Philip J. Berg status report
Michael Savage interviewed Philip J. Berg at some time in the past, and some of Berg's comments still ring true today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFh3kSY_gnE
Although Berg has been quiet for a while, here is his latest press release:
http://www.obamacrimes.info/
=======================
Press Release
For Immediate Release: - 05/27/2009
Third Circuit Court of Appeals Delays Oral Argument on Berg’s Appeal regarding “No Standingâ€
Dr. Sam Vaknin on Barack Obama
Forwarded to me by a colleague, I find Dr. Vaknin's comments very interesting.
Dr. Sam Vaknin is an Israeli psychologist. Background is here: http://samvak.tripod.com/cv.html
Dr. Vaknin has written extensively about narcissism.
Dr. Vaknin states "I must confess I was impressed by Sen. Barack Obama from the first time I saw him. At first I was excited to see a black candidate. He looked youthful, spoke well, appeared to be confident - a wholesome presidential package. I was put off soon, not just because of his shallowness but also because there was an air of haughtiness in his demeanor that was unsettling. His posture and his body language were louder than his empty words. Obama's speeches are unlike any political speech we have heard in American history. Never a politician in this land had such quasi "religious" impact on so many people. The fact that Obama is a total incognito with zero accomplishment, makes this inexplicable infatuation alarming. Obama is not an ordinary man. He is not a genius. In fact he is quite ignorant on most important subjects."
Barack Obama is a narcissist.
Dr. Sam Vaknin, the author of the Malignant Self Love believes "Barack Obama appears to be a narcissist." Vaknin is a world authority on narcissism. He understands narcissism and describes the inner mind of a narcissist like no other person. When he talks about narcissism everyone listens. Vaknin says that Obama's language, posture and demeanor, and the testimonies of his closest, dearest and nearest suggest that the Senator is either a narcissist or he may have narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). Narcissists project a grandiose but false image of themselves.
Jim Jones, the charismatic leader of People's Temple, the man who led over 900 of his followers to cheerfully commit mass suicide and even murder their own children was also a narcissist.
David Koresh, Charles Manson, Joseph Koni, Shoko Asahara, Stalin, Saddam, Mao,Kim Jong Ill and Adolph Hitler are a few examples of narcissists of our time. All these men had a tremendous influence over their fanciers. They created a personality cult around themselves and with their blazing speeches elevated their admirers, filled their hearts with enthusiasm and instilled in their minds a new zest for life. They gave them hope! They promised them the moon, but alas, invariably they brought them to their doom. When you are a victim of a cult of personality, you don't know it until it is too late. One determining factor in the development of NPD is childhood abuse.
"Obama's early life was decidedly chaotic and replete with traumatic and mentally bruising dislocations," says Vaknin. "Mixed-race marriages were even less common then. His parents went through a divorce when he was an infant (two years old). Obama saw his father only once again, before he died in a car accident. Then his mother re-married and Obama had to relocate to Indonesia, a foreign land with a radically foreign culture, to be raised by a step-father. At the age of ten, he was whisked off to live with his maternal (white) grandparents. He saw his mother only intermittently in the following few years and then she vanished from his life in 1979. She died of cancer in 1995".
One must never underestimate the manipulative genius of pathological narcissists. They project such an imposing personality that it overwhelms those around them. Charmed by the charisma of the narcissist, people become like clay in his hands. They cheerfully do his bidding and delight to be at his service. The narcissist shapes the world around himself and reduces others in his own inverted image. He creates a cult of personality. His admirers become his co-dependents. Narcissists have no interest in things that do not help them to reach their personal objective. They are focused on one thing alone and that is power. All other issues are meaningless to them and they do not want to waste their precious time on trivialities. Anything that does not help them is beneath them and do not deserve their attention.
If an issue raised in the Senate does not help Obama in one way or another, he has no interest in it. The "present" vote is a safe vote. No one can criticize him if things go wrong. Those issues are unworthy by their very nature because they are not about him. Obama's election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review led to a contract and advance to write a book about race relations.
The University of Chicago Law School provided him a lot longer than expected and at the end it evolved into, guess what? His own autobiography! Instead of writing a scholarly paper focusing on race relations, for which he had been paid, Obama could not resist writing about his most sublime self. He entitled the book Dreams from My Father.
Not surprisingly, Adolph Hitler also wrote his own autobiography when he was still nobody. So did Stalin. For a narcissist no subject is as important as his own self. Why would he waste his precious time and genius writing about insignificant things when he can write about such an august being as himself? Narcissists are often callous and even ruthless. As the norm, they lack conscience. This is evident from Obama's lack of interest in his own brother who lives on only one dollar per month.
A man who lives in luxury, who takes a private jet to vacation in Hawaii, and who has raised nearly half a billion dollars for his campaign (something unprecedented in history) has no interest in the plight of his own brother. Why? Because, his brother cannot be used for his ascent to power.
A narcissist cares for no one but himself. This election is like no other in the history of America. The issues are insignificant compared to what is at stake. What can be more dangerous than having a man bereft of conscience, a serial liar, and one who cannot distinguish his fantasies from reality as the leader of the free world? I hate to sound alarmist, but one is a fool if one is not alarmed. Many politicians are narcissists. They pose no threat to others... They are simply self serving and selfish.
Obama evidences symptoms of pathological narcissism, which is different from the run-of-the-mill narcissism of a Richard Nixon or a Bill Clinton for example. To him reality and fantasy are intertwined. This is a mental health issue, not just a character flaw. Pathological narcissists are dangerous because they look normal and even intelligent. It is this disguise that makes them treacherous.
Today the Democrats have placed all their hopes in Obama. But this man could put an end to their party. The great majority of blacks have also decided to vote for Obama. Only a fool does not know that their support for him is racially driven. This is racism, pure and simple. The downside of this is that if Obama turns out to be the disaster I predict, he will cause widespread resentment among the whites.
The blacks are unlikely to give up their support of their man. Cultic mentality is pernicious and unrelenting. They will dig their heads deeper in the sand and blame Obama's detractors of racism. This will cause a backlash among the whites.
The white supremacists will take advantage of the discontent and they will receive widespread support. I predict that in less than four years, racial tensions will increase to levels never seen since the turbulent 1960's.
Obama will set the clock back decades... America is the bastion of freedom. The peace of the world depends on the strength of America, and its weakness translates into the triumph of terrorism and victory of rogue nations.
It is no wonder that Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, the Castrists, the Hezbollah, the Hamas, the lawyers of the Guantanamo terrorists and virtually all sworn enemies of America are so thrilled by the prospect of their man in the White House. America is on the verge of destruction. There is no insanity greater than electing a pathological narcissist as president.
It depends on whether the judge rules by law or by polls.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BetsyRoss
Well, I got as far as the citation of Vattel on Natural Law about citizenship coming via the father."
Identity (surname, family, trade or occupation, heritage, land and property and thence, nationality) passed from father to child for thousands of years, and at least as recently as 1939 in Perkins v. Elg, which remains settled case law to this day.
Miss Elg was born in Brooklyn, NY, in 1907; her father had been naturalized the year before. Her mother had not been naturalized, but it was assumed, as it had been assumed since time immemorial, that her nationality followed that of her husband.
In 1911, mother and daughter moved to Sweden to live. After Miss Elg attained majority at age 21, she got a U.S. passport and returned to the U.S. permanently. In 1935, the Department of Labor issued her a deportation order. After contesting that for a year, she applied to State for another U.S. passport. The Secretary of State, at his discretion, denied her application on the grounds that she was not a U.S. citizen.
The court ruled that Miss Elg was and continued to be a U.S. citizen by virtue of her birth in the U.S.. The court also ruled that her parents' emigration and their re-naturalization in Sweden did not affect their minor child's (dual) citizenship in the United States. Therefore, Miss Elg was deemed to have her U.S. citizenship restored upon her return to the U.S., dependent upon her convincing the Department of State, within a reasonable period after her majority, of her election to return to the United States, there to assume the duties of citizenship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BetsyRoss
That will not fly today because of the primacy it gives to the role of the father, vs. modern family reality."
It would depend upon the commitment of the judge to stare decisis, established court decisions, and whether the judge - adheres to and maintains the (paternalist) law and precedents, or
rules according to the currently prevailing winds of emancipated feminism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BetsyRoss
Vattel lived and died in the 18th century (and was Swiss) when people thought differently about a lot of things.
The courts are supposed to make rulings based upon established law and precedents rather than upon public opinion. Not that they always do, of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BetsyRoss
Laws have changed a lot since then. The State Department puts no weight on passive situations concerning a minor when it comes to deciding citizenship. They would not put more weight on the status of a father's citizenship over that of the mother, especially where the father abandoned custody of the child at an early age.
Some laws have changed radically. Immigration law hasn't (yet). See Perkins v. Elg, above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BetsyRoss
Obama had a citizen mother and was back in the US by the age of 10, being raised by citizen grandparents.
If he was born in U.S. jurisdiction, his birth status was governed by both British law and U.S. law, because his father had British protected citizenship, and his mother had U.S. citizenship. If he was born in Kenya, outside U.S. jurisdiction, his birth status was governed by British law only, because his 18-year-old mother had not resided in the U.S. for five years after age 14, as required by the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 then in effect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BetsyRoss
Besides, if someone who is at birth a citizen of some other country can never have 100% loyalty to the US, then the oath of citizenship is meaningless, and maybe we should not let naturalized citizens serve in a lot of other capacities besides President either. Not that any of this is relevant if he really was born in Hawaii.
Nice try. Divided loyalty is of course supremely relevant to Mr. Obama's "natural born citizen" status if he were born in Hawaii. His father's British protected citizenship at the time of Barack Obama II's birth Constitutionally disqualifies him from ever being a natural born citizen. Remember: "A natural born citizen is one born in the country of parents who are citizens." It was the common understanding of NBC in 1787, when the U.S. Constitution was adopted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by former Rep. John A. Bingham, chief author of Amendment XIV,
. . . what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen . . .
The Naturalization Oath of Allegiance reads,
Quote:
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic...
A naturalized citizen thereby disavows (swears off) allegiance and fidelity to other than the U.S. at that time and thereafter. Should we not expect from a natural born citizen - at birth - that same undivided loyalty to the U.S.?
The "natural born citizen" restriction applies only to the office of the President, and nowhere else. When Chester A. Arthur was born in 1829, his father was a Canadian citizen, so Vice Pres. Arthur was not an NBC. This obviously caused a problem in the line of succession when then-President Garfield died in his first year in office, two months after being shot. But Pres. Arthur burned his presidential papers and managed to keep his birth status a secret until just last year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BetsyRoss
Vattel's opinion was his own (he was a philosopher, not an American legislator) so his words, while taken seriously by many of our nation's founders (who also thought differently than modern folks on a lot of issues), do not carry any force of law.
The framers of the U.S. Constitution, attempting to disassociate from British case law and common law, relied heavily on international law. The most prominent authority on that was The Law of Nations by de Vattel. Thomas Jefferson and others among the framers used de Vattel's text to phrase the articles, paragraphs, sections, and clauses of the U.S. Constitution. True, de Vattel's words had no force of law in the U.S.. But his words as adapted for the U.S. Constitution by the framers became part of the legal foundation of the new nation. Think, "original intent."
Quote:
Originally Posted by BetsyRoss
Let's take my situation for example. I was born in America to an American citizen mother. My father was gone from my life while I was still a baby. I was raised by my maternal grandparents, who were also American citizens. If my father had been a foreigner, would America be merely my place of birth and not my country? Would there be some other country I would be automatically loyal to, never having seen it or lived there?
BetsyRoss, you are manifestly a U.S. citizen by virtue of your birth in the U.S. to a U.S. citizen mother. But your father's status at the time of your birth also governed your birth status. Had he been a citizen of another country, you would have been a dual citizen at birth, with divided loyalties, and not a natural born citizen. That may not seem fair to you, but it's the law.