Obama personalizes the political

Almost since he first appeared on the scene, I’ve hammered relentlessly away on Obama’s narcissism, a personality disorder that places him at the center of his own universe, with everyone person and nation ranked by whether he, she or it makes him look good or makes him look bad.  (Which is why the friend of yesterday, such as Wright, by making Obama look bad can suddenly become the enemy of today.)  This personal universe has no time for morality or justice or loyalty or decency.  It’s all personal, and a sociopath controls the rankings.

Sadly, sociopathy is a common disorder, and Obama couldn’t do what he does without the complicity of a lot of fellow travelers — people who share both his politics and his narcissism.  Nor is Obama’s behavior unique in time.  It’s happened before, always without bad outcomes.

Because Obama’s behavior is predictable for a power hungry sociopath, it’s also happened in the world of art, with the Godfather probably being the most well-known artistic portrayal of the politics of narcissism.  In a Pajamas Media article, Nicholas Guariglia brilliantly captures how Obama and his coterie of made men have turned Bush’s White House into “Francis Ford Coppola’s White House:”

From the get-go, Obama has had some trouble with moral clarity. Hamas and Hezbollah have “legitimate claims,” but his domestic critics and fellow countrymen do not? He thinks he can make nice with the “moderate Taliban,” but won’t engage some of his political opponents in a mature dialogue? Obama seems more worried about the Limbaughs, Hannitys, and Joe the Plumbers of the world than the Khameneis, Assads, Jong Ils, Ahmadinejads, and Rafsanjanis — more concentrated on his domestic opponents than on our country’s foreign adversaries. All hail the commander-in-chief.

To go after private citizens, journalists, and people on radio and television with such vitriol is unprecedented in contemporary American politics. This is not how a man who occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is supposed to conduct himself. Michael Corleone once assuaged his brother’s fears by saying, “It isn’t personal. It’s strictly business.”

Read the whole thing. It’s freaky when life imitates this kind of art.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • excathedra

    Can you imagine the hue and cry if GWB had taken on some liberal commentators in this way? The groans about “the chilling effect on free speech” and “attacks on the free press” and “abuse of power by the Bush White House” would be deafening. We would be one step away from a fascist putsch.

    As a psychotherapist, I am familiar both with narcissism and with sociopathy. Forms of extreme (“malignant”) narcissism can read as sociopathy. The narcissist’s inflated presentation usually masks a deeper sense of being flawed; you can actually wound a narcissist, make them hurt, even if they respond to that with camouflaging anger. For a sociopath, there is no one there to hurt. You can annoy them and provoke attack, but they are like predators without a conscience, a kind of black hole where a human soul, even a damaged one, should be. Their style can be rankly sadistic or it can be the height of seductive charm. Regardless of the diagnostic terminology, you find yourself dealing with a person (or shell thereof) for whom you do not exist as another person. You are simply a good or bad mirror, or a means to an end.

    And while I am on a roll :)

    It is perfectly predictable that Obama would seek dialogue with the likes of Hamas or Ahmadinejad, while demonizing Limbaugh.
    The progressive narrative that shapes multiculturalism, feminism, redistributionism, pacifism, secularism, environmentalism, and transnationalism is very simple: every political choice is between the designated victim classes and the designated oppressor classes. The lodestar is race, both real and ascribed. Even though Iran is militaristic, patriarchal, nationalist and theocratic, it is an aggrieved victim because it is non-European and Islam functions as a non-white religion. Rush Limbaugh, as did George Bush before him, functions as the Oppressor Incarnate: a pro-American white male religious capitalist gun-owning consumer. Of course he will be the Devil compared to any Third World tyrant.

    What progressives hate above all else are the traditionally successful groups within their own Western culture, and since it is these groups which have shaped that culture, the self-righteously suicidal destruction of their own civilization is the goal toward with, consciously or semi-consciously, they are heading.

  • http://bookwormroom.com Bookworm

    You are on a roll, ex cathedra — and I appreciate the insights from a mental health professional. I’m just someone who knows about narcissism (both malignant and mild), from having had the misfortune to live around people who have been diagnosed as narcissists. As for me, if I had to diagnose myself, I’d say neurotic, but not narcissistic.

  • Danny Lemieux

    OK, narcissistic and sociopathic, I buy. However, what types of cultural settings and upbringings foster these types of behavior, excathedra?

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    For Bill Clinton, it was an abusive father which fostered a great motivation to learn how to read and manipulate the moods of others in defending one’s own self.

    For Kerry, it was this make believe image of himself as a warrior when in reality he was nothing but a political whore who sacrificed better people than himself for his current ambitions. Kerry can’t confront the reality about himself, so he creates this elaborate fantasy in which he is the war hero “ready to report for duty”. Anyone that tries to assail this fantasy, of course, must be destroyed.

    Kerry’s narcissism isn’t exactly mild, but he doesn’t tend to have the more megalomaniacal qualities of a Saddam or Obama. He lacks the necessary charisma, you see. Can’t have a good megalomaniac without the Jim Jones charisma, you know.

    People build their personalities, their core, around various things. If the core is built upon a strong foundation, then the personality that results is stable, sane, and able to take criticism. If the foundation is weak or illusionary, then the super ego must be propped up via other means and avenues. Usually those avenues require the sacrifice of a few other people’s lives. In Kerry’s case, it required the sacrifice of a few million. In Obama’s case, hundreds of millions perhaps, in the end. In Saddam and Stalin’s case, hundreds of millions were definitely required.

    People are complex, so they can be offended by numerous things. They need not lack a sane base for such to develop. But for the narcissist, any flaw in his image produces unease. HIs entire edifice is constructed upon a couple of pillars, and those pillars, being fake, require the toil and blood of others to exist.

    The Left, for the most part, believe that if they can sacrifice enough slaves, whites, and rich people, that they will get what they want, feel good about themselves, and be acclaimed heroes of the New Age. People like Mr. Bookworm, for example, have this comfort zone from which he isn’t going to budge. He has no real motivation in his personality to budge, you see. It isn’t there, while there is a lot of pain to change. There’s a lot of pain to change anyways even if you are a sane and productive member of society. It takes a great soul, a great spirit and will, to actively seek change: to actively seek to improve oneself or to search out greater truths that may conflict with one’s dearest held beliefs. Most people lack this motivation, which is why most people are always in search of a leader.

    America was founded upon a belief, often unspoken, that humanity’s potential was greater than that which had been seen currently in the generation of the Founding Father’s. Much of it dealt with preserving the rights and liberties of the people, as well as improving and maintaining security against foreign and domestic enemies, but a forlorn hope was always present that the current state of Americans would improve, so long as Americans worked together rather than against each other. It was quite obvious that the flaw of humanity allowed demagogues to mislead the people into atrocities and mistakes, but it was also quite obvious, to the men at the time, that being ruled by an “elite” would be ultimately self-destructive and corruptive of the virtues required for free men. They could not resolve the conflict in their day, so they left their legacy for their descendants. Slavery, women’s rights, foreign policy, issues of human rights and government powers. Leadership was required for this struggle of ever self-improvement, yes, but ultimately it required that the people themselves become self-motivated. You couldn’t give them the motivation to free themselves and others, they either had it or they didn’t, much as is the case with good habits: you either have em or you don’t because habits are formed through the doing.

    So the supreme challenge of the age was always how to convince people to start on the road of virtue, the road that will end with them acquiring good habits and motivation. Motivation can be aided via certain methods, which helps, much as family support can provide a smoker the motivation to quit smoking. Such things exist, but in the end, it still rests with the will of the smoker to quit. No one else can do it for him, without making him their slave.

    The socialists in Europe saw this problem and created their solution. A solution that made slaves of all free men and women, for they could not resolve the challenges posed by free will and still find a way to get people to choose the “right decision”. They failed to conquer that challenge and thus ended with the French Revolution and all the numerous other Revolutions of Europe, which all inevitably led to greater tyrannies, inefficiencies, and flawed human mistakes. For you cannot make a man choose against his own interests and the safety of his family, without terror, oppression, and threats of torture and abuse.

    America, however, succeeded where all else had failed. Rome solved the problem of liberty by offering none except duty and the rewards of such. They had no democracy nor even a republic at the end. We, however, are different. We were always different. Our methods and our paths were set by those who believed. Believed that humanity had a greater destiny than simply the exigencies of economic and military survival, which was the bread and butter of the existence of most people in the day and age of the Founding Fathers.

    George Washington Believed, and so he called the disgruntled soldiers who were getting their pay cut and told them that they would be throwing away all they fought for should they take up arms against their current government.

    Thomas Jefferson believed that slavery could and would be ended, even as he himself was part of the slave owning culture, able to see its flaws and attributes as an insider. He did not know how, did not even know when, and certainly knew of the political obstacles preventing it, but he Believed. Not as an academic believes in the purity of their clean hands, no, that is not the belief of which I speak of. I speak of the belief which propels a brother in arms to sell his life dearly for the sake of his friends. This is a matter of blood, of life, and of the sacrifices all those with blood running in their arteries, in this life, must face. The tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of both tyrants and patriots, it was said in their day. This was no academic satrap sitting on his hands in the Ivory Towers dictating What Will Be. These were people who knew reality for itself, freed of all human illusion and delusion, because otherwise they might get deaded and that’s a little bit too impressionable for even academics and scholars to deny and debate themselves out of. Death waits for no man and no woman, even if they be the highest paid trial lawyers in the history of this God Given Green Earth.

    This belief in the ability of humanity to self-improve is not one of Utopia, as our Leftist friends constantly parade before our eyes with their taunts and jeers. No, it is not perfection we seek to achieve, it is only perfection that we set as our goal, much as the man who wishes to explore the world sets as his goal the rising sun, even though he knows not how long his travel will take. Will he reach the sun perchance? Probably not. Will he circumnavigate the globe? Maybe and maybe not. But it is the doing and the seeking that counts, for that itself builds up the foundation just enough for the next generation to get just a little bit farther. Critics of Teddy Roosevelt’s day would hammer the attempts of men down with jeers and cries, much as crabs pull any other crab trying to get out of the bucket down. That, however, is not the way to greatness.

    Narcissists understand the weaknesses of humanity, for narcissists are only ever able to function by exploiting the weaknesses of others. Oh, certainly narcissists have the intellect and knowledge to see their own flaws for what they are (the better ones at least), and yet they cannot and will not. It is not in the make up of their character. They have the ability to do so, to manipulate their own soul much as they manipulate the behavior and emotions of others, but they choose not to. WHy is that, one may wonder. One potential answer is always that it is far harder to change yourself, to stare your own inner demons in the eye and not flinch from the Abyss, than it is to corrupt and hurt others, especially others weaker than you. Humans tend to like to take the path of least resistance, like electricity. It is natural, you may say, though it is not predestined.

    Neither Clinton nor Obama used their rhetorical gifts or charismatic personas to improve the lives of others, to make them strong so that strength could build upon strength. No, they exploited others for their strength and their talents and their hopes, while allowing the most corrupt and vile individuals in America, aside from serial killers and sociopaths, to grasp the sinews of American government. That was their choice to make because America was founded on the belief that men could govern themselves and make wise decisions, even in the presence of demagogues.

    It remains yet to be proven, however, whether this experiment will continue to be a success or whether it will fail due to systemic collapse or just unfortunate circumstances. If we are to win over the new Gods, however, it will rest not upon the tenets of slavery, which the Left advocates as a matter of course, but upon the founding tenets of America.

    Our enemies believe in their cause enough to kill and die for them. Or at least to kill and get others to die for them. They accuse us of cowardice, weakness, materialism, and capitalistic greed and moral flaws.

    The Left believes in their creed enough to kill American soldiers, their wives, and their families.

    The Islamic Jihad believes in their creed enough to slaughter school children and use acid on school teachers.

    But do we Believe enough to do our share of the killing and the dying? It always hinges upon that one question in the end. It was the same during the Revolution, during the Civil War, during the liberation of women and the desegregation of blacks and whites in WWW, and it is still the same to this day. Until that question is answered and done so in spades, the right of humanity to self-determination, human dignity, and self-improvement will never exist. That is the core foundation that all other pillars of success require as a prerequisite. Unlike those who sacrifice the lives of men and women with no thought and no guilt, we however know very well the consequences of what war will produce. Yet just as it behooves us to consider changing peace to war with all our wisdom and focus, we are also called by duty to face such a challenge and not to ignore it in the hopes that the “system will correct itself”. Ladies and gentlemen, we are the system, its protectors as much as those which it protects.

    Narcissists, however, cannot bear to sacrifice their own life, for anything. That is their one tragic flaw, which leads to all others. They value nothing more than their own existence, their own status, and their own petty concerns and trifles. They do not Believe, they only understand how to manipulate the innocence of others.

    Obama was abandoned by his father as useless and his mother’s family were ultra liberals that taught him to hate his nation of whites and his darker side for ignorant savages. Obama had no core foundation for his personality, other than the one he crafted in order to receive adulations from his peers or his mentors like Ayers or Wright. That, however, is a brittle veneer that will shatter like dust in the true cauldron of war. And war is coming, for the Islamic Jihad earnestly wants to test their strength against ours and I am happy to oblige them. It is far better than to become the enemy slowly over the decades, as we see in Britain. That is nothing better than slavery and I think that Americans, especially the women, will have some vociferous complaints about such a potential fate. And that voice will be quite loud given the amplification provided by the products of the premier gunsmiths of human history.

  • expat

    Danny,

    Dr. Sanity has a post on this topic today.

  • suek

    >>I speak of the belief which propels a brother in arms to sell his life dearly for the sake of his friends.>>

    This is the belief not of “I wish”, but “I will”…

  • Charles Martel

    And war is coming, for the Islamic Jihad earnestly wants to test their strength against ours and I am happy to oblige them. It is far better than to become the enemy slowly over the decades, as we see in Britain.”

    In a related thread today Book reports on the increasingly closed doors that seem to meet Israel’s attempts to communicate with the U.S. government. The war clouds over Israel and Iran are quickly gathering. Even before the showdown between America and Jihad that Ymarsakar welcomes (as do I) arrives, Israel will face her decisive existential struggle.

    There is no way it will end happily. We are facing the prospect of millions of people dead. Our president, whom I think is the only true coward to ever hold the office (Carter did, after all, face down that rabbit) will shrink from doing anything but tut-tutting as Iran attempts the Second Holocaust.

    Israel will defend herself well and, I pray, successfully. But in the aftermath, Obama will be shown as the contemptible chickens**t that he is—something that will not sit well with the millions of Americans who are growing edgier and edgier at the suspicion that the White House’s resident socialist is also a sissy.

    War may expose the flaws of this unfortunate administration much faster than anything else we can think of right now—tea parties, letters to Congress, purchases of weapons and “Atlas Shrugged.” So, there could be a silver lining in what is about to happen, albeit one tinged with Uranium 238.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    Nor is Obama’s behavior unique in time. It’s happened before, always without bad outcomes.

    with bad outcomes?

  • Mike Devx

    Ymar #4:
    >> Obama had no core foundation for his personality, other than the one he crafted in order to receive adulations from his peers or his mentors like Ayers or Wright. That, however, is a brittle veneer that will shatter like dust in the true cauldron of war.

    Charles #7:
    >> Israel will defend herself well and, I pray, successfully. But in the aftermath, Obama will be shown as the contemptible chickens**t that he is—something that will not sit well with the millions of Americans who are growing edgier and edgier at the suspicion that the White House’s resident socialist is also a sissy.

    Along with Book’s post itself, this is highly entertaining and wonderful commentary on the chickens**t Obama – who eagerly confronts a talker like Limbaugh but will back down spinelessly from confronting a foreign leader who is cold-eyed ready to actively HURT us. Awesome comments, guys; what a pleasure to read!

    How despicable Obama is; how just will be his denouement, because the American people do not take kindly to sissies or cowards.

  • expat

    Mike,

    I am totally with you on your comment to Ymar. We saw another example of this in Obama’s grand stem cell proclamation. Does anyone really believe he has thought seriously about the issue? Charles Krauthammer, who supports the use of embryos created for but not used in in vitro fertilization and who is agnostic, criticized the shallowness of Obama’s statement, as did other writers. But Obama wants to be cool, modern, progressive, and “scientific.” He wants the researchers and patients to think he is on their side. The same is true of his opposition to the war. Does anyone really believe he spent time, as most of us did, trying to figure out what was going on in the Middle East or in the minds of our enemies? His first statement was to an audience of pacifists. Then he was quiet until he saw America start to hesitate and the opportunity arose for him to win the adulation of the shallow college kids.

    Obama is often called an empty suit. I ran across a saying from Ben Franklin that provides more detail: “It is hard for an empty sack to stand upright.”

  • suek

    Someone who thinks they already know it all doesn’t have a lot of motivation to learn more.

    My question is – who’s actually running the show? Obama is just a front man…

  • suek

    Remember Rumsfelt’s “You have the known and the unknown. You have the unknown you know you have, and you have the unknown you don’t know you have”. And then went on to discuss the problems involved, especially with the unknown you don’t know about. But if you don’t admit to there being an unknown you don’t know? You definitely are going to get into trouble.

    I think that’s where Obama is. And while he may be smart, he’s not a willing student – he’s already made up his mind about how things _should_ be. Don’t disturb him with the facts.

  • Mike Devx

    This is too sweet to not pass on:

    Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner won a strong vote of confidence Wednesday from President Barack Obama, whose administration has been struggling with the controversy since the weekend.

    Anytime your boss has to go public with a “strong vote of confidence” in you, thunderclouds are looming, lightning is flashing, ozone is in the air, and you better believe you are standing on sand, not solid ground.

    More importantly! – when the boss in question is named Obama, look out for that bus!

    Because within just a few weeks, you’re almost definitely going to be thrown under it.

  • Charles Martel

    There is only one person Obama cannot and dare not throw under the bus.

    Hint: She has bodaciously big upper arms and is not proud of America.

    Another hint: The second she left her vitally important $300,000-a-year job in Chicago, they eliminated the position.

  • suek
  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    I’m not quite certain whether narcissism motivated Obama to become a politician or whether it demanded that he do so given his condition.

    There isn’t much difference between the two, since many politicians are narcissists and the top echelon malignant narcissists are almost always politicians. It’s something the US Constitution was formed to protect the people of America from. The system, however, is only as good as the people running it. And when the people running things are in the pocket of the Dems and when the voters have no idea of what “propaganda” means in application and execution, then you get people like Obama/Clinton in power.

    Half the reason people hated Bush and the War in Iraq was because 9/11 shattered their delusions and illusions of the “Golden Age of Clinton”. They wanted to take a vacation from gross “necessity” and “hard work”. When 9/11 woke em up, they had a choice between blaming the Islamic terrorists or blaming Bush. Guess which path was easier for them to take. That would be the path they took.

    The point here is that politicians want power and want to be re-elected. They believe that they are the best candidate, obviously otherwise they would not have run. Narcissism aids much in this endeavour since a person like Kerry will never admit to a fault or mistake and that translates to persistence. You see, the Dems know perfectly well that to win a war and to crush the enemy you must be persistent. That is why they prioritized the destruction of American morale and will rather than try to cut the military funding for Iraq. When pro-Iraqi Americans said that America had to be patient and had to stay the course and had to keep on trying with the war, the Dems did not disagree in principle. They knew very well that such would lead to success. But it was that very success that they sought to murder and abort.

    While certain aspects are true concerning those who are politicians first, something else is true of those who are narcissists first. A politician can be hurt when he loses his power base. But a narcissist cannot be hurt in such a fashion. In point of fact, people like Kerry, Kennedy, Reid, Pelosi, and so forth get worse, no matter whether they are in power or out of power. Their narcissistic qualities give them the tools and the fortitude and the determination to hold that power tightly, far better than us normal and sane individuals.

    You have two choices here. Either you can get rid of people like CYnthia McKinney or Tax Cheating Daschle by booting them from office or you can destroy their personalities from the inside out.

    Narcissists have a very strong armor but within that armor there is brittleness. Try to criticize a narcissist on any point and you would be lucky to escape with your house unburnt and your person unassaulted. It’s why Leftists and “anti-war” activists become violent when you disagree with them. They cannot handle it.

    The reason why Obama goes after so many private citizens is both because of the Alinsky rule book which furthers his political power AND because he can’t take criticism. To take criticism for a narcissist would be like stabbing ourselves in the leg to us normal people. It is something we avoid, and we will even attack people trying to stab us in the leg. To Obama, when you challenge him, you are seeking to kill him, or at least his identity. That he cannot tolerate. So he is going to make you disappear.

    There’s a big secret here though. There are certain rules which sociopaths and malignant narcissists live under. These are not Alinsky rules or political power plays nor does it have anything particular to do with learned experiences. No, it has to do with fundamental self-survival, which is the same whether a person is a sociopath or just a malignant narcissist.

    They do not take on those that are more powerful than they. The sociopath does not take on those more powerful than they because the sociopath A. does not like to get killed and B. does not like going up against other people who may be unrestrained in following rules (which is what power gives you, the ability to override the rules made in this universe by mortals). The malignant narcissist doesn’t take on those more powerful than they because this would be detriment to their self-survival, and all the defense mechanisms erected to protect their precious self-esteem goes double for their physical persons. It is why Kerry got out after winning his “purple hearts”. It wasn’t solely because he needed to get back to the US to start politics, it was because it was getting dangerous in Vietnam and there was a great narcissistic excuse to leave after serving 4 months of a 10-12 month deployment.

    Bill Clinton, to use another example, ran for the Canadian hills during Vietnam. As can be seen, Clinton’s self-preservation instincts were stronger than Kerry’s, and that’s why Clinton was President and Kerry wasn’t. Clinton had stronger instincts, thus he had a far more offensive punch in terms of character assassination, which translated to better political advancement.

    This is a big secret precisely because only people analyzing the prospects for how to kill people would think about such things. In a civilized society, the tools available to you forbids killing, assassination, and annihilation of persons. Politicians must resort to character assassination precisely because America has forbidden real assassination. But those tools still exist. They are just restricted because of a societal agreement. But sociopaths, for one thing, don’t follow any rules of society. they can fake it, but they have no real care for any societal morality or religious imperative. If they fake it, it is because they see a personal advantage to it.

    But it is the truth. You see this time and time again in military history. A good general must not only have personal courage, but he also must have competence and leadership qualities. And the only way to get the latter, is through demonstrations of personal courage. But in America, that is not true for we do not pick our leaders the same way generals are forged. For one thing, it wold be impractical for we cannot always have a victorious Revolution to produce such people as George Washington. So our current state of affairs is such that you can have a leader with charisma and seeming competence, and yet has no core virtues required for the paramount warlord of the United States of America.

    This is one aspect they hounded Bush about. Why? Because it resonates with people. Even though the US of A doesn’t base its leadership selection criteria on martial valor, virtues, or competence on the battlefield, the people themselves still admire paramount warleaders. This is a partial cause for why 300 was so popular and not least of all amongst the younger generation. As I said before, leadership qualities are forged through demonstrations of martial virtues such as personal courage or battlefield prowess. This is a human attribute, the same as our human flaws. It cannot be erased or removed.

    Obama, however, has no martial virtues. In a military historical context, he would be a politically appointed general that has never seen a battlefield let alone a weapon of war used against an enemy. Now, a general appointed for his politics need not be horrible (some generals are both competent and politically acceptable), but that’s inevitably how it results in the vast majority of cases. He either lacks competence, which means he will send his troops on suicidal charges like Obama’s VA plan, or he will refuse to listen to the army’s NCos who have the necessary institutional wisdom to sidestep mistakes on the field of battle. Obama is just the kind of person not to listen to anybody about how he is doing things incorrectly. A talented amateur, perhaps, but still an amateur.

    For Clinton, he got away with it in his two terms, not having martial virtues, because there was no war on. No Americans were dying, except the ones Clinton sent to Mogadishu stripped of heavy gunship support. But how is Obama going to get away with it? When people in Afghanistan start dying because of his incompetence? When the military is stripped of their funding and VA benefits, in order to fund Obama’s buddies?

    In the ancient days, officers used to pocket the pay of non-existent soldiers in their unit. An army would be officially listed as having 5,000 men, but only 3000 would actually exist. The other 2k? Well, their pay would naturally go to the officers. That’s called corruption and it’s something you will only ever know about if you read the histories or if you study foreign militaries. But for a modern reference that is in a political setting, just look at Obama’s looting of taxpayers. He’s a magician distracting people with his hand gestures while he pulls other people’s money out of his hat and claims it as his own due. Such military officers would eventually destroy the military capacity of an army if they are not stopped. Soldiers will not fight if their food rations and their pay and their retirement pensions are being looted by their officers. And when that army is called upon by their nation to fight, that army will shatter and so will whatever part of the nation that army was defending. And of course, that ultimately means a disaster will happen and disasters create plenty of heroes.

    People like Obama existed in the past in plenty of places. It is just that back then, unlike today, those people would very soon get killed either by their own actions or by the actions of their friends/enemies. But in today’s world, only certain minorities get the axe. Those that can’t defend themselves, mostly.

    The good news is that it takes longer for con artists and megalomaniacs to damage an advanced Western civilization. It takes longer and so there’s no immediate head swinging consequences for the leaders. That’s normally a good thing, as it promotes rational government rather than irrational mob mentalities. But with Obama, he is always the head of a mob. And when the mob is in control of government, things will get interesting very fast. And when things get interesting, the conditions will be created to allow for our very own Al Anbar Awakening.

  • Mike Devx

    Ymar #16:
    >> Even though the US of A doesn’t base its leadership selection criteria on martial valor, virtues, or competence on the battlefield, the people themselves still admire paramount warleaders. This is a partial cause for why 300 was so popular and not least of all amongst the younger generation. As I said before, leadership qualities are forged through demonstrations of martial virtues such as personal courage or battlefield prowess. [...] Obama, however, has no martial virtues. In a military historical context, he would be a politically appointed general that has never seen a battlefield let alone a weapon of war used against an enemy.

    Cheers, cheers! Very well said! Awesome!

    It will take some time for our military and security apparatus to decay under Obama. It’s not just the slashing of funding that will tell. It is also about daily preparedness; it is also about attitude. Even those who exhibited resolve and concern will find, under relaxed and negligent leadership, that their own approach to their work becomes relaxed and negligent. It’s human nature. (This is why excellent leadership is so fantastically important.)

    Jimmy Carter: feckless in the face of Iranian Shiite Islamic jihadism

    Bill Clinton: Black Hawk Down in Somalia, refused to hit Bin Laden, refused to take Bin Laden when offered, air strikes on an empty terrorist camp.

    Barack Obama: tick… tock… tick… tock… It is only a matter of time.

    I, personally, fear greatly for Tiawan because the Democrats seek to kiss and slobber all over the Chinese a$$es. And I fear for Eastern Europe and the Ukraine, so recently freed from the Soviet monster, still horrifyingly at risk.

  • suek

    >>And when things get interesting, the conditions will be created to allow for our very own Al Anbar Awakening.>>

    http://www.oath-keepers.blogspot.com/

    This one is coming up fast as well. This in response to legislation proposed by xxx (don’t remember her name) who is the wife of the president of Monsanto. This legislation will _seriously_ impact the food supply, as well as personal property rights.

    http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu4wYa8JJfmYBaCJXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByMTNuNTZzBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw–/SIG=12a2tr67i/EXP=1237564568/**http%3a//nonais.org/2009/02/10/2009-naisish-legislation/

    Heck. I’ll try to find a better link later

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    A couple of elaborations. I mentioned the rules of sociopaths and malignant narcissists to describe conditions wherein they will not confront people. They will attack Sarah Palin and plumbers and Rush because those people won’t come out and execute them in their homes like communists, Leftist terrorists like Ayers, or Islamic Jihadists would.

    So Obama appease the Left and the Arabs while attacking us. That’s how it works.

    For a sociopath, he necessarily does not go out looking for trouble and usually he is one of those killers so it is not like he needs to appease himself. But sociopaths are very cunning and they understand that it benefits them not in the least to attack people who can defend themselves. They don’t follow laws because they have a need for laws or for the protection of the law. They follow the law because they see themselves as the wolf and everybody else as the sheep, and the wolf, if he wants some sheep meat, would do well to act like a sheep.

    This is why the Zodiac Killer or any number of other serial killers were always said to be “great neighbors” and “I would never have guessed”. Of course you never would have guessed you sheep, you aren’t one of the select elite that can kill on demand. Why would you be guessing on that score in the first place.

    This is a fundamental weakness if only because it is too predictable. THose who are predictable can be trapped, manipulated, and ambushed.

    One point of entertainment here is that we will see Obama vs Islam. The former is a malignant narcissist that can only hold up his pants by attacking women, children, and the defenseless infants he squashes underfoot. The latter is a conscienceless killer, a dyed in the wool sociopath, and my own personal instructor in the mayem and willpower required for the field of battle.

    If people thought we are in for interesting times after 9/11 under Bush, wait until they see the Obama Years.

  • suek

    >>But sociopaths are very cunning and they understand that it benefits them not in the least to attack people who can defend themselves.>>

    School bullies are often teacher’s pet…