against the tactics of the devil. For our struggle is not with flesh and blood but with the principalities, with the powers, with the world rulers of this present darkness, with the evil spirits in the heavens. Therefore, put on the armor of God, that you may be able to resist on the evil day and, having done everything, to hold your ground. So stand fast with your loins girded in truth, clothed with righteousness as a breastplate, and your feet shod in readiness for the gospel of peace. In all circumstances, hold faith as a shield, to quench all the flaming arrows of the evil one.

∞

Endnotes

1. Jay Gaskill, “Bleak Knight: A Review,” The Human Conspiracy Blog, July 24, 2008, http://www.jaygaskill.com/blog3/. Gaskill is a former public defender for Alameda County in the San Francisco Bay Area.
2. Scott Foundas, “Heath Ledger Peers Into The Abyss in The Dark Knight,” Village Voice, July 16, 2008, http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-07-16/film/heath-ledger-dark-knight.
3. The Titanic is the reigning all-time box-office winner, at $600.8 million.
4. Peter Travers’ review of “The Dark Knight” in Rolling Stone, July 18, 2008, http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/16155928/review/21477208/the_dark_knight.
5. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Office of Film & Broadcasting, http://www.usccb.org/movies/d/dark_knight.shtml.
6. Travers in Rolling Stone, op. cit.
7. Gaskill, op. cit.
8. Maurice Broaddus, “To Job or not to Job,” Hollywood Jesus, http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/movieDetail.cfm/i/7ADEFA07-93DA-E0CE-969501D56848E596/ia/64FFC770-B4A1-F9C0-DF7797A46E88F03D.
9. Dominic Wells, “Dark Knight marks new chapter in Batman's seven decade screen career,” The Times, July 12, 2008, http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article4295091.ece, viewed July 25, 2008.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
12. Mark Chipperfield, “Heath Ledger: Edgy and evasive interviewee,” Telegraph, January 24, 2008, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1576376/Heath-Ledger-Edgy-and-evasive-interviewee.html, viewed August 22, 2008.
13. Http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/32/messages/34.html, viewed August 4, 2008.
14. Aldous Huxley, The Devils of Loudon (Harper & Row, 1952), pp. 260, 192.
15. M. Scott Peck, M.D., People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil (New York: Touchstone, 1983), pp. 42, 261.
16. “Iris Chang—The Woman Who Loved Truth,” Sunday Star Times, February 1, 2008, http://www.stuff.co.nz/sundaystartimes/4373540a19799.html, viewed August 6, 2008.
17. “Iris Chang,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_Chang, viewed July 26, 2008.
18. Robert H. Ressler and Tom Shachtman, Whoever Fights Monsters (New York, NY: St. Martin’s, 1992), pp. 272-273.
19. Vincent J. McNally, “Federal Bureau of Investigation's Employee Assistance Program Response to Suicide,” in Donald C. Sheehan and Janet I. Warren, eds., From Suicide and Law Enforcement (US Dept of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2001), pp. 125-138.
20. “1 in 8 returning soldiers suffers from PTSD,” Associated Press, June. 30, 2004, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5334479/, viewed July 30, 2008.
21. Dana Priest, “Soldier Suicides at Record Level,” Washington Post, January 31, 2008, p. A1, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013003106.html, viewed July 30, 2008.
22. “The Effects of Stress On Police Officers,” a speech (undated) by Dan Goldfarb to a group of union delegates, http://www.heavybadge.com/efstress.htm, viewed July 30, 2008.
23. Claude Lewis, “Police Suicide Is An Alarming Problem Rarely Discussed Publicly,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, no date, http://www.tearsofacop.com/police/articles/lewis.html, viewed July 30, 2008.
24. The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, edited by Humphrey Carpenter with the assistance of Christopher Tolkien (Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2000), p. 202.
25. J. K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (New York, NY: Scholastic Press, 1999), pp. 187, 83, 384.
26. Ibid., pp. 85, 247.
27. Peck, People of the Lie, pp. 261, 185.
28. Malachi Martin, Hostage to the Devil: The Possession and Exorcism of Five Living Americans (HarperSanFrancisco, 1992), p. xv.
29. Ibid., pp. xvi-xvii. “[I]gnorance, disinterest, disbelief, even adamant unwillingness on the part of many Church officials to so much as discuss demonic Possession and Exorcism, is literally the order of the day.”
30. In the United States, at the same time as church membership is down among traditional Protestant denominations, mega-churches have become increasingly popular. They are non-denominational evangelical churches with congregations of more than 2,000 in which the emphasis is on consumer appeal rather than “anything threatening” such as “fire and brimstone.” See C. W. Nevius, “Supersize Churches Booming,” San Francisco Chronicle, July 31, 2004, pp. B1-2.
31. In “The Twilight of the Professors,” The Intercollegiate Review, 34:2 (Spring 1999), pp. 8-12, Bruce S. Thornton writes that there has been a “decades-long transformation of the university from a haven of truth-seekers dispensing liberal education, into a utilitarian industry, a profit-making trainer of technicians.”
32. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger with Vittorio Messori, The Ratzinger Report: An Exclusive Interview On the State of the Church (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1985), p. 135.
33. See Matthew 4:24, 8:16, 8:28-32, 9:32-33, 10:1, 10:8, 12:22, 12:29, 15:22-28, 17:14-18, 17:21; Luke 4:41, 6:17-18, 8:26-35, 9:40-42,11:14; Mark 1:21-27, 1:32-34, 1:39, 3:7-11, 3:15, 5:1-13, 6:7, 6:13, 16:9.
34. John 8:44.
35. Http://institution.gallup.com/searchresults.aspx?tab=search&stext=devil& startdate=&enddate=&criteria=all; “Eternal Destinations: Americans Believe in Heaven, Hell,” Gallup Poll News Service, May 25, 2004, http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/beliefs/angels.htm.
36. Huxley, The Devils of Loudon, p. 260.
37. Peck, People of the Lie, p. 261.
38. “Appendix One: The Roman Ritual of Exorcism,” in Martin, Hostage to the Devil, pp. 461, 460.

Looking Into the Abyss

2008-08-24T14:48:00.000-07:00

My essay on the death of actor Heath Ledger, "Looking Into the Abyss," is temporarily withdrawn because New Oxford Review will be publishing it in its October 2008 issue. When it is published, the article will once again appear on this blog.

What Is "Character"?

2008-07-24T14:11:00.000-07:00

One of the best definitions for "character" which I've ever come across is this: "Character is doing the right thing when nobody is looking.”

In their new book, Walk the Talk, Eric Harvey and Steve Ventura offer a longer definition. They say that one of the keys to character is commitment. Here's what the authors wrote:

Think of someone you know who is "a person of good character." Lock his or her image in your mind. Now take a moment to reflect on the things this person says and does...the personal characteristics that make him or her a role model for you.

What comes to mind? What do you see?

Chances are that high on the list of your role model's qualities is COMMITMENT - the unwavering dedication to being a good family member and friend...to doing his or her best at work and away from the job...to doing what's right, noble, and decent.

Committed people like your role model just seem to have their heads and hearts in the right place. They keep their priorities straight. They stay focused on what's important. They know, inherently, that what they believe must drive how they behave - and how they behave ultimately determines the character they possess, the reputation they enjoy, and the legacy they leave.

Abraham Lincoln had this to say about commitment: "COMMITMENT is what transforms a promise into reality. It is the words that speak boldly of your intentions. And the actions which speak louder than the words. It is making the time when there is none. Coming through time after time after time, year after year after year. Commitment is the stuff character is made of; the power to change the face of things. It is the daily triumph of integrity over skepticism."

The world renowned pianist, Van Cliburn, after one of his magnificent concerts was approached by an admirer who had been in the audience. The emotional fan grasped Cliburn's hand and said, "I would give my life to be able to play the piano like that." The pianist smiled and replied..."I DID."

The Two Faces of Chinese Nationalism

2008-07-20T19:26:00.000-07:00

(Published in China Briefing, Center For International Relations, August 2008, pp. 9-11.)

On May 12, 2008, China’s Sichuan province was struck by a massive 7.9 earthquake. In the aftermath, Chinese people rallied together in an unprecedented show of national solidarity and fellowship. Many volunteered to excavate victims still buried in the rubble; others donated money to help survivors; still others offered to adopt the children whom the quake had made orphans. A week after the disaster on May 19 at 2:28 p.m., people all across China mourned in silence for three minutes. All of which led outside observers to remark that we might be witnessing the beginning of a genuine civil society in China. As longtime Sinologist Ross Terrill put it, “A new China could be glimpsed after the earthquake.”

But a month before the quake, the world had seen an uglier face of Chinese nationalism. As human rights protesters dogged the Beijing Olympics’ torch relay around the world, Chinese convulsed in collective outrage against international criticisms of their government’s violent crackdown in Tibet and support of the genocidal regime in Sudan. In online forums and chat rooms, Chinese youth blasted their leaders in Beijing for not being tougher against the Tibetan “separatists.” Some 20 million signed an online petition calling for a boycott against Western businesses, such as the American chains McDonald’s and Kentucky Fried Chicken. Chinese ire especially targeted the French retailer Carrefour—protests and demonstrations in front of its outlets in Wuhan drew thousands.

Chinese nationalist anger even spread to college campuses in the United States. At the University of Southern California, Chinese students harassed a visiting Tibetan monk. At the University of Washington, hundreds protested outside during a speech by the Tibetan spiritual leader-in-exile, the Dalai Lama. At Duke University, a Chinese student who had tried to mediate between pro-China and pro-Tibet protesters was branded a traitor by her compatriots. Her photo was posted on the Internet, together with her contact information and her parents’ address in China.

These incidents are a reminder of Chinese nationalism’s volatile mix of prickly pride and smoldering resentment. The same nationalism exploded into anti-Japan riots across China in 2005, against Japanese school textbooks that minimized Imperial Japan’s World War II atrocities. The visiting Japanese national soccer team was brutally attacked; Japanese missions and businesses were trashed. The same Chinese nationalism also burst into violent anti-American protests in 1999 after NATO’s accidental bombing of China’s embassy in Belgrade, Yugoslavia. And when the United States was attacked by Islamic terrorists on September 11, 2001, some Chinese exulted over America’s pain. One student told pollsters that “When the planes crashed into the World Trade Center, I really felt very delighted.”

Nationalism may be defined as the sentiments of affinity and love for one’s national group. China’s thorny nationalism was birthed out of the turmoil of what Chinese still call their “hundred years of humiliation.” That century began with Great Britain’s trouncing of Imperial China in the Opium War (1840-42), which opened the floodgates to more defeats, unequal treaties, economic turmoil, territorial losses, a massive rebellion, dynastic collapse, revolution, warlords, Japan’s colonization and invasion, and a ruinous civil war from which the Communist Party emerged as victor in 1949.

Unlike organic nations that are formed naturally over time, the Chinese nation is a product of the Chinese people’s experience of being abused and humiliated by outside groups. Their shared suffering at the hands of common enemies transformed Chinese from being “a tray of loose sand” into a nation. In effect, Chinese nationalism from its very beginning has been reactive and xenophobic.

After its bloody suppression of the pro-democracy movement in 1989, the Chinese government initiated a patriotic education campaign, using nationalism to shore up its legitimacy. School textbooks focus on China’s past humiliations, while the state media, such as the People's Daily, highlight contemporary China’s perceived mistreatment at the hands of the United States and other powers. As Hong Kong legislator Christine Loh observed, “If you don’t bear a grudge against China’s historical oppressors, then you don’t ai guo (love your country) enough.”

At the same time as it encourages reactive nationalism, the Chinese government also fears that runaway nationalist passions may harm the economy by alienating foreign investors or, worse yet, mutate into unrest and insurrection against Beijing. Thus far, Beijing has been able to douse the fire of populist nationalism when it became excessive. As an example, in 2005, although Beijing initially had stoked popular anti-Japan resentments, it later brought out riot-control police to restore order in the cities.

Today, on the eve of the opening of the Olympics in Beijing, the true face of Chinese nationalism remains an open question. Is it the peaceable face of herbivorous nationalism, wherein love of one’s own nation does not require hating others, or is Chinese nationalism carnivorous, wherein love of one’s own is intertwined with hatred and aggression towards other groups?

Whatever precedents there are in history are not encouraging. Recall that the nationalisms of both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were of the reactive carnivorous variety. Both saw themselves as having been victimized by others; both turned to grandiose dreams of empire in compensation; and in both cases, voices of reason and moderation were silenced by the authoritarian governments.

As China takes its place as a newly arrived member among the world’s great powers, which face of nationalism it wears carries serious implications for regional peace and security. So long as Chinese continue to overreact to international criticisms with hypersensitivity and rage, the world has reason to be wary. For the mark of a truly great power is the ability to undertake critical self-examination and to admit to flaws and mistakes when warranted.

~

For an extensive treatment of Chinese nationalism, see Maria Hsia Chang, Return of the Dragon: China's Wounded Nationalism (Boulder, CO: Westview, 2001).

What Does Hans Reiser's Handwriting Tell Us?

2008-07-11T14:38:00.000-07:00

On April 28, 2008, after a six-month trial, 44-year-old Hans Reiser was convicted of murder-in-the-first-degree of his estranged wife, Nina. The case generated much media publicity due mainly to the defendant’s reputation of being a computer genius who had created the open-source Linux file system, the ReiserFS.

Local publicity was intense from the beginning [1] because the case originated as a missing person mystery: 31-year-old Nina had disappeared on a hot Labor Day weekend in 2006, after dropping off the couple’s two young children at Hans’ Oakland hills residence in the San Francisco Bay Area. Several search parties were undertaken, as well as huge billboards in conspicuous areas publicizing the missing woman. The trial also garnered the attention of the dot.com community [2] and the national media, including ABC’s 20-20 and CBS’s 48 Hours.

More than other murder trials, the Reiser case attracted its share of those who continue to insist on the defendant’s innocence even after the jury delivered a guilty verdict. On July 7, 2008, however, two days before Reiser’s sentencing, he led police to where he had buried his wife’s body, thereby removing all doubt about his culpability. His decision to do so was prompted by an agreement with the district attorney’s office, in which his sentence would be reduced from the first-degree murder penalty of 25 years to life imprisonment, to the second-degree penalty of 15 years to life.

Before that, Reiser had tried to finagle the system, playing the body’s location as a trump card or bargaining chip, to be wielded only when all his other maneuvers had failed.

He first had his defense attorney William Du Bois file a motion declaring him to be “mentally incompetent” and “unable to understand the nature of the criminal proceedings or to assist counsel in the conduct of the defense in a rational manner.” Next, in a handwritten note to his trial judge, dated June 29, 2008, Hans asked that Du Bois be replaced by another lawyer, John Feury, who had been Hans’ divorce attorney. (The note can be viewed on http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/reiserwriting0001.pdf.) Feury, in turn, filed a motion stating that Hans was mentally competent. Then Hans pointed the finger of guilt at his erstwhile best friend, Sean Sturgeon (who had carried on an adulterous affair with Nina), insisting that his only role was in assisting Sturgeon in burying Nina’s body. But the police gave Hans a lie detector test, which he flunked. Finally, when all else failed, Hans admitted he had strangled Nina in a heated argument, and led police to her skeletal remains buried in a 4’ x 4’ hole in a steep ravine in a regional park half a mile from his home.

Seeing Reiser’s handwritten note piqued my curiosity. I dug up a book I have on graphology [3] and consulted numerous websites on handwriting analysis. Admittedly, I am a rank amateur at this. Accordingly, in the following analysis of Hans Reiser’s handwriting, I will give reasons for each of my claims. I invite any professional grapho-analyst who is reading this to disagree, correct, or amend!

∞

Danger Signs

Right off the bat, I wanted to see if Hans’ handwriting bears the telltale signs of someone who is seriously psychologically disturbed. In graphology, those danger signs include the following:

1. Felon’s claw: This is any letter that goes below the baseline, such as a lower-case “y”, “g”, or “z”, whose down stroke comes straight down and then veers up the left into a claw-like loop. This is someone who is underhanded and a back-stabber. It’s called the felon’s claw because it is found in the handwriting of prison inmates and the mentally unbalanced. Graphologist Andrea McNichol claims that 80% of convicted felons display this characteristic. [4]

2. Maniac “d”: A lower-case “d” whose stem falls over or collapses to the right. It indicates great pride and, more importantly, the writer’s extreme reaction to insults to his/her pride. Graphologist Bob Wallace claims that O. J. Simpson and the 1960s Zodiac killer both display this characteristic. [5]

3. Stinger: A little double-hook inside the lower-case letters “o”, “a”, “c”, or “d”. Stingers point to manipulation and often, anger at the opposite sex.

Hans’ handwriting contains none of the above signs that are characteristic of a severe mental disorder, which contradicts his defense attorney’s motion, now withdrawn, that Hans was “mentally incompetent.” Now, onto the rest of the analysis.

Slant
One of the first things that graphologists look for is the slant of the handwriting. The left represents the self, whereas the right represents others. Therefore, the degree to which handwriting slants to the right or left reveals how much the writer wants to be involved with others.

A left slant is a person who is self-interested, self–involved, skeptical of and emotionally aloof from others; whereas a right slant is empathic and open to others. An extreme right slant, however, is someone who cannot control his/her emotional expressions and is prone to hysteria. A person with vertical writing is someone who is objective and balanced, whose head rules the heart, and who assumes a neutral posture until s/he decides whether or not s/he approves of the subject matter.

Slant also shows how spontaneous one’s emotional reactions are and how receptive the writer is to external and internal events. It reveals how well a person controls his/her emotional responses after filtering them through the rational mind. Emotional equilibrium is shown in the steadiness of the slant, but a person whose writing alternately slants to the right, then to the left, is in great emotional turmoil. One website claims that whereas only 10% of the general population has a wobbly slant, as many as 70 to 80% of convicted felons have this characteristic. [6]

In Han’s case, his handwriting is consistently slightly slanted to the right, which indicates that he is expressive of his feelings (no surprise to those who observed his testimony in court) and somewhat impulsive. His heart rules more than his head. He also has some empathy for the feelings of others.

Slant can also mean slope—whether the baseline of a person’s handwriting is level, or slopes upward or downward. An upward slant is indicative of the writer’s optimism. In Hans’ case, however, his baselines slightly slope down, which suggests he is in a pessimistic frame of mind.

Margins
The next thing I looked for is the width of margins. Assuming that the pdf view is an accurate representation of Han’s actual note, his narrow left margin indicates a clinging to the past (his childhood?) and a need for security, neither of which is surprising given his murder conviction and incarceration.

A narrow or no margin at all, left or right, also indicates frugality and the writer’s strong focus on money. Indeed, during his murder trial, Hans’ concern about finances was discussed. He gave that as one of the reasons why he allegedly slept in his Honda CRX; he also accused Nina for embezzling from his software company, Namesys.

Pressure
Pressure refers to the force with which one writes. In graphology, too light a touch signifies indecisiveness, while a very heavy hand may point to a domineering personality. [7] In Hans’ case, the pressure is variable, alternately heavy and light, which suggests erratic emotions and uneven depth-of-emotion.

Zones
Graphologists divide each line of writing into three areas or zones: the middle, upper and lower. The middle zone is the baseline where one finds letters with no upper or lower extensions, e.g., the lower-case “a”, “n”, “o”, “w”, etc. Other letters have extensions into the upper or lower zones, e.g., “b”, “d”, “t”, “g”, “y”, etc. Only one letter, the lower-case “f” in script form (instead of printed), extends into both the upper and lower zones.

The upper zone is the area where one finds the stems and loops of letters like “f”, “t”, “l”; the dots of “i” and “j”; and “t” bars. This area represents a person’s thoughts, interests, aspirations and spirit; some graphologists identify a well-developed upper zone as indicative of a concern for the higher truths of philosophical, spiritual, moral, or theoretical matters. Kerrie Spencer maintains that upper loops that are way out of proportion to the rest of the writing points to a person whose thoughts are not terribly rational. [8]

The lower zone is where one finds the lower strokes and loops of such lower-case letters as “g”, “p”, “y”, etc. It is where the writer expresses his/her physical vigor, material demands, and sex drive. Spencer maintains that lower extensions that are way out of proportion to the rest of the handwriting indicate a person who has urgent, repressed, inhibited, or perverse sexual fantasies.
In Hans’ case, his upper zone is well developed but not exaggerated. In contrast, his lower zone has rather short lower extensions of “g”s and “y”s. Hans’ stunted lower zone signifies a lack of determination, a sedentary disposition or lifestyle, weak physical strength or a disinterest in physicality, and a blunting of the sex drive. All of which is unsurprising for an incarcerated man who is facing the depressing prospect of perhaps a lifetime in jail.

Personal Pronoun “I”
One of the more important signs to look for in handwriting is how the capital-letter “I” is written. This is because “I” is the personal pronoun, representative of one’s self. A person who writes his/her “I” consistently in the same manner has a stable self-image and knows who s/he is, unlike someone whose “I” is changeable and inconsistent. Graphologists also regard a script-form “I” (i.e., an “I” with a looped upstroke and base-stroke) as indicative of the writer’s relationship with his/her parents.

In Hans’ case, he writes his capital “I” in a consistent manner, which means he has a good idea who he is. His capital “I”s are of a good size, but not disproportionately large, indicating a fair amount of self-esteem.

He also writes his “I” in script form with a looped upstroke and a larger cup-shaped base-stroke, which points to a strong connection to both parents. The looped upstroke signifies his connection to his mother, Beverly Palmer. But Hans begins that upper loop with an initial upstroke at the baseline, which makes his capital “I” resemble a small-letter “l”. In graphology, that initial upstroke to a letter is called a “resentment stroke,” which suggests that although Hans is close to his mother, he feels some resentment against her.

Even more interesting is the looped base-stroke of his capital “I”. Not only is it larger than the upper loop, it resembles a small-letter “c”. The cup-shaped and larger base-stroke of Hans’ capital “I” is suggestive of a stronger, more open, and nurturing (or dependent?) relationship with his father, Ramon.

Lower-case “t”
Graphologists place great importance on the lower-case “t” because how it is written reveals a great deal about the writer’s personality.

To begin with, the “t” of a direct or forthright person is simple, without an initial upstroke—the resentment stroke—at or below the baseline. In Hans’ case, some of his “t”s (as well as his “y”s) begin with an initial upstroke, which means he is not straightforward in his communication, as attested to by his rambling meandering 11-day testimony on the stand. He is also quite angry and resentful.

The fact that Hans’ “t”s (and “d”s) have high stems points to his pride. He is also persistent or obstinate, as indicated in the upstroke and downstroke of his “t”s forming a teepee or steeple.

Then there are his horizontal t-bars. They are completed (Hans is not a procrastinator), short (Hans lacks enthusiasm; his energy is only available for short spurts), either level or slanting slightly downward (pessimism), and are halfway down the stem instead of on top of or above the stem (practical goals and a lack of self-confidence).

Honesty
In graphology, the presence of loops within a writer’s lower-case “a” and “o” is indicative of dishonesty, secrecy, and deception, especially when double-loops are found inside the “o” letter. The larger the inner loop, the more secrets are withheld from others. Graphologists also emphasize whether the inner loop within “o” is on the left or right side. A loop on the left side signifies self-deception.

In Hans’ case, his lower-case “a”s are clear and not retraced. However, his lower-case “o” not only is retraced in some cases, it also contains a small right loop, which is indicative of some dishonesty toward others. Moreover, secrecy is indicated in his lower-case “s” being closed instead of open. All of which is confirmed by Hans’ repeated lies in and out of court, including one instance of admitted perjury, and his keeping secret the location of Nina’s body.

Other characteristics
Here are some other of Hans’ attributes that can be gleaned from his handwriting:

* Intuition: minimal, as indicated by the fact that there are few breaks in his letters.

* Sense of humor: minimal, as indicated by a short, if any, beginning stroke on his capital or small “M” or “N”.

* Generosity: moderate, as indicated by a medium-length final on the end of his lower-case “y” and “g”.

* Sensitivity to criticism about his work: minimal or none, as indicated by his lower-case “t” not being looped.

* Some sensitivity to criticism about his person, as indicated in the stem of his lower-case “d” being looped. But even here, his sensitivity is not great because the loop is quite narrow, nor is his “d” always looped.

* Jealousy: some, as indicated by the small clockwise near-circle of the base-stroke of Hans’ capital “I”.

* Friends: a few, as indicated in the infrequent and narrow lower loops of Hans’ lower-case “y”, "g" and “j”. Hans may be protective of himself by being selective in his choice of friends.

* Hans’ squared lower-case “r”s indicate manual dexterity, as in engineering talent.

* He is not selfish, indicated by the absence of curled initial loops of his capital letters. He is somewhat generous with friends and family, as indicated by his ending his words with a small upstroke.

* He has a fairly good organizational ability, as indicated by the balanced upper and lower loops of his lower-case “f”.

* He has good attention to details, as indicated by his dotting every “i” and crossing every “t”.

* Irritability and some impatience are shown in his i-dots being flicks or short dashes instead of dots. Those i-flicks or dashes are also to the right of the i-stems, especially in the word “Reiser” of his signature, where the i-flick is so to the right that it is on top of the next letter “s”.

Notes:

(1) See Henry K. Lee’s blogs on the trial for the San Francisco Chronicle, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/category?blogid=37&cat=1428.
(2) See David Kravets’ blogs on the trial for wired.com, http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/hans_reiser_trial/index.html.
(3) Josh Batchelor, Handwriting Reveals You, 2003.
(4) http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/departments/homework/?article=handwritingevaluate.
(5) Bob Wallace, “Page Full o’ Fun,” http://rmwallace.tripod.com/pagefun.html.
(6) “10 Secrets Your Handwriting Might Reveal,” http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/Columns/?Article=handwriting10secrets.
(7) Linda Sorcie Smith, “Tips for analyzing people's handwriting,” http://www.helium.com/items/809735-tips-for-analyzing-peoples-handwriting.
(8) Kerrie Spencer, “The Three Zones (Used in Handwriting Analysis,” http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/handwriting_analysis/76505.

The Little Flowers of St. Ambrose

2008-06-27T14:04:00.000-07:00

(Published as "Seniors beautify St. Ambrose Church with tender care," in The Catholic Voice, vol. 46, no. 14, August 4, 2008, http://www.catholicvoiceoakland.org/08-08-04/inthisissue2.htm.)

In the summer of 2006, I left my university teaching post in Nevada to join my husband in Berkeley. I made it a point to attend Mass at each of the city’s four Catholic churches in order to select one as my parish.

When I first visited St. Ambrose, I noticed its beautiful garden and clean facilities and thought to myself that the church must be blessed with an exceptionally able gardener as well as a conscientious janitor. Although it was the warmth of then-pastor Fr. George Alengadan that convinced me to choose St. Ambrose, the church’s appearance was an additional factor in its favor.

Several months passed. One Sunday at the end of Mass, Fr. George called four men and a woman to the front and introduced them to the congregation as the parish’s Maintenance Crew. Only then did I realize it was these parishioners, instead of hired help, who had kept the garden blooming and the church’s great hall clean. My astonishment was quickly overtaken by a sense of shame because the men and woman standing before us were all senior citizens in their golden years.

St. Ambrose’s Maintenance Crew is consistent with the results of a study done in 2000 which found that a small minority (less than 10%) of the population in North America accounted for most (nearly 75%) of the volunteer work. Moreover, the volunteers tended to be older folks: 35% of those who volunteered were between the ages of 45-54, 30% were between the ages of 55-64, and 23% were over 65. More interesting still is the finding that among those who volunteered, individuals with a religious affiliation gave more time on average than those who were not religious, at 168 volunteer hours vs. 149 volunteer hours a year.

At St. Ambrose, the volunteers on its Maintenance Crew come to the church every Tuesday morning to perform the following chores, most of which are quite physically demanding:

* Sweeping and mopping the floor of the great hall where Sunday pancake breakfasts, RCIA and other classes, assorted meetings, lunches, and festivities take place. The hall is capacious and can accommodate 300 to 400 people. The volunteers who sweep and mop the hall’s floor are Arnie Guasco, Selso Martinez, and Mel Schiavon.

* Gardening: St. Ambrose has a lovely garden with perennial flowers such as roses, as well as annuals such as miniature sunflowers. There are flowers blooming even in the midst of winter. We do not have a paid gardener; instead, all the planting, pruning, weeding, and watering are performed by volunteer Barbara Thomas-Lieberman, who is assisted by Ray Aguilera.

* Outside cleaning: St. Ambrose is situated at the intersection of tree-lined Gilman St. and Cornell St. The pedestrian pathways and the small parking lot on Gilman require regular sweeping, mainly by José Valdivia.

* Electrical work and repair: Retired professional electrician Jim Mullarkey undertakes all the electrical work and repair for the church and its adjacent rectory.

* Building repair, painting, and other odd jobs, such as repairing broken pews, are performed mainly by Mel Schiavon and Richard Vohs.

Put simply, the above tasks entail plain hard manual labor. But the members of the Maintenance Crew perform these chores willingly and cheerfully every week, without fail, despite their mature years. The oldest among them, at a glorious 85, is Selso, while Jim, in his early 60s, is the baby of the group. The others are Arnie, 81; Mel, 80; José, 76; Ray, 75; Barbara, 68; and Richard, 67.

This group of volunteers is remarkable for another reason. With the exception of Barbara and Arnie, who were, respectively, a corporate accountant and a sales manager before their retirement, all the volunteers had been blue-collar workers, not unlike the humble fishermen whom Jesus once called to be his apostles. Selso was a maintenance worker (otherwise called a janitor) at UC Berkeley; Mel was an iron worker, fitter, layout man and foreman at Herrick Corporation in Hayward; Richard had spent 40 years in the US Merchant Marine; Jim was an electrician; and José was a dishwasher and cook at Spenger’s Seafood Restaurant for 42 years.

St. Thérèse of Lisieux (1873-1897), better known as the Little Flower, is only one of three women on whom Vatican has bestowed the honorific title of Doctor of the Church. Unlike the Church’s other doctors, such as St. Thomas Aquinas, who are celebrated for their learned intellect and rich troves of writings, Thérèse is known for her simple but profound notion of the “Little Way.” By the example of how she lived her short life, she teaches that to serve God and attain holiness, it is not necessary to accomplish great works or heroic acts. In her autobiography she wrote, “Love proves itself by deeds, so how am I to show my love? Great deeds are forbidden me. The only way I can prove my love is by scattering flowers and these flowers are every little sacrifice, every glance and word, and the doing of the least actions for love."

And that is exactly what the little flowers of St. Ambrose’s Maintenance Crew do every Tuesday. By their example, I was inspired to join the team. Truly, it is in the smallest that we are refined.

Conforming Personality Disorder

2008-05-26T14:09:00.000-07:00

(Note: All page citations are from Theodore Millon, with Roger D. Davis, Disorders of Personality: DSM-IV and Beyond, 2nd edition (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1996)

Conforming Personality Disorder (CPD) is one of a number of personality disorders identified in the American Psychological Association’s Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM)-IV. Past labels for CPD are “obsessive-compulsive” personality disorder and Sigmund Freud’s “anal character.” (Note: In this essay, CPD is used to refer to both the disorder and the person afflicted with the disorder.)

What are personality disorders?

The word “personality” may be defined as an individual’s “lifelong style of relating, coping, behaving, thinking, and feeling.” (p. 3) A longer definition is “a complex pattern of deeply embedded psychological characteristics that are largely nonconscious and not easily altered, expressing themselves automatically in almost every facet of functioning. Intrinsive and pervasive, these traits emerge from a complicated matrix of biological dispositions and experiential learnings, and ultimately comprise the individual’s distinctive pattern of perceiving, feeling, thinking, coping, and behaving.” (p. 4)

Recognizing that personality exists on a continuum, psychologists maintain that “no sharp division exists between normality and pathology.” (p. 7) Personality traits nevertheless can become a disorder when they are rigid and unbending. A “personality disorder” thus refers to ingrained, inflexible, and maladaptive patterns of behavior that cause discomfort and impair an individual’s ability to function.

Given the above, at least three main differences between “personality” and “personality disorder” can be discerned:

1. The personality traits of a disordered individual are inflexible.
2. The rigidity of an individual’s personality renders her maladaptive, i.e., she is unable to adjust herself to changing circumstances, both external and internal.
3. Personality traits being “pervasive,” the disordered personality creates problems in the individual’s life—at home and at work, affecting the individual as well as others. The problems may include unhappiness, alcoholism, drug addiction, psychosomatic symptoms, actual physical ailments, and interpersonal conflicts.

Differences between conforming “style” (CS) & conforming personality disorder (CPD):

Anyone reading this is probably well-educated and, therefore, an achiever. Such an individual probably has a mild variant of CPD—what psychologists call a “conscientious” or “conforming style” (CS). Simply put, CS individuals are high achievers who respect tradition and authority, and conform to societal morality and standards. Having strong moral principles, they behave in a highly principled manner with an unusual degree of integrity. They are responsible, proper, and conscientious; loyal to their families, their causes, and their superiors; and may be religious. They are hardworking, persevering, disciplined, and organized—all of which makes them efficient and successful in most of their endeavors, and are perceived by others to be dependable and industrious. Being morally principled, however, also means that CS individuals tend to be judgmental of those who do not abide by conventional rules and standards. At the same time, however, CS individuals are prudent and restrained, and strive to act in an objective and rational manner.

How CS differs from CPD:

A conforming style does not mean a conforming personality disorder (CPD). The main difference lies in the fact that the CS individual does not have the severe cognitive distortions of the CPD—distortions that come from the CPD’s repression of thoughts and feelings, and her psychological mechanisms of defense and denial. That is why, unlike the CPD, the CS individual can act prudently, objectively, and rationally, and exercise restraint. Simply put, the CS individual’s rationality enables her to learn and adapt. In contrast, the CPD is inflexible and maladaptive. That rigidity, together with her repression and denial, accounts for the CPD’s self-destructive behaviors and dysfunctional interpersonal relationships.

The CPD Syndrome:

Etiology: Psychologists maintain that in childhood, the CPD’s parents (or other primary care-givers) were “demanding, perfectionistic, and condemnatory,” (p. 517) holding the child to extremely high and exacting moral standards. More than being exacting, the parent is punitive when the child violates or fails to conform to those rules. The punishment can be physical (extreme physical abuse can produce a child that is rebellious or, worse yet, a psychopath or sociopath) or emotional (the parent may withhold affection or gives the child the silent treatment). Whatever form the punishment takes, it is so unbearable and psychologically painful to the child that she learns to avoid punishment and gain parental approval by completely conforming herself to the parental standards. But the child’s compliance is excessive because it is achieved at a cost in that the child represses her legitimate anger and resentment at having been so harshly punished. The result of that repression is CPD—a complex syndrome comprised of cognitive distortions and the deployment of psychological mechanisms of repression, defensiveness, and denial, all of which damage the person’s health as well as her interpersonal relationships. In effect, in Freudian parlance, the CPD’s “superego” is over-developed because, even in adulthood, she remains enslaved to the parental standards and rules of childhood, at the price of developing a genuine self-autonomy and moral understanding.

The CPD syndrome includes the following attributes:

Perfectionism: The CPD has so internalized her parents’ high standards that she becomes her parents, which explains her conformance to social rules and conventions and, if religious, her orthodoxy. She is perfectionistic, hardworking, disciplined, organized, responsible, tidy, and meticulous. Fearing that others might view her as less than perfect, she drives herself hard and minimizes the importance of recreational and leisure activities.

Moralistic: Having an over-developed superego, the CPD is moralistic, absolutist, and dogmatic. Her moral code being rigid and unbending, the CPD sees the world in black and white, without shades of grey.

Self-righteousness: More than being moralistic and righteous, the CPD’s perfectionism and fear of being seen by others as lacking make her self-righteous and sanctimonious. Convinced that virtue, rightness, and (in the case of religious CPDs) God are on her side, the CPD is always right and never wrong. She is demanding and harshly judgmental of others, seeing moral and religious issues in stark black-and-white terms, instead of nuanced complexities of shades of grey. Not only does her self-righteous moralism buttress her perfectionist self-image, it also functions as a sanctioned outlet for her suppressed anger and hostility, which explains why CPDs are attracted to occupations such as dean, soldier, surgeon, or judge. (p. 517)

Repression: The CPD allows only socially acceptable thoughts, feelings, and memories into her conscious awareness. The rest is either suppressed (i.e., highly regulated and tightly bound) or repressed (i.e., being consigned to the unconscious). Suppression and repression result in denial, the outright refusal to countenance something or accept its legitimacy. Denial can take the form of:
· Taking great pains to avoid recognizing the contradictions between the CPD’s unconscious impulses and overt behaviors.
· Avoiding to look into themselves by devaluing and refusing to undertake self-exploration and -examination. As a consequence, CPDs exhibit little or no insight into their motives and feelings.

Defense mechanisms: To keep a tight rein on her contrary feelings and dispositions, “more than any other personality,” (p. 516) the CPD engages in many defense or regulatory mechanisms. Those mechanisms are “more varied...than any of the other pathological patterns” (p. 517) and include:
1. Reaction-formation: Putting a positive spin on their thoughts and behaviors.
2. Undertake socially commendable actions that, in fact, diametrically oppose their deeper forbidden and contrary feelings.
3. Public display of a mature reasonableness when faced with circumstances that frustrate, dismay, irritate, or anger other (i.e., non-CPD) people.
4. Rigid compartmentalization of the CPD’s inner world—of memories, feelings, and dispositions—to block or neutralize feelings that are normally aroused by a stressful event. The compartments are tightly sealed to preclude any open channels of interrelatedness.

Cognitive Style: The CPD’s cognitive style is constricted because she thinks in terms of conventional rules and regulations, as well as personally formulated schedules and social hierarchies. The CPD’s cognitive characteristics include:
1. Work diligently and patiently with activities that require being tidy and meticulous.
2. Easily upset by having to deal with unfamiliar customs and novel ideas.
3. Concerned with matters of propriety and efficiency.
4. Contemptuous of those whom the CPD perceives to be frivolous, impulsive, and emotional.
5. Morally self-righteous.
6. Perceived by others to be industrious, efficient, but also stubborn, perfectionistic, officious, legalistic, uncreative, and unimaginative.
7. Judge others in accord with rules that they themselves unconsciously detest, which accounts for the CPD’s resort to psychological projection when she is harshly judgmental toward others.
8. The CPD’s ambivalence and her unconscious desire to defy authority blocks her from significant achievements and from attaining her public aspirations.

Self-Image: The CPD sees herself as:
1. Devoted to work, industrious, reliable, meticulous, efficient, perfectionist, prudent, and disciplined.
2. Having a strong sense of duty to others.

Outward appearance or expressive behavior: Due to an over-developed super-ego, the outward appearance of the CPD is characterized by the following: (pp. 513-514)
· A “grim and cheerless demeanor”: Although the CPD is not always glum or downcast, her characteristic air however is one of austerity and serious-mindedness.
· Tight posture and movement that reflect the CPD’s tense control of her emotions.
· A tendency to speak precisely, with clear diction, and well-phrased sentences.
· Formal and proper clothing that is restrained in color and style.

Interpersonal conduct: The CPD’s conformity to tradition and authority extends to her social conduct, which is governed by social conventions and proprieties. She is generally polite, formal, and correct, although a distinction is made between her superiors and status inferiors. Specifically, (pp. 514-515)
1. With her superiors, the CPD is more than just correct and polite. Since she enjoys the protection and prestige of her superiors, she is deferential, ingratiating, and even obsequious, eager to impress them with her efficiency and serious-mindedness.
2. Toward subordinates, however, the CPD is “pompous,” “uncompromising,” “demanding,” “haughty,” and “deprecatory.”
3. Toward those who fail to live up to the CPD’s standards, she is reprimanding and condemning.
4. In her treatment of subordinates and “transgressors,” the CPD is self-righteous. She cloaks her behavior behind regulations and legalities, always justifying her conduct by invoking rules or authorities higher than herself.
5. In effect, the CPD is quite aggressive toward subordinates and “transgressors.” This exertion of power over others acts as a sanctioned outlet to vent her suppressed hostile impulses.

Despite all the CPD’s repression, suppression, denial, defensive mechanisms, and proper outward conduct, psychologists maintain that “At some level,” CPD individuals “sense the pretentiousness and insincerity of their public behavior.” (p. 518) More than that, the CPD’s tight control and outright repression of thoughts and feelings take their toll. She is tense and unable to relax, with a grim, stern, and joyless countenance. More seriously, her repressed emotions and energies dispose the CPD to somatic complaints and psycho-physiological disorders, especially “immobilization” (p. 518).

Narcissistic Personality Disorder

2008-05-26T13:53:00.000-07:00

In psychology, personality disorders refer to individual traits that reflect ingrained, inflexible, and maladaptive patterns of behavior that cause discomfort and impair a person’s ability to function--including her relations with friends and family. At least ten distinct personality disorders have been identified, one of which is the Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) that the American Psychological Association (APA) classifies as a “cluster B” disorder. NPD is a highly complex psychological-behavioral syndrome that confounds and baffles those close to the afflicted. Once understood, however, one achieves clarity of vision.

Narcissism may be defined as excessive love of self. Socio-biologists maintain that love of self is natural for both individuals and groups because it is an instinctive, natural-selection trait. That is why all children are narcissists. As individuals mature into adulthood, however, they become less narcissistic because their insecurity tends to diminish as a result of concrete achievements and successes. A certain degree of healthy self-love nevertheless continues into adulthood. It is when love of self in adults becomes excessive that psychologists consider it to be a sign of immaturity or worse, a pathology—that of the narcissistic personality disorder.

Although the phenomenon of narcissism is as old as humanity, the formal diagnosis of NPD was made by the APA only as recently as 1990. The following list of traits comes from the APA’s Diagnostic Statistical Manual IV:

“A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by 5 or more of the following:

* Has a grandiose sense of self-importance.
* Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.
* Believes that he or she is “special” & unique & can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people or institutions.
* Requires excessive admiration.
* Has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with her expectations.
* Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his/her own ends.
* Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings & needs of others.
* Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him/her.
* Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes.”

In addition to the above, I’ve compiled the following attributes, after having read, assimilated, and synthesized a great deal of the literature on this subject. Instead of the typical approach taken by the psychological literature on NPD—which describes the disorder as a syndrome of various attributes—what I attempt to do here is to uncover the central logic that accounts for the syndrome.

In the following description of the NPD syndrome, I use the pronoun “she” to refer to the narcissist, for the sake of avoiding the cumbersome “he/she” and “ his/her.” The psychological literature, however, claims that male NPDs outnumber females. The literature also claims that the incidence of NPD is relatively rare, afflicting an estimated 1% of the population. Both of these claims, however, are not verified by my own personal experiences. The problem, as the psychological literature itself admits, is that the very nature of NPD prevents narcissists from admitting they have a problem and to seek professional help. As psychiatrist M. Scott Peck explains, “To receive treatment one must want it, at least on some level. And to want it one must consider oneself to be in need of it. One must, at least on some level, acknowledge his or her imperfection.”(1) And imperfection is something to which the narcissist, by the very nature of the NPD disorder, will not and cannot admit.

The few narcissists who do seek therapy, do so when their narcissism has led to a major life crisis—such as divorce, drug addiction, unemployment, and imprisonment—a crisis that threatens to shatter their grandiose self-conception. Even when narcissists seek help, however, they typically do not complete the course of psychotherapy. Instead, when the therapist confronts them with their pathological narcissism, the individual would simply abandon treatment and flee. This is because therapy requires the patient to undertake self-scrutiny and self-examination, followed by change. But to change oneself is painful. More than that, it is a form of death because it requires the surrendering—the shedding—of the sick and dysfunctional aspects of oneself. For the pathological narcissist, whose very self is a constructed lie, to change would mean the total annihiliation—the death—of her self. This is why the narcissist will sacrifice anything and anyone instead of confronting and admitting the truth.

Given the above, I have every reason to conclude that the statistics claimed in the literature—that NPDs comprise but 1% of the total population—are suspect. The simple truth, I submit, is that the psychological profession does not really know how many NPDs there are in the population, nor do they really know that male NPDs outnumber females.

The NPD Syndrome

At the core of the NPD syndrome is the construction of a false self as a way to cope with the external world so as to compensate for the individual’s feelings of insecurity and uncertain self-identity. Like its namesake, the mythic Narcissus who is in love with his reflection in water, the self that the narcissist loves is not her real self, but a false self that is grandiose, perfect, and superior. The particular basis of the grandiosity is what the narcissist loves herself for. That varies according to the individual, and may be physical beauty, intellect, talent, power, etc.

Three types of narcissists: As a consequence, psychologists divide narcissists into two types: the somatic and the cerebral. The former are those whose narcissism is focused on their bodies; the latter are those who have a grandiose conviction that they have a superior intellect. I would add a third type: the spiritual narcissist. These are those who ooze with false piety and self-righteousness, having a false conception of themselves as supremely virtuous and God’s chosen. We need to remember that those who are truly good are also truly humble: They are the last people to claim that they have God’s special favor. The key to identifying a narcissist, whether she be spiritual, somatic, or cerebral is this: Does she present herself as always right and never wrong?

The logic of the NPD syndrome: Regardless of the particular basis of grandiosity, the narcissist strives to maintain and protect that false self at all costs. In effect, the grandiose false self acts like the center of a wheel, to which are affixed the spokes. The latter are the syndromatic attributes of NPD, the function of each is to protect and maintain the grandiose false self. The constellation of attributes is not accidental because there is a functional reason for the various attributes. This is the underlying logic that accounts for the syndrome.

Malignant narcissism: Together with the APA’s DSM IV criteria, the following collection of “spokes” constitute a particularly malignant form of narcissism. The malignant narcissist goes beyond excessive love-of-self to hurting other people. The hurt inflicted on others can be psychological, physical, or financial. Malignant narcissism has the following attributes:

· Using people—even supposed loved ones—as tools of self-aggrandisement to affirm and maintain the false self. The narcissist is hollow inside and derives her sense-of-self from seeing her reflection in the eyes of others. The psychological literature calls this “mirroring”: the narcissist mainly uses other people as a mirror to reflect her grandiose false self-conception. Like a vampire who must feed on others’ blood in order to live, the narcissist feeds on other people’s admiration, approval, love, and compliments. Once the source is sucked dry, however, the narcissist no longer has use of that person and will abruptly and mercilessly cast him or her aside.

· To lure people into her web, the skillful narcissist puts on an attractive social mask. In effect, the narcissist not just has a false self, she literally has a false faÇade of physical appearance or demeanor. She can be charming, gracious, socially adept, even obsequious. She must also be a consummate actor, skilled at simulating the whole range of human emotions, especially those of love, compassion, and kindness. The more successful she is at simulation, the greater her circle of friends and acquaintances who serve as her primary and secondary feeding sources. I’ve learnt from experience to be wary of charming people because charm is a form of manipulation, albeit very subtle. To quote Lord Voldemort of the Harry Potter book and movie series: “I’ve always been able to charm the people I needed.”(2)

· More than to lure people into her web, the narcissist’s charming social mask also conceals the false self from scrutiny. Concealment requires secrecy, evasion, dishonesty, and deception. In effect, the narcissist is a consummate pathological liar--she habitually lies, even about seemingly trivial inconsequential matters.

· Using other people as her “blood bank” requires that the narcissist be a human emotional radar. The successful narcissist is interpersonnally astute and shrewd so that she can “size up” everyone she encounters for their potential to be her blood-donor.

· Cynically using other people also requires that the narcissist be lacking in empathy. Do not be fooled by her simulations at empathy. A good experiment is for you to withhold your approval and compliments. You will discover that, overnight, the narcissist has lost her “kindness” and even simple civility.

· The maintenance and protection of the false self also requires the narcissist to be constantly vigilant against being “attacked” by others. Toward any perceived criticism, the narcissist is either cooly indifferent or overreacts with rage and humiliation to even minor or trivial reproach. She simply will not listen to or countenance criticism.

· As the saying goes, “the best defense is offense.” More than reacting with rage, the narcissist attacks the critic. How better to deflect criticism from oneself than to attack the critic? This is called scapegoating—projecting one’s own faults (what Carl G. Jung called our “shadow”) onto another person, and blaming the other for one’s inadequacies. The narcissist is very skilled at this.

· The false self must be impervious, which requires the narcissist to resist self-examination and introspection. Doing so would open the narcissist to reality-based assessment and reflection—a dangerous undertaking because the false self is, by definition, unreal. As a consequence, instead of the insecurities of normal human beings, the narcissist displays an impassive and uncritical acceptance of herself. She is curiously disinterested in reading or learning more about herself; she will avoid and resist psychological probing, counseling, and therapy.

· The inability or unwillingness to be introspective, together with the narcissist’s unreal inner world, in turn, result in cognitive dissonance, cognitive gaps, and non sequiturs. Trying to engage a narcissist in serious dialogue—especially about herself or her beliefs and values—can be a disconcerting experience because nothing she says makes sense.

· Since the false self is superior and grandiose, it needs no one. The narcissist dreads becoming dependent on others—dependence being regarded as a weakness—but instead asserts and clings to an exaggerated independence. Since her love of self is all-consuming, she is incapable of love and emotional commitments to other people. This is why the narcissist reacts to sincere declarations of love, verbal or behavioral, by emotionally distancing herself and, in some cases, outright abandonment, because she is unable to reciprocate that commitment.

· In effect, the narcissist’s grandiose self-conception makes her a god unto herself. Gods are not subject to the morality that governs lesser beings—“rules don’t apply to me.” The narcissist refuses to subscribe to society’s moral rules and ethical standards. Instead, morality is subjective: “Nobody can judge me.” One NPD I knew, a woman in her sixties (and therefore should know better), exhibited this trait when she blithely received the Holy Eucharist, believed by Catholics to be the actual body of Christ—although she is not Catholic! When told by her Catholic friend that she must be a Catholic and in a state of grace to receive the Blessed Sacrament, the NPD declared that “No one can tell me whether I can or cannot receive Jesus.” Another NPD, a former student of mine, responded with rage to my critique of his essay-exam, which garnered a respectable “B” grade, insisting that he was not subject to the grammatical rules of the English language.

· Lacking an abstract universal system of moral rules—and being cognitively impaired—the narcissist lives in a world of feelings and sensations: “What’s good is that which makes me feel good.” Narcissists tend to wallow in cheap “feel good” sentiments. One narcissist I know proclaims she is a humanitarian and an animal lover. But her “love” for humanity and animals is confined to feelings, instead of actual behavior. Not only does she abhor the homeless, she eats meat, sets poison out for mice, and had cement poured into a squirrel hole.

· Since the false self is grandiose and perfect, relationship problems are never the fault of the narcissist. She blames everyone, but herself.

· This also means that narcissists do not ever apologize or admit that they are wrong or at fault. Instead, they will always subtly, if not blatantly, turn things around to blame you.

· All of this means that narcissists do not, as a rule, seek therapy. In the few cases who do, it is because their problems have become so serious that they cannot be ignored (e.g., divorce, drug abuse, job loss, imprisonment). Even then, the narcissist resists therapy and is likely to blame the therapist (scapegoating!) and flee from treatment.

Why Pathological Narcissism is a Spiritual Disorder

A fifth-century theologian who called himself Dionysius the Aereopagite once wrote in The Divine Names that, “The denial of the true Self is a declension from Truth.”(3) In the last analysis, in constructing and clinging to their false selves, the entire persona of the NPD is a big lie. That being so, I have come to believe that NPD is not a psychological disorder at all, but a moral and spiritual disorder. Allow me to explain.

An intrinsic attribute of the NPD syndrome is deception—of oneself and of others—in the service of maintaining the grandiose false self. Philosopher René Descartes wrote that “willful deception evinces maliciousness and weakness.”(4) A person does not deceive without thinking about and willing it. One does not lie unless one intends to hide the truth, which means that one knows that one is being deceptive. Nor can the NPD put together and maintain the elaborate and intricate NPD syndrome of attributes (e.g., using others for self-aggrandizement, attractive social mask, secrecy, evasion, lying, scapegoating, etc.) without conscious effort. Psychologists say that, in their quiet moments, NPDs know that they are not really as grandiose as they pretend. (5) When NPDs cynically use others to “feed” their false self, they know it. When they overreact to perceived criticisms, they know what the truth is. When they lie to conceal their inadequacies, they have chosen to deceive. When they scapegoat others, they do so with deliberation. And when they refuse to apologize, they know they are in the wrong. All of which means that free will is fully engaged in this so-called “disorder.”

In effect, NPD is more than a mental sickness. To quote Theodore Millon, personality disorders are “not diseases.” They are not some “infectious agents” or “some ‘foreign’ entity or lesion that intrudes insidiously within the person to undermine his or her so-called normal functions.”(6) In the case of malignant narcissists, such individuals are in full possession of their reason. As an example, one somatic NPD I know takes extremely good care of her health by doing all the right things, for example, carefully watching her weight to maintain her figure, and eating the right foods to acquire the requisite nutrients. In so doing, she demonstrates that she is fully rational—“rational” being defined as choosing the most efficacious path toward the achievement of some end. Pathological narcissism is not some noxious virus or bacteria that overtakes a person. Whatever the early childhood experiences, free will is still operative here.

Instead of the standard diagnosis of a “personality disorder,” NPD is a moral disorder, because it is immoral to lie and to use, exploit, hurt, and scapegoat others. More than immoral, NPD is, at its foundation, a spiritual blight. Since the false self of the narcissist is extremely grandiose, she excludes herself from the moral norms that govern “lesser” beings: “rules don’t apply to me.” That makes pathological narcissists in effect their own gods. In so doing, they are in denial of the fundamentally flawed nature of all human beings.

The malignant narcissist is more than immoral, she is evil. In his book, People of the Lie, Peck proposes to the psychological profession a new diagnostic category of the “evil personality disorder” (EPD) as a sub-type of NPD. As he puts it, “The evil are ‘the people of the lie,’ deceiving others as they also build layer upon layer of self-deception.” When the narcissist intentionally hurts another, she has crossed the line from being an NPD to being an EPD. In Peck’s words, “evil individuals will flee self-examination and guilt by blaming and attempting to destroy whatever or whoever highlights their deficiencies.”(7)

Except for atheists (who must be very grandiose because they claim to know a categorical negative—that God does not exist),(8) all of us—the religious as well as the agnostics—believe in the existence of some supreme moral being or force in the universe. Recognizing that, most of us harken to these words of Descartes: “I have been so constituted as to be some kind of middle ground between God and nothing . . . . [A]s I am not the supreme being, I lack quite a few things.”(9) Dionysius the Areopagite concluded that being self-centered is “inherently wrong” because we have “no right to be the centre of things” as only God is the rightful center of all things.(10)

Not only is vanity and pride the first of the Seven Deadly Sins, I believe that narcissism is the root of all evil. Peck wrote that the most basic sin is pride “because all sins are reparable except the sin of believing one is without sin.” (11) More than that, narcissism was not only the original sin of Adam and Eve, it was also the First Sin--that of the fallen angel Lucifer--which introduced evil into the universe. It is for this reason that I propose calling malignant narcissism the “Lucifer syndrome.”

Decrying the ills that he saw rampant in modern society, in particular the relativization of all moral norms, post-communist Czechoslovakia’s first president VaÇlav Havel observed that “Given its fatal incorrigibility, humanity will have to go through many more Rwandas and Chernobyls before it understands how unbelievably short-sighted a human being can be who has forgotten that he is not God.” It is the misdiagnosis of pathological narcissism as a “personality disorder” instead of a moral-spiritual condition which accounts for psychiatrists’ characterization of NPD as “one of the most . . . difficult-to-treat conditions in the lexicon of mental illness.”

How to Deal With a Narcissist

Dr. Peck wrote that “I have learned nothing in twenty years that would suggest that evil people can be rapidly influenced by any means other than raw power. They do not respond, at least in the short run, to either gentle kindness or any form of spiritual persuasion with which I am familiar.” With that in mind, I suggest the following:

· The first rule is: Give up on your fantasy that you have an authentic relationship with the narcissist. Sadly, the person you think you love/like never existed.
· The second rule is: Don’t be a bloodbank for the narcissist.
· The third rule is: Be emotionally detached.
· The fourth rule is: If you must interact with her, challenge the narcissist’s false conception of herself by insisting on reality-based assessment. Doing so, however, is guaranteed to alienate you from the narcissist--which is a good thing because the narcissist is incapable of genuine friendship and love. In the last analysis, you are better off without her. (If, unfortunately, you must have her in your life because your survival depends on her, as in the case of a child needing the narcissistic mother’s care, the way to get along with her is to feed her fantasies by lavishing compliments on her, i.e., by letting yourself be her bloodbank.)
· The fifth rule is humility: Human beings are inherently disposed to be partial to ourselves. Just because you know a narcissist, this does not mean that you are a better person. Remember Christ’s injunction in Matthew 7:1-5: “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.” In effect, self-righteousness is a barrier to righteousness. Be very careful in accusing others. Always remember that “There but for the grace of God, go I.”

To those who have been victimized by pathological narcissists, I suggest the following:

· Don't let yourself be a victim again! You must love yourself enough to be convinced that you have inherent dignity and worth. You should give no one the right or power to hurt and abuse you.
· At the same time, you must avoid wallowing in your victimhood by holding on to your anger and rage. Wallowing is a form of self-indulgence and, as such, can become narcissistic--the narcissism of victimhood. Notice how many self-designated victims, such as radical feminists, racial/ethnic minorities, and gays, absolutely refuse to tolerate any criticism. Try not to generalize from your abuser to larger groups & forces in society, especially those with authority--the so-called Establishment. That is the danger and trap that many victims fall into. Take a look at Tammy Bruce's book, The Death Of Right And Wrong. Remember that hate is an acid that corrodes: if you hold onto it, it will consume you.
· Finally, when you can bring yourself to that place, forgive those who have hurt you. By forgiveness is meant wishing good for the other. More than forgive, pray for them, for they desperately need God's grace for their redemption.

Author’s note:
Thank you for reading my essay. I invite you to e-mail me with your thoughts, suggestions, and personal experiences. I also welcome you freely to use my essay. All I ask is that you cite and credit the source. Doing otherwise is plagiarism, which is a form of deception. Surely, we do not want to be “people of the lie,” do we? :-)

Copyright® 2002. Last updated: May 26, 2008.

Endnotes

1. M. Scott Peck, People of the Lie: The Hope For Healing Human Evil (New York, Touchstone, 1998), p. 63. Peck further writes in p. 77 that “the evil are the last people who would ever come to psychotherapy. The evil hate the light--the light of goodness that shows them up, the light of scrutiny that exposes them, the light of truth that penetrates their deception. Psychotherapy is a light-shedding process par excellence.”
2. K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (Scholastic Inc., 1999), p. 310.
3. J. Sparrow-Simpson and W. K. Lowther Clarke, eds., Dionysius The Areopagite (The Trustees of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1920).
4. René Descartes, Meditations On First Philosophy, translated by Donald A. Cress (Indianapolis & Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1979), p. 35.
5. This was said to me by my colleague, Dr. Allen Fruzetti, Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Nevada, Reno, on December 10, 2003.
6. Theodore Millon, with Roger D. Davis, Disorders of Personality: DSM-IV and Beyond, 2nd edition (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1996), pp. 7, 9.
7. Peck, People of the Lie, pp. 66, 226.
8. Logically, one cannot prove a categorical negative—that something does not exist. Imagine what it would take to know that something does not exist! One would have to know everything in the universe, in order to know for certain that something does not exist. This, in my judgment, is the most egregious mistake of atheists. To believe as they do requires that they have perfect and complete knowledge of the universe, so that they can confidently know that God does not exist. Atheists must have an exalted and grandiose conception of their intellect.
9. Descartes, Meditations On First Philosophy, p. 35.
10. Sparrow-Simpson and Clarke, Dionysius The Areopagite, p. 29.11.
11. Peck, People of the Lie, p. 72.
12. “Beneath Narcissism Lie Fear and Self-Loathing,” San Francisco Chronicle, December 20, 2002, p. E9.
13. Peck, People of the Lie, p. 68.

· For an online personality disorder test, go to: http://www.med.nyu.edu/Psych/screens/pds.html
· For more information, as well as links to many more websites on NPD, go to: http://groups.msn.com/NARCISSISTICPERSONALITYDISORDER/links3.msnw