Of course Obama believes his own lies — he’s a narcissist

A lot of people are very surprised that Chuck Todd, after interviewing Obama, concluded that the President genuinely seems to believe his own lies:

You know, he does not believe he lied on this, and that’s the sense I get. I mean, I think that that’s, he’s taken issue with that before with folks off the record, and I got it’s a sensitive issue, felt like he did not sit there and say he intentionally lied. He said that he wanted to, he thought he was going to be able to keep this promise. I thought what was revealing in that answer, when I asked him that direct question about this, was this a political lie that you started to believe it, was he talked about well, you know, it turns out we had trouble in crafting the law.

John Nolte adds that, if this is the case, “that borders on pathological.”

Nolte is too kind.  It doesn’t “border” on pathological, it is pathological.  Pardon me if I quote myself:

More than five years ago, when Barack Obama threw his hat into the political ring, I realized that he was a malignant narcissist who lied compulsively.  For Obama, truth was then and is now defined by the needs of the moment.  If it will benefit him at that moment to say something at variance with facts as other people know them, he is telling the truth because his political needs are the ultimate yardstick by which all truth must be measured.

Narcissists believe in absolute truth.  Unlike others who believe in certain moral absolutes, though, the narcissist’s truth is not measured by God or philosophy or scientific rationality.  Instead, each narcissist is his own God head; he is the science and the proof; and his philosophy is made up by squaring the circle of his own little navel.

So of course Obama doesn’t believe he lied.  His acolytes (such as the New York Times) willingly buy into his doctrine.  That doesn’t mean, though, that the rest of us should worship so manifestly false a God.

Who died and made you queen?

My daughter has frequently come home from soccer fulminating about certain girls on her team who keep “yelling” at her.  I have to admit that I didn’t initially take her complaints very seriously.  Being a teen she (a) has thin skin and (b) is prone to exaggeration.  Also, in a good soccer game, there is lots of communication going on.  “Mary, be open!”  “I got it!”  “Watch out, Jane!”  It wouldn’t surprise me if my daughter took “Watch out” as an insult.

And then I saw her team play.

In fact, my daughter was absolutely right.  There are a handful of girls who have taken it upon themselves to tell everyone else on the team what they’re doing wrong.  In shrill, teen girl voices they scream out “You shouldn’t have missed that.”  “You’re in the wrong place.”  “You’re doing that wrong.”  “I told you to be mid field [never mind that the coach said something else].”  As the game goes on, they get more and more shrill and dictatorial.

The person mostly at fault for this is the coach, who should squash this type of behavior immediately.  He doesn’t, though. and the fact that this is a recreational league staffed by parent volunteers means that there’s not a lot other parents can do.  I’ve advised my daughter to pull a sweet-tempered “dumb blonde” in the face of this hectoring.  She should, in dulcet terms, keep saying “I’m sorry, I can’t hear you,” until those girls are embarrassing themselves by screaming at the top of their lungs.  Meanwhile, my daughter should pay attention only to the coach.  Whether my daughter has the guile and self-control to pursue this approach is questionable.

Why am I writing about this if I can’t change the passive coach and it’s unlikely that my daughter will do anything other than get angry?  I’m writing because I find it almost incomprehensible that there are people out there who think that they have the right to yell at anyone.  This kind of narcissism is so alien to me.  There are certainly situations in which one has the right and even the duty to tell people what to do and to tell them what they’re doing wrong:  a parent to a child, a teacher to a student, a sergeant or chief to a new recruit, an employer to an employee, etc.  What my daughter is dealing with, though, are just ordinary girls (usually popular in school) who believe that they are entitled to tell everyone else not just what to do, but what they’re doing wrong.

It’s narcissism, plain and simple.  One of my favorite romance novels (you know I like them), involves a woman escaping from an abusive relationship to a narcissist.  In Lisa Kleypas’s Blue-Eyed Devil, Kleypas has as good a summary as I’ve ever seen of what a narcissist is, how he or she thinks, and how he or she controls people:

I was welcomed into a small, cozy office with a sofa upholstered in flowered yellow twill, by a therapist who didn’t seem all that much older than me. Her name was Susan Byrnes, and she was dark-haired and bright-eyed and sociable. It was a relief beyond description to unburden myself to her. She was understanding and smart, and as I described things I had felt and gone through, it seemed she had the power to unlock the mysteries of the universe.

Susan said Nick’s behavior fit the pattern of someone with narcissistic personality disorder, which was common for abusive husbands. As she told me about the disorder, it felt as if she were describing my life as it had been for the past year. A person with NPD was domineering, blaming, self-absorbed, intolerant of others’ needs . . . and they used rage as a control tactic. They didn’t respect anyone else’s boundaries, which meant they felt entitled to bully and criticize until their victims were an absolute mess.

Having a personality disorder was different from being crazy, as Susan explained, because unlike a crazy person, a narcissist could control when and where he lost his temper. He’d never beat up his boss at work, for example, because that would be against his own interests. Instead he would go home and beat up his wife and kick the dog. And he would never feel guilty about it, because he would justify it and make excuses for himself. No one’s pain but his own meant anything to him.

“So you’re saying Nick’s not crazy, he’s a sociopath?” I asked Susan.

“Well . . . basically, yes. Bearing in mind that most sociopaths are not killers, they’re just nonempathetic and highly manipulative.”

“Can he ever be fixed?”

She shook her head immediately. “It’s sad to think about what kind of abuse or neglect might have made him that way. But the end result is that Nick is who he is. Narcissists are notoriously resistant to therapy. Because of their sense of grandiosity, they don’t ever see the need to change.” Susan had smiled darkly, as if at some unpleasant memory. “Believe me, no therapist wants a narcissist to walk in the door. It only results in massive frustration and a waste of time.”

(Kleypas, Lisa, Blue-Eyed Devil (pp. 92-93). Macmillan. Kindle Edition.

When I look around at the number of people, from the White House down, who believe that they exist on a different plane and are therefore entitled unfettered right to criticize others, I have to ask whether this was always the case, or if the last fifty years — since Marxists took over parenting ideas and education — have created a generation of self-righteous narcissists.  What do you think?

Oh, and here’s just the right video for this post:

I didn’t like Drudge Report this morning

I opened Drudge Report this morning and saw two disturbing things:

Tehran plans attack on U.S. embassy in Baghdad…

and

PUTIN: Russia Will Help Syria If USA Attacks…

Orders Pentagon to expand target list…

‘SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER THAN EXPECTED’…

Actually, I saw a lot of disturbing things on Drudge, but those were the ones that made me most unhappy.

Obama kicked the hornet’s nest.  Obama did so without any evidence that he was kicking the right nest, and without any real plan for what would happen when the hornets came out angry, very, very angry.

Or, to switch metaphors, Obama got a heavily loaded truck going downhill with no brakes.

Nothing good can come of this.  This type of posturing has only two outcomes:  War or retreat, with the party retreating first having lost.  There is no middle ground.  Obama, a narcissist par excellence is a loose cannon.  He’s not a loose cannon the way George Bush was, which coolly calculated but giving his enemies the impression that he might blow.  Instead, Obama is a genuine loose cannon.  He’s an uncontrolled hodge-podge of ego, anger, grudges, panic, neuroses, inexperience, projection, and just about any other psychological failing you can shake a stick at.

Can I throw in another metaphor?  I’ll take that as a “yes.”  This guy just drove us at warp speed into quicksand, all the while assuring us that there’s really a little footbridge for us to walk on.  There isn’t.

A year ago, he let his ego rule when he made a throwaway line about a “red line.”  Then, he huffed and puffed because he had to defend his honor.  Now, he’s huffed and puffed us right into the middle of much badness.

I’m sitting here in the audience, helpless, waiting to hear that this was just a carefully staged performance, with everyone going through their choreographed routine.  Even as I sit here, the set is falling down around our heads and the actors are turning on the audience.  (Yes, another metaphor.)

I am not happy.  I am very, very not happy.

By the way, I feel as if I should add here that this is not happening because Obama is a socialist or even a closet Muslim.  This is happening because Barack Hussein Obama has a severe personality disorder.  The man is mentally ill, but we still put him in the White House and handed up the levers of power.  Just for those who need a little review about narcissistic personality disorder, here’s a great summary from, of all places, a very good junk novel:

A person with NPD was domineering, blaming, self-absorbed, intolerant of others’ needs . .  . and they used rage as a control tactic. They didn’t respect anyone else’s boundaries, which meant they felt entitled to bully and criticize until their victims were an absolute mess. Having a personality disorder was different from being crazy, as Susan explained, because unlike a crazy person, a narcissist could control when and where he lost his temper. He’d never beat up his boss at work, for example, because that would be against his own interests. Instead he would go home and beat up his wife and kick the dog. And he would never feel guilty about it, because he would justify it and make excuses for himself. No one’s pain but his own meant anything to him.  (Blue-Eyed Devil, Kindle Locations 1785-1791).

The one thing Obama does really, really well

You know that old joke, the one that goes “How can you tell when a politician is lying?  His lips are moving.”  That’s Obama.

I think Obama’s skilled lying arises from the fact that he is a borderline personality, whether malignant narcissist or sociopath.  These specific border personalities lie better than ordinary people because to them, the truth is always what they need it to be at the precise moment they’re speaking.  During SOTUs, Obama needs the truth to be that he’s all about deficit and debt reduction, job growth, affordable insurance, and cheap energy.  He therefore confidently, and with every appearance of honesty, makes statements to that effect.  When he’s actually running the country, though, his truth becomes something quite different.

This short GOP video perfectly sums up Obama’s variable truths:

The narcissism of Leftist culture — where bad things are never their fault

I recognize that my mind makes strange, often counter-intuitive connections, but as I hear Progressives rail against guns, I can’t help but think of slut walks.

Slut walk in London 2011 (image by Chris Brown)

What?!  You don’t know what slut walks are?  Slut walks are the latest manifestation of the feminist/Progressive rule holding that a women has no responsibility whatsoever if she is raped.

Slut walks are the exhibitionist version of the same ideology that says that a young woman can go off to college, get blind drunk, fellate several equally drunk young men and then, when she wakes up the next day and realizes that one or all had sex with her, cry rape.  In each case, the entire responsibility for rape (whether it was quite obviously rape at the moment occurred or transmuted into rape along with the morning hangover) is on the man.

Drunken college girls

Before I get deeper into this one, I should say that a man is always guilty if he enters a woman without her consent, just as a robber is always guilty if he enters a house with the homeowner’s consent.  This is true whether the woman is walking down a dark alley in a bikini or the homeowner has left the front door wide open.  Nothing I’m about to say removes the moral and, almost invariably, legal responsibility the man or the robber has for the act he committed.

Burglar

Having said that, though, you and I both know that, if a homeowner leaves a window open at night or the keys in the front door, he’s going to come in for ridicule and criticism from the police and, if he has the courage to confess his carelessness to them, from his friends, neighbors, and colleagues.  “Damn, dude!  That was really stupid.  Why didn’t you just hang a sign on the door saying ‘come in and take my television’?”

Everyone engaged in this chaffing or ridiculing would understand that the homeowner’s stupidity didn’t make the robber less culpable — but that it did also make the homeowner culpable.  And we would all make extra sure to lock our own doors.  Heck, we might even buy an alarm system if we suspected that there were robbers trolling our neighborhood.

Drunken woman on the streets of Cardiff

When it comes to rape, though, political correctness mandates that we exonerate the woman of any responsibility for what happened.  Pardon me if I sound like Mr. Spock, but that’s illogical.  We know that if a half-naked drunk woman walks into a biker bar, she’s more at risk of sexual assault than if a woman in a bulky sweatshirt and mom jeans walks into a church social.  Basic common sense makes this obvious.

In the bad old days, if the half-naked drunk woman was raped in that biker bar, authorities would say “she asked for it,” and give the bikers a pass.  The problem is that, in the bad new days, if the half-naked drunk woman gives a slurred “yes” to the guy who looks cute through her beer goggles, and then cries rape the next morning, his life is over and she gets a pass.  Not only that, the message to other similarly situated young women is “Don’t change a thing — walk around the streets in clothes that western culture associates with the boudoir and get blind drunk or stoned on a regular basis.  We will never punish you.”

Depression; Poor Mental Health

Even if the Leftists give the woman a pass, though, the punishment is still there.  It’s there in the form of young men whose lives are destroyed and, even more, it’s there in the form of young women whose lives are also destroyed.  All those women urged by society into trashy, minimal clothing think that they’re never responsible for the consequences of their actions, but they’re wrong.  Even if society refuses to condemn them, nature does, whether it’s a pregnancy (plus or minus an abortion), sexually transmitted diseases, feelings of self-loathing, or irrational fears of all men that make future trusting, stable relationships all but impossible.

What drives this entire “slut” movement is the malignant narcissism that characterizes almost all Leftist social and political positions.  One of the hallmarks of narcissism is the narcissist’s inability to take responsibility for his acts.  It’s always someone else’s fault.

When it comes to rape (or “gray rape” which is the morning-after guilt a woman feels when her drunkenness led her into acts she regrets), because of feminism’s push within Leftist corridors, it’s always the man’s fault.  No matter what the woman does, no matter how foolish she is, she bears no responsibility for her acts.  She doesn’t even count as a grim warning to others who follow.  (Again, I’m not saying that the man who rapes isn’t fully responsible for his conduct; I’m just saying that rational thinking demands that women must also be responsible for their conduct.)

Carnage after terrorist bomb in Tel Aviv

The same is true when it comes to guns.  What better place to put responsibility than on an inanimate object?  “It’s all the gun’s fault.”

Here’s a real-world fact, though, one that seems to have eluded the “reality based” political party:  Guns do nothing unless people handle them.  When courageous, principled people handle them, they save lives.  When crazy people handle them, they take lives.  Crazy people also take lives with knives, fertilizer bombs, glass bottles, boots, airplanes, box cutters, and whatever else comes to hand.  Knives don’t have great reach, but bombs certainly do — and that’s true whether the crazy person is listening to the voices in his head or the voices from the imam’s pulpit.

Pulp Fiction

Leftists (primarily the ACLU) have made it all but impossible to institutionalize crazy people, no matter how dangerous they quite obviously are.  Leftists have created gun-free zones to which a crazy person can head secure in the knowledge that there’s no one there to stop him.  Leftists operating out of Hollywood have glorified a the most bloody of gun violence of a type that a conservative culture would never countenance.  Leftists up and down the Left coast, with an eye to profit, have put out video games that make it routine and painless to blast human-looking avatars to death.  And Leftists have so highly sexualized our culture that two 7th grade girls at a local middle school had a major falling out because one girl gave a blow job to the other girl’s ex-boyfriend.

Leftists make rape easy by hyper-sexualizing our culture and by exonerating women of all responsibility for their acts.

Leftists also make killing an easy and attractive option for people who, in a more conservative culture, would be kept in humane comfort behind high stone walls.   The great thing for the Leftists, though, is that they can, in good conscience, attack the Second Amendment and the inanimate gun  because being a Leftist means never having to say you’re sorry.

Random thoughts of an idle mind — and an Open Thread

Progressives and narcissists share an unpleasant trait:  If you make a mistake, it proves that you and your ideas are inferior; if they make a mistake, it’s just a mistake.  Your mistake is irremediable, because it’s intrinsic to who you are; their mistake is just one of those things, and can be either forcibly forgotten or lied about.

***

I seem to be aging backwards.  I was an extremely self-disciplined young person.  If a task needed doing, I buckled down and did it.  Now, I feel like a teenager.  I’m in perpetual, albeit silent, rebellion against the responsibilities in my life.  Because I’m an adult, I don’t openly rebel, but I do take the route of procrastination and passive-aggressive behavior.

***

When a teenage girl says “I’ll be done in a sec,” resign yourself to a very long wait.

***

My liberal Facebook friends are not just less informed about current events than my conservative Facebook friends, they’re less interested.  All year long, my conservative friends post “content rich” material — newspaper articles, magazine articles, long blog posts — that provide facts and opinion about events in the political and economic scene.  And all year long, my liberal friends put up posts about and pictures of themselves.  Then, when an election rolls around, the liberals suddenly become very active, putting up clever, albeit vapid and still content-free, political posters lauding Democrats and maligning Republicans.  The liberals, however, do not link to longer articles, which indicates either that they don’t read anything beyond posters or bumper stickers, or that they assume that no one else is capable of reading anything longer than a poster or bumper sticker.

***

My mild dyslexia pops up whenever I type the word “bumper.”  I always want to type it “pumber,” because the word “bumper,” more than any other, messes with my ability to distinguish “p” from “b”.  If you ever see me write about a “pumber” sticker, you now know why.

***

Thankfully, here in Marin, we don’t get hurricanes.  Sometimes, though, we get some nice winter storms, complete with wind, torrential rain, and thunder & lightning.  We’re having one now.  I always feel a bit guilty that I enjoy this weather so much.  I’m only able to enjoy it because (a) I have a sturdy home that shelters me from the storm and (b) I don’t have to drive long distances through the rain.  Those facts give me the luxury to enjoy wild winter weather in Marin.

***

The most torrential rains I ever experienced were in Texas and England.  In both cases, the rain fell so hard that drivers had to pull off the road, because their windshields had become impenetrable.  There were no individual drops of rain, just walls of water.

***

Any idle thoughts you would like to add to this list?

 

Today hubris – tomorrow, nemesis

We recognize the narcissism of our Commander-in-Chief. It has been the subject of many an article by his detractors. Here, for example, is a harsh assessment of the depth of his pathological disorder by a purported MD psychiatrist (I say “purported”, because the identity of the author is hidden and therefore cannot be verified):

http://www.economicnoise.com/2012/05/02/a-psychologist-analyzes-the-president/

I don’t know enough to properly vet this article from a medical or psychiatric point of view, but enough rings true to be truly worried. We should all worry and pray for the health and well-being of Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng, for example, who was kicked out of the U.S. embassy in violation of a long history of American embassies providing sanctuary to human rights activists. Why?

The article cited above provides a clue:

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 does 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.

Sadly, Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng serves no purpose for the agenda of our narcissist in chief. He and his family, therefore, are dispensable.

In ancient Greece, narcissism was the handmaiden of hubris. It was a punishable crime, as the Greeks recognized that hubris inevitably led to destruction by nemesis. The author of the linked article worries that, should Obama be repudiated by the American people, nemesis will express itself through a backlash against African Americans, the rise of white supremacists and race wars. I disagree. I believe that we, as a people, are well beyond that.

What we do need to worry about is that a failing Obama, faced with the repudiation of his narcissistic world view by his country, will do things far more drastic to wreak revenge upon his detractors and cement his self image as the man who changed the world. Think a moment about the horrific actions of another pathological narcissist cited in the article, Jim Jones, for example.

I believe that there is a good chance that, despite widespread sabotage of the American electoral system by the Democrats, that Romney will win. What we really need to worry about is the inevitable arrival of nemesis. Let’s hope that our country’s systems of checks and balances, designed by our Founding Fathers, hold fast.

In the meantime, the rest of the world and its human rights activists have good cause to be worried. We live in dangerous times.

 

 

Is Leftism a personality disorder?

The following italicized paragraph started out as an observation I made about some ardent liberals of my acquaintance, but I’ve since decided that it applies well to the politics of the Left and the Right or, more accurately, the statist versus the individualist:

Conservatives find people to be a source of pleasure and objects to be a utilitarian resource.  Conversely, Leftists find objects to be a source of pleasure and people to be a utilitarian resource. 

The above started with something I learned long ago about autistic children.  One of the earliest indicators of autism is that autistic children don’t point to things.  Your average pre-verbal or early verbal child will point to a cup with the expectation that you, the parent, will understand that the child wants milk.  An autistic child will not make this “mind-to-mind” connection.  Instead, the child will take the parent’s hand (an object) and guide it to the cup (another object) in an effort to make the two objects work together.  (In autistic children, or at least in some autistic children, this seems to be an inability to understand communication, rather than a failure to recognize shared humanity.  Once the autistic child is given a means to communicate, he or she is fully capable of engaging at an emotional or spiritual level.)

Here’s another something I learned that also gave rise to the same thought about recognizing a shared humanity (or canine-inity) versus a utilitarian view of other life forms:  Dogs are different from monkeys when it comes to interactions with humans.  Although monkeys are genetically much closer to humans, they share no kindred feelings with us.  Dogs, however, do.  It turns out that dogs are born with the knowledge that they can communicate non-verbally with humans.  When they are puppies, they already know how to track a human’s eye movements or pointing hand in order to gather information.  And as all of us who have dogs know, dogs have incredibly high emotional intelligence.  They may be non-verbal, but they read us well, and communicate beautifully using their body language.

Monkeys, however, although they are our genetic cousins, do not see humans in a communicative way, and therefore ignore humans entirely.  If a human stands before two boxes, one of which has a treat, and then points to the box with the treat, the monkey will ignore that gesture entirely, while a dog will soon be munching happily away on the goodie.

(Cats, of course, are God-like creatures.  They can read us just fine, but they think that cat-to-human communication is demeaning, and that human-to-cat communication is unnecessary.)

And then there are people with personality disorders (narcissism, sociopathy, psychopathy, etc.).  Some years ago, I read a wonderful book called Evil Genes: Why Rome Fell, Hitler Rose, Enron Failed, and My Sister Stole My Mother’s Boyfriend, which concerned itself with the nature of personality disorders. One of my takeaways from the book was that people with personality disorders do not recognize other people’s humanity. Instead, for someone suffering from a personality disorder, other people are simply objects to be manipulated, in order to benefit the disordered person.

With all of that in mind, think about the way in which Leftists view people:  people are “interest groups,” “victim classes,” “identity groups,” “racial groups,” etc.  There are no individuals in liberal-land.  There are political classes that can be manipulated to achieve Leftist goals.  Those who refuse to be objectified in this way (usually conservative minorities) are savagely attacked for leaving the object group.  That’s not how conservatives roll.

Likewise, Leftists are convinced that salvation lies in objects:  electric cars, solar panels, smart grids, etc.  Objects become objects of worship, shrines before which we lay our wealth, while de-personalized groups of humans are co-opted to serve these Gods.

Am I nuts or am I on to something?

A thought to chew over regarding our President

I believe Obama is a textbook narcissist — probably malignantly so. The easiest way to think about a narcissist is to understand that each one of them is his own God. Theirs is binary world, with acolytes and enemies. They never lie, as non-narcissists understand a lie, because a narcissist’s truth is defined by the needs of the moment. The same is true for ordinary morality and ethics. The narcissist isn’t bound by them because he is responsible only to a higher power — himself.

Here’s something, though, that you might not have known about narcissists: they get worse as they get older, with the years after 50 seeing an acceleration, especially if the narcissist is disappointed or crossed. I call narcissism “cancer of the personality.” It’s a progressive disease (no pun intended), that gets exponentially worse with time. The difference between narcissism and actual cancer is that the latter destroys the one with the diagnosis, while the former destroys everyone else.

Just something to think about as you contemplate the possibility of an older, angry, unfettered Obama in the White House for a second term.

Barack Obama defined

(With apologies to Winston Churchill.)

The current state of rumor and innuendo about a president who has no past other than that which he grudgingly doles out, creating a tabula rasa on which we can write our own impressions, leads me to this conclusion:  Barack Obama is a bisexual riddle wrapped in a Muslim mystery inside a bipolar, narcissistic enigma!

A compendium of Obama’s narcissism

Victor Davis Hanson has put together an alphabetized list of Obama’s targets, everything from the American people generally, to black people, to grandmothers, to, of course, George Bush.  He notes correctly that this list transcends ideology or even political enemies.  In Obama’s world, few things or people measure up, and he’s not shy about telling us.  Hanson errs only insofar as he says that the laundry list cannot be attributed to Obama’s narcissism.  Au contraire, Messr. Hanson.  The laundry list is, in fact, Exhibit A in Obama’s narcissism.

Narcissists are extraordinarily well-defended people.  A child who lacks ordinary love and support (and certainly that’s true for Obama’s bizarre upbringing) compensates by being his own support system.  That’s a healthy response.  A certainly type of narcissist takes it one step further.  In order to bolster that internal support system, and constantly fill the void within him, he needs to denigrate those around him.  Only in that way can he repeatedly prove to himself the wonders of himself.  (Clinton, incidentally, was the opposite type of narcissist who needs the love of others to prove his wonderfulness; hence his obsessive womanizing.)

The pattern in Obama’s mind is simple:  The proof of my greatness is the fact that everything and everyone around me is of lesser quality than I am.  End of story.  In order to stabilize his inner demons, a Clinton will betray you, but an Obama will destroy you.  Given the choice, I’d prefer a charming rogue (i.e., Clinton) to a malevolent destroyer (i.e., Obama).

The dangers that come with Obama’s unleashing the mob, plus a side trip into Obama’s narcissism

Charles Krauthammer has one of his best articles ever, regarding Obama’s class warfare.  He notes, too, that it’s easier to unleash than to control the mob.  Here’s a sample, but I think you should read the whole thing — and then send it to people you know:

After three years, Obama’s self-proclaimed transformative social policies have yielded a desperately weak economy. What to do? Take the low road: Plutocrats are bleeding the country, and I shall rescue you from them.

Problem is, this kind of populist demagoguery is more than intellectually dishonest. It’s dangerous. Obama is opening a Pandora’s box. Popular resentment, easily stoked, is less easily controlled, especially when the basest of instincts are granted legitimacy by the nation’s leader.

Exhibit A. On Tuesday, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed punitive legislation over China’s currency. If not stopped by House Speaker John Boehner, it might have led to a trade war — a 21st-century Smoot-Hawley. Obama knows this. He has shown no appetite for a reckless tariff war. But he set the tone. Once you start hunting for villains, they can be found anywhere, particularly if they are conveniently foreign.

Exhibit B. Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin rails against Bank of America for announcing a $5 a month debit card fee. Obama echoes the opprobrium with fine denunciations of banks and their hidden fees — except that this $5 fee is not hidden. It’s perfectly transparent.

Yet here is a leading Democratic senator advocating a run on a major (and troubled) bank — after two presidents and two Congresses sunk billions of taxpayer dollars to save failing banks. Not because they were deserving or virtuous but because they are necessary. Without banks, there is no lending. Without lending, there is no business. Without business, there are no jobs.

Exhibit C. To the villainy-of-the-rich theme emanating from Washington, a child is born: Occupy Wall Street. Starbucks-sipping, Levi’s-clad, iPhone-clutching protesters denounce corporate America even as they weep for Steve Jobs, corporate titan, billionaire eight times over.

These indignant indolents saddled with their $50,000 student loans and English degrees have decided that their lack of gainful employment is rooted in the malice of the millionaires on whose homes they are now marching — to the applause of Democrats suffering acute Tea Party envy and now salivating at the energy these big-government anarchists will presumably give their cause.

Except that the real Tea Party actually had a program — less government, less regulation, less taxation, less debt. What’s the Occupy Wall Street program? Eat the rich.

Speaking of Obama, it will be interesting to see how he ultimately handles this Iran thing.  Right now, he’s framing it as a low level insult to America, and he couldn’t care less.  My bet is that, if he can be made to see that it is a direct attack on himself, he will come out frothing blood, because the only thing Obama will defend is his own ego.  As to that, let me repost here the telling anecdote that Mike Devx found (emphasis mine):

In June 2002, during a budget crisis in Illinois, a state senator from Chicago’s West Side, Rickey Hendon, made a desperate plea for a child-welfare facility in his constituency to be spared the axe. A junior senator from Chicago’s South Side, Barack Obama, voted against him, insisting hard times call for hard choices.

Ten minutes later Obama rose, calling for a similar project in his own constituency to be spared, and for compassion and understanding. Hendon was livid and challenged Obama on his double standards from the senate floor. Obama became livid too. As Hendon has told it, Obama approached him, “stuck his jagged, strained face into my space“, and said: “You embarrassed me on the senate floor and if you ever do it again I will kick your ass.”

“What?” said an incredulous Hendon.

“You heard me,” Obama said. “And if you come back here by the telephones where the press can’t see it, I will kick your ass right now.”

The two men vacated the senate floor and, depending on whom you believe, either traded blows or came close to it.

Obama is a malignant narcissist.  Malignant narcissists will fight for what they care about — but the only thing they care about is themselves.