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…


PUTIN: Russia Will Help Syria If USA Attacks…

Orders Pentagon to expand target list…


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.


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):


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.

The narcissistic delusions of Leftists *UPDATED*

Can I say that an entire political ideology is narcissistic?  Because I’d really like to say that about Leftism, a political movement that sometimes seems like the textbook definition of narcissism.  Although the DSM is a highly political book, it’s still the starting point for any diagnosis of narcissism:

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders fourth edition, DSM IV-TR, a widely used manual for diagnosing mental disorders, defines narcissistic personality disorder (in Axis II Cluster B) as:[1]

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 five (or more) of the following:

  1. Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
  2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
  3. Believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
  4. Requires excessive admiration
  5. Has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
  6. Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
  7. Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
  8. Is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her
  9. Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

Doesn’t the above list make you think of behavior patterns on the Left?  Here, let me walk you through it:

“Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements).”  Think of the Left’s Obama hagiography.  He was the embodiment of all that was Left.  Despite the lack of any proof, such as grades or real world accomplishments, we were assured that Obama was the most brilliant, successful, competent person ever to grace the Oval Office.  Even now, as Obama’s initiatives inspire visceral dislike in the American people, who are not better of now than they were four years ago, Obama and his crew routinely chastise the American people for failing to recognize his greatness.  We are routinely told that any failures occuring under the Left’s  governance lie, not with the Left itself, but with the idiocy of the American people.

“Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.”  See above.  Also, check out Obama’s “ocean rising” speech, back in 2008, which speaks both to Obama’s own messiah fantasies and to the entire Leftist belief in its world-changing powers.

“Believes that he or she is ‘special’ and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions).”  Again, see above.  Obama’s vacation is also emblematic of this particular facet of narcissistic personality disorder.  If you’ve been following Obama’s most recent vacation, you’ll see that he has eschewed the prosaic Camp David or, God forbid, a working vacation such as those Bush enjoyed at his ranch.  He stays in luxury, socializes only with the self-proclaimed (and wealthiest) elite, and generally distances himself from the hoi polloi.  Michelle Antoinette shares his expensive tastes.  Both justify their conduct on the ground that they deserve this treatment and can only be comfortable (i.e., relax and get away from it all) when surrounded by “the best.”

“Requires excessive admiration.”  And again, you can look to the above for evidence of this requirement.  Fundamentally, whether speaking of grandiosity, fantasies of success, a sense of uniqueness or the uncreasing demand for admiration, one can can see that they’re all slightly differently stated sides of the same coin.  The Narcissist is his own God, and needs others constantly to remind him of the truth of this theology.

“Has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations.”  Ditto.

“Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends.”  There is no better example of this than the way the Left uses minorities, especially blacks, to justify its big government fetish.  This is true whether we’re talking about (a) Jim Crow busily trampling blacks civil rights (because Jim Crow was big government directed at explicitly racist ends) or about (b) the current welfare society that emasculates black men and generally infantilizes the entire black community by preventing its members from becoming independent adults.

“Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others.”  The best illustration I can think of this is the whole “civility” debate that’s sprung up recently.  In the Leftist world, civility is entirely a one way street.  Those who are not Leftists are not allowed to speak critically of the Left (or its individual members).  However, on the Left, there is no such thing as incivility.  There is only speaking the truth about the evil that is conservativism.  This is why expressions such as “tea bagging” become common currency on the Left, and Maxine Waters vile and vulgar statements go unremarked.

“Is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her.”  The nature of Leftism is envy.  It is a political doctrine based entirely on making sure that the other guy doesn’t have more than you have.

“Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes.” — Barack Obama is Exhibit A.  And Exhibit B.  And Exhibit C, ad infinitum.  However, if you think I’ve over-used Obama to make my point here, feel free to substitute Janeane Garofalo, or Keith Olbermann, or Ed Schultz, or most of Hollywood or [you fill in the blank].

The above is not to say that the conservative side of the spectrum doesn’t have its own pathologies.  I’m just arguing that a pervasive narcissism characterizes the Left.

It might help here if I explained what triggered this whole line of thinking in the first place.  I happen to know, pretty well, a couple of narcissists.  I recently had an insight about them:  narcissists are unable to distinguish between facts, opinions and morality.  A narcissist’s opinions and understanding become the only standard, rendering inoperative such things as objective and subjective thought or debatable moral issues.

For example, while I, a non-narcissist, might say that, having sampled all the french fries in the region, I like McDonald’s fries best, a narcissist will say that McDonald’s fries are the best.  The narcissist cannot contemplate the possibility that his preferences are not objective fact. This is why all discussions with narcissists quickly devolve into name calling — or, more accurately, end with the narcissist calling you names.

Since there is only one truth — the narcissist’s — you, by expressing contary opinions, are actually challenging his status as a God head  As I said above, the narcissist is his own God, and needs others constantly to remind him of the truth of this theology.  When you differ from the narcissist, you have shown yourself to be a heretic.  Auto da fé being unavailable, ad hominem attacks are the only thing left in the narcissist’s arsenal.

So yes, I’ve convinced myself that the Left is, collectively, a political movement suffering from narcissistic personality disorder.  What do you think?

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

The Bookworm Turns : A Secret Conservative in Liberal Land, available in e-format for the new low price of $2.99 at Amazon, Smashwords or through your iBook app.

UPDATE:  I’m not the only one struck by Leftist delusions.  My friend Garry is thinking along similar lines.

Obama’s self love *UPDATED*

Yesterday, the blogosphere was abuzz with Arkansas Rep. Marion Berry’s story about Barack Obama’s assurance to him that the Democrats wouldn’t have to follow Bill Clinton’s 1994 model and pull to the center.  Why not?  Because, said Obama, “the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.“  I was not at all surprised to read that Obama said that.  As I’ve written consistently from the beginning, Obama is not a mere narcissist, he’s a malignant narcissist.

Unlike Bill Clinton, who wanted desperately to be loved, and would do anything to maintain that love, including abandoning his more extreme political beliefs, Obama has found his great love already:  himself.  Those around him, unless they genuflect to him, are knaves, fools, parasites and enemies.  It is almost impossible for him to accommodate himself to them, because he so deeply disrespects them.  There’s room in Obama’s life for only one successful person, and that is Obama.  Anyone else’s success is a threat and must immediately be countered and destroyed.

What did surprise me, though, was the fact that the image every single conservative site used to illustrate the Marion Berry story came, not from a clever photoshopper (as I had first supposed), but from the White House’s own flickr site.  Here’s the photo:

Here we have the most narcissistic president ever, and his people couldn’t resist including in their official photos the quintessential narcissist pose.  Compare that photograph with this classic image from Michelangelo:


If the White House wasn’t aware of the comparisons that are routinely drawn between Obama and Narcissus, it should have been.  Google “Obama Narcissus” and you get 67,900 results.  Google “Obama Narcissist” and you get 143,000 1.46 million results.*  The more rarefied search of “Obama malignant narcissist” still yields 37,500 results (and, I hasten to add, not all of those 37,500 results are to my own posts about the man).  People are noticing that Obama’s self-regard is transcendent.

I’ve been thinking back on my posts about Obama’s malignant narcissism, and I have to give myself credit for accurately predicting the man’s behavior.  In July 2008, I took on Obama’s little habit of lying, something that’s been on display most recently when he issued a bald-faced denial that he had anything to do with the White House negotiated deal giving unions a free pass on their Cadillac plans, while passing those costs on to every other working stiff.  I predicted precisely that behavior when I said:

[T]he malignant narcissist has only one truth:  his immediate needs.  Everything else subordinates itself to those needs.  The narcissist, therefore, at any given moment, will convince himself that the facts surrounding him, and the history backing him, are completely congruent with his need right now.  He is his own moral compass, he is the truth, the way and the light.

Back in August 2008, when the Obamabots mounted an attack on Stanley Kurtz for having the temerity to investigate Obama’s role in the Annenberg Challenge, I pointed out that, when narcissists debate, their own needs and feelings are always ground zero in the discussion — and I added that Obama had so far shown that this was his preferred style of debate:

[Obama] has a staggering level of self-involvement that has him seeing himself as the center of the universe and with everything revolving around him.  In his own mind, he’s better than everyone else and (unsurprisingly, given their inevitable jealously and small-mindedness about his extraordinary virtues) everyone is evil and out to get him.


What you notice very quickly in arguing with a narcissist is that facts are entirely irrelevant. The substantive matter at issue . . . is entirely irrelevant. All that matters is that you are impinging on the narcissist’s comfort level. From that point on, everything devolves into pure attack mode. And since the narcissist lives in a world characterized by his immediate needs and concerns, in his own mind, he never tells a lie. [snip]  (For more on this topic and the narcissist’s bizarre, self-referential reality, read that enjoyable book Evil Genes: Why Rome Fell, Hitler Rose, Enron Failed, and My Sister Stole My Mother’s Boyfriend.)

This self-referential, egotistical quality may explain what commentators Left and Right are noticing, which is that Obama is not only self-involved, but abnormally defensive.  Even when he purports to take the blame for a situation, it always circles back around to being someone else’s fault.

And then of course, we wrap back to the man’s staggering sense of his own wonderfulness, beautifully captured in a photograph that sees President Obama, failing to join in a salute to our nation and our flag and, instead, demurely stepping back to bathe in what he perceives as his inferior’s appropriate worship.  [UPDATE:  A commenter advised me that the photo I linked to was taken when the band was playing "Hail to the Chief."  If that is true, it makes sense that the military was saluting, but makes no sense that the civilians had their hands on their heart.  Be that as it may, let me insert here another photo that makes a similar point:


No matter how you slice it, Obama seems loath to go through the ordinary motions.]

I hate to say I told you so, but I guess I can say it here, because we’ve all been telling each other the same thing:  Obama’s self-regard is far in excess of his actual abilities.  He loves himself with an unending passion — one that, if flickr is any indication, his acolytes reflect back to him — and this passion will prevent him from ever making the series course corrections necessary to save his presidency or help his country.  Sure, he’ll make itty-bitty teeny moves, such as a meaningless spending freeze, but that’s only because he thinks that doing so will buy off the dumb masses.  But in terms of big changes — uh-uh, it ain’t going to happen.  He’s smart, we’re dumb; he’s right, we’re wrong; and he will force us to his viewpoint if it’s the last thing he does, because his viewpoint is the only one that matters.

As a wrap-up, here’s a short video that tells you everything you need to know about Mr. President:


*Interesting about the googling thing, which I’ve updated (thanks c0lorless.blue.ideas).  I thoughtlessly used “google” as a verb.  What I actually did, though, was a Bing search.  A true Google search yielded many more hits, as you can see.  I suspect, though, that the Bing hits were more accurate, which is something I’ve discovered about Bing in the months I’ve used it.

Islam, the control freak religion — or, rule by narcissists

I’ve come to the conclusion that there are two types of control freaks in this world:  those who prize self-control and those who try to control others.  I fall in the former category.  I often fall short of the mark, but I consider myself a self-improvement work in progress.  I may drive myself crazy, but I seldom visit my own obsessions onto others or, if I do so, it only tangentially affects them.

And then there are those who live to exercise control over others.  These people go beyond merely being bossy.  Their sense of self is defined by their ability to bend others to their will.  Whether polite or crude, they are bullies.  I’ve worked and lived with people in this latter category, and I can tell you a lot about them.

The primary characteristic they all share is that they fall neatly within the clinical definition of a narcissist:

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 five (or more) of the following:

  1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
  2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
  3. believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
  4. requires excessive admiration
  5. has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
  6. is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
  7. lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
  8. is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her
  9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

It is also a requirement of DSM-IV that a diagnosis of any specific personality disorder also satisfies a set of general personality disorder criteria.

I’ve long suspected, having dealt with narcissists, that many of their control issues arise because of their own sense that they are out of control.  Because they have no inner sense of self, they have no strong internal guides to help them understand what to do or say in a given situation.  By forcefully controlling those around them, they create a reality in which their behavior is normative.  He’s not a bully; his wife has just been forcefully directed into being appropriately submissive.  She’s not arrogant; it’s just that everyone has been sufficiently cowed into respecting her wonderfulness.  Other people aren’t humans with feelings.  Instead, they are chess pieces the narcissist moves around to feed his grandiosity, fill his emptiness, and put him at the center of a universe in which his behavior is appropriate, and everyone else can be derided as pathetic, abnormal and inferior.

In the paragraphs above, I’ve described individuals, but it occurs to me that the entire Islamic faith, when taken to its logical extremes (as so many individuals and nations do), is a religion of complete narcissism.  Just look at the 10 steps of narcissism as set out in the DSM-IV, and watch how beautifully the same factors mesh with Islam:

1.  has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements) — We are routinely told that Islam is the one and only religion before which all nations and people must eventually bow.  There is no room for pluralism in Islam.  Islam seeks its rightful place of world dominance.

2.  is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love — See above.  Despite the fact that the nations that are predominantly Muslim are usually Third World nations, with only a few raised above that heap through the wonders of oil money, Islamists are certain that they represent the perfect fulfillment of human destiny, and that others will be grateful for the bomb, sword or WMD that bring them within the fold.

3.  believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions) — Ditto.

4.  requires excessive admiration — Islam is the only modern religion that prohibits any criticism.  We’ve seen this played out time and time again.  The first time the Western world became aware of this trait was when the fatwa was issued against Salman Rushdie.  We managed to forget about that until the Danish cartoons made us aware, again, that Islam cannot be criticized.  And of course, the UN, with the Obami’s complicity, is moving towards enacting a proposal that forbids the denigration of any religion.  We know, of course, that means that the UN will act to suppress any anti-Islamic speech around the world.  Anti-anything else speech will be conveniently ignored, with antisemitic speech continuing to be wildly encouraged.

5.  has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations — If there’s one thing we’ve seen over and over again in the past few years, it’s the endless demands from Islamists, demands that are aimed at elevating that faith, and its practitioners, above all others.  Taxi drivers refusing to take people carrying alcohol; universities pressured to remodel their bathrooms and pray rooms; nations (that would be England) urged to rejigger their “offensive” national flags; pigs, including Piglet and other pig images, forced out of the public eye; ice cream containers redacted.  The list of demands is endless.  And lest you think that these demands are appropriate in a religiously tolerant culture, I’d like you to give me examples of other non-dominant religions that make the similar demands on the majority culture.

6.  is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends — One word:  Iran.

7.  lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others — I really don’t know quite how to write about this as a separate category of Islamic behavior.  The fact that Islam has absolutely no room for other faiths, however, and it’s fanatic desire to destroy all other cultures, is itself indicative of any sense of empathy.   Multiculturalism, of course, has become a sickness in the opposite direction, with the western world so empathetic to other cultures that it’s learned to loath its own.

8.  is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her — One phrase:  9/11

9.  shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes — I think being called dogs, swine, pigs, apes, apostates, etc., is pretty much evidence of arrogance on the part of the Islamists.

The one other aspect of Islam that, to me, is the dead giveaway that it is a control freak, narcissist religion, is its attitude towards women.  Islam doesn’t hate women, as so many believe.  It fears women.  Women have the ability to destroy a man’s self-control, which is anathema to the control-freak narcissist.  He wants to be in charge.  He wants to manipulate.  He wants to dominate and direct.  But when a woman enters the picture, he fears that his intense response to her sexuality will destroy his fragile self control.  He will be a slave to his passions.  And, because he is a narcissist, instead of controlling his passions, the Islamist seeks to control the threat:

Islam doesn’t attack sexuality in itself, but rather women’s potential for exercising total power over men. In Islam, sexuality is seen to have three main positive aspects: the human sexual drive ensures reproduction; it produces intellectual energy; and the sexual act itself provides the man with a foretaste of what he will experience in paradise – the eternal orgasm. On earth, however, man’s most important task is devotion to Allah. Therefore, love between man and wife is viewed as an enemy of Muslim society. Marital love can disturb the husband’s attachment to Allah.


In the view of the Somali-born Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the notion of man as an almost notoriously sexual animal, a beast who will throw himself at any woman who is not “decently” covered in public, is essential to an understanding the stagnation of the Muslim world and of the immense problems with integrating Muslims in Europe. As Hirsi Ali points out, Islam places all sexual morality on the woman’s shoulders. From a very early age, she notes, girls are viewed with suspicion and learn that they are untrustworthy creatures who represent a potential danger to their extended families – for there is, in them, something that makes men lose their minds.


The most extreme form of biological sexual control of women is genital mutilation. Many people claim that genital mutilation has nothing to do with Islam. This is untrue. Muhammad issued a blanket prohibition against eating pork. But he did not forbid genital mutilation. Instead he encouraged his followers not to perform the most radical form of mutilation, telling them in his sunna not to “overdo it.” Thus we have the practice known as “sunna circumcision.” Today, Muhammad’s statements continue to be cited in support of the tradition. According to the shafi school of Islamic law, which is followed by Somalis (among others), it is an obligation to “circumcise” girls. This rule, naturally, has consequences for Muslim girls throughout the Western world today.

Whether one is talking about the individual wife-beating bully, who compensates for the emptiness in side by controlling and destroying those around him, or the entire extreme end of the Islamic faith, which compensates for its sense of inadequacy (since it is, after all, nothing more than a derivative, desert religion) by seeking to control and destroy the non-Muslim world (and all of the women in it), the patterns are identical, aren’t they?  Depressing too.

And what’s even more depressing is that, as with other personality disorders, narcissism is almost impossible to treat.  Because it’s a behavior that is comprised entirely of defensive protection (a defensiveness that often leads to aggressive acts), the narcissist cannot be convinced that change is necessary.  Every correction is met with a huge outburst of hostility and even more attempts at outer-directed control.  Only when the narcissist hits rock bottom, when all the defensive behaviors collapse (as happens when the substance-abusing narcissist is destroyed by his addictions), will the narcissist contemplate changed behaviors.

If we could take away the props that give the Islamic world the illusion of power through which it can exercise its need for control, we would have a much better ability to correct its most extreme and destructive behaviors.  And of course, the prop upon which it most relies, is oil money.  To allow drilling on American land would devastate the Islamist’s sense of and drive for dominance, since Saudi Arabia’s and Iran’s theocratic governments, which are almost entirely funded by the West, would collapse.

It isn’t hard to predict a narcissist’s behavior

On October 22, 2008, I wrote this:

The MSM has been remarkably cavalier about Joe Biden’s bizarre statement regarding the “fact” that America will be attacked six months into a Barack Obama presidency and that people will be shocked and disappointed by Obama’s response (meaning that he’ll either collapse in a sobbing heap, thereby horrifying most Americans, or launch a nuclear missile strike, which will alienate his base).

The sobbing heap is well hidden from public view, but the collapse is obvious:

President Barack Obama does not plan to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government, a senior administration official said Wednesday.

(See also Hot Air.)

Narcissists have no strong inner sense of self.  Instead, they have just a gaping hole of inadequacy.  They compensate by elevating to staggering levels of importance the way in which others view them.  Other people’s perceptions provide their mirror.  Think about this for a moment:  I bet you know who you are and what you stand for.  If you think you’re a good or smart person, the fact that your wife is 10 pounds overweight or your husband has a stutter is irrelevant to your sense of self.  For a narcissist, the spouse’s “failings” indicate to everyone that the narcissist is a loser.  Remember, he has no inner guide to his own qualities.  Despite (or because of) this internal emptiness, narcissists are obsessed with hierarchy, and with the need to remind themselves, and everyone else, that they are on the top of the heap.  It’s the low self-esteem of the exceptionally arrogant person.

Clinton was a narcissist who filled the emptiness with female adulation.  His little brain was ticking away with “I’m a charming stud.  I’m a charming stud.”

Obama’s little brain says “Everyone can see I’m a genius.  Everyone can see I’m a genius.”  The problem with that definition, of course, is that it’s unanchored to moral beliefs or values or guiding principles or anything else decent and internalized.  It’s a standard measured only by other people’s praise.  The problem with this external measurement, of course, is that if you make a mistake the praise goes away.  Narcissists cannot afford mistakes.  And the best way to avoid a mistake is not to make a decision.  And there you have it.  Obama is being tested, and he cannot afford, because of his own self-image, to make a decision that might be wrong.  So he does nothing at all, while the Taliban burnishes its strength, and our troops die.

I know I miss Bush, but I never thought I’d miss Clinton.  The one had values, and was willing to make decisions, even if they were wrong; and the other, at least, had charm.  All Obama has is a scarily impassive arrogance that may yet be the death of us.

Anorexic and narcissistic? Our president’s a walking DSM.

Yes, that is a mean post caption, but I wanted to capture your attention.  First, I truly believe that Barack Obama is a clinical narcissist.  This is something I’ve been saying for over a year, and more and more people are starting to chime in.  I know narcissists first hand, so I know one when I see when — and he is one.  But an anorexic too?

Well, I don’t know about the anorexia.  Obama has certainly lost a lot of weight.  This is a new one for Americans.  Clinton went the opposite direction, bloating up periodically, while other Presidents, though they aged, retained their figures throughout their White House years.

Weight loss in a person who started out skinny is an interesting thing, since we know it’s not done for aesthetic purposes.  Instead, it usually reflects (a) stress or (b) the person’s warped sense of his or her own body.  To be honest, I doubt that Obama has that warped sense, so he’s not a classic DSM anorexic.

I do think, though, that Obama is reflecting the stress he’s under.  But why is he reacting so extremely?  Let me play amateur psychiatrist:  I think that’s he under more stress than the usual president because this whole thing is an act.  He’s not as smart as his fans think (by a long shot), and he’s totally unprepared in terms of experience for the demands of the job.  Of course, no one can be prepared for the presidency, because it’s a unique role, but one can still be practiced in the motions of being a courageous executive, and therefore able to apply those skills in varying situations.  Obama has no such skills.  He’s swimming as hard as he can, but he’s sinking fast — and he knows it.

This visible failure is a terrible blow to anybody, and especially to a narcissist.  You see, the narcissist has no strong sense of self, but is dependent for his identity on the way in which other people view him.  We are, collectively, his mirror.  Like a vampire, he has no reflection of his own.  He can only see himself through our eyes.  As his approval numbers plummet (with even his first fans growing doubtful), his sense of self collapses too.

In this regard, Obama is entirely different from George Bush, a man who weathered storms of alcoholism and failure — and who came out stronger on the other side, with a very clear sense of self and purpose.  Obama, a chimerical figure in his own mind is literally wasting away.  Without an adulatory public to invest him with a sense of self, he’s vanishing before our very eyes.

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.

Ayers’ life was a just a joyous, misunderstood frolic

I have to admit to screaming with laughter when I finally got around to Bill Ayers’ short-form autobiography for the New York Times, one that sees him classifying himself as just a joyous idealist, frolicking through the 1960s and 1970s — a Dennis the Menace for his times, all good intentions and humorously bad outcomes.  The best take-down of this inane little op-ed piece is, of course, Patterico’s satirical discovery of a similar piece from Charles Manson.  I opted here for a fisking, one that shows, I hope, that the New York Times has sunk so low that even Polly no longer wants it to line her bird cage:

I was cast in the “unrepentant terrorist” role [Perhaps he was cast in that role because he himself wrote the line.  Let me remind you of Ayers own boastful words in 2001:  ''I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ''I feel we didn't do enough.''  To most sentient beings, setting bombs to kill fellow citizens + no regrets = "unrepentant terrorist"]; I felt at times like the enemy projected onto a large screen in the “Two Minutes Hate” scene from George Orwell’s “1984,” when the faithful gathered in a frenzy of fear and loathing. [Poor baby.  Tough enough to build the bombs to kill the people, but just can't take the criticism that comes with it.]


I never killed or injured anyone. [If we're talking about personally pulling the trigger, neither did Hitler, dude.  Both in law and popular culture, though, we tend to hold the instigator responsible for the direction in which he led his troops.  Indeed, I'm willing to bet the a very little bit of digging will find Ayers calling for Nixon or Bush or Cheney to be convicted for war crimes, notwithstanding that none of them ever put a finger on the trigger.] I did join the civil rights movement in the mid-1960s, and later resisted the draft and was arrested in nonviolent demonstrations. [Well, I'm sure it's true that he was arrested in nonviolent demonstrations.  What Ayers forgets to tell credulous readers is that he was also an active participant in some of the most violent anti-War protests the 1960s had to offer:

Ayers was an active participant in Weatherman's 1969 "Days of Rage" riots in Chicago, where nearly 300 members of the organization employed guerrilla-style tactics to viciously attack police officers and civilians alike, and to destroy massive amounts of property via vandalism and arson; their objective was to further spread their anti-war, anti-American message. Reminiscing on those riots, Ayers says pridefully: "We'd ... proven that it was possible -- we didn't all die, we were still there."]

I became a full-time antiwar organizer for Students for a Democratic Society. In 1970, I co-founded the Weather Underground, an organization that was created after an accidental explosion that claimed the lives of three of our comrades in Greenwich Village. [I love how he glosses over this "accidental explosion" (there's that Dennis the Menace innocence again) as if it was just a gas main that blew, as tragically happened in my community the other day.  This particular explosion happened because Ayers and his buddies were building bombs that they intended to use to kill hundreds of people.  Here's a bit more info:

In 1970, Ayers' then-girlfriend Diana Oughton, along with Weatherman members Terry Robbins and Ted Gold, were killed when a bomb they were constructing exploded unexpectedly. That bomb had been intended for detonation at a dance that was to be attended by army soldiers at Fort Dix, New Jersey. Hundreds of lives could have been lost had the plan been successfully executed. Ayers attested that the bomb would have done serious damage, "tearing through windows and walls and, yes, people too."

In other words, when Ayers, in the very next sentence, speaks about the WU placing "small bombs in empty" offices, that's simply because these WU clowns were, thank God, too inept to carry out their intended level of murderous mayhem.]

The Weather Underground went on to take responsibility for placing several small bombs in empty offices — the ones at the Pentagon and the United States Capitol were the most notorious — as an illegal and unpopular war consumed the nation.

The Weather Underground crossed lines of legality, of propriety and perhaps even of common sense. Our effectiveness can be — and still is being — debated. We did carry out symbolic acts of extreme vandalism directed at monuments to war and racism, and the attacks on property, never on people, were meant to respect human life and convey outrage and determination to end the Vietnam war.  ["Extreme vandalism": More than thirty actual, not merely attempted bombings, aimed at the federal infrastructure, not to mention the intent to kill hundreds of military men and civilians.  I think even Bill Clinton would be impressed by this misuse of language.  As for the "attacks on property, never on people, [that] were meant to respect human life,” we know this for the outright lie it is.]

Peaceful protests had failed to stop the war. So we issued a screaming response. But it was not terrorism; we were not engaged in a campaign to kill and injure people indiscriminately, spreading fear and suffering for political ends.  [Let me repeat:

In 1970, Ayers' then-girlfriend Diana Oughton, along with Weatherman members Terry Robbins and Ted Gold, were killed when a bomb they were constructing exploded unexpectedly. That bomb had been intended for detonation at a dance that was to be attended by army soldiers at Fort Dix, New Jersey. Hundreds of lives could have been lost had the plan been successfully executed. Ayers attested that the bomb would have done serious damage, "tearing through windows and walls and, yes, people too."]

I cannot imagine engaging in actions of that kind today. [Another lie. Again, let me repeat:  ''I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ''I feel we didn't do enough.'' ]


The dishonesty of the narrative about Mr. Obama during the campaign went a step further with its assumption that if you can place two people in the same room at the same time, or if you can show that they held a conversation, shared a cup of coffee, took the bus downtown together or had any of a thousand other associations, then you have demonstrated that they share ideas, policies, outlook, influences and, especially, responsibility for each other’s behavior. [And the man lies again.  For those who would like to take the time to research it, there's ample evidence that these two were not just nodding acquaintances at coffee parties, but had a tightly interwoven friendship that spanned many, many years.  And yes, on that record, I will assume that Obama was comfortable with Ayers' attitudes towards America and revolution, given Ayers' self-professed role as a "teacher," that Ayers did what he could to indoctrinate Obama.] There is a long and sad history of guilt by association in our political culture, and at crucial times we’ve been unable to rise above it.  [Always the McCarthy trope.  It's truly become the last refuge of a Communist.]

You’ll notice that I repeatedly used the word “lie” or some variation thereof in the above fisking.  That is actually a loaded word to use when discussing verbal emanations from a true narcissist, whether he’s comes that way by process of upbringing or political ideological, never lies in his own mind.

To the Leftist ideologue, there is no such thing as absolute truth.  Instead, there are only ideologically pure results, and the truth is whatever is necessary to achieve those results.  That’s why Leftists are such cool liars.

Contrast Nixon’s sweaty-faced lies with Obama’s cool-as-a-cucumber refutation of statements made practically minutes before.  Nixon, an old-fashioned Quaker, knew he was lying and, despite the compulsion to do so, suffered for it.  Obama and Ayers, and their buddies, never suffer pangs of conscience because truth is infinitely malleable, and “factual” statements exist only to further their goals.

In this regard, it’s worthwhile remember that sociopaths almost always pass lie detector tests.  They are functioning in their own immediate reality, and are very comfortable with the rightness of any statement that passes their lips.

The giveaway that Obama is scarily self-involved

I thought this snippet of a comment from Lulu at my post regarding Obama’s narcissism was so good it deserved to be highlighted:

McCain is not a narcissist. Can you imagine anyone gushing that “he is the one” around him or a member of the media announcing a “chill up his leg”? McCain would have cracked a joke, told them to knock it off and reminded people that he was human. The fact that Obama has never said, “Oh come off it…” but seems to bask in the praise, is in itself very telling.

Yup.  Can’t say it any better than that.

I’m not the only one who thinks Obama is a clinical narcissist

Thanks to 11B40 for leaving a link in a comment to an article called Understanding Obama : The Making of a Fuehrer.  It’s long, but it nicely covers the personality cult that has formed about Obama and the narcissistic personality at the center of the cult.  The article’s author, Ali Sina, has good reason to know how dangerous this dance of acolytes of narcissist can be, since he mentions living in Iran in the years before, during and after the revolution.

When narcissists attack

Much has been made today — and deservedly so — of the fact that the Obama campaign has tried to shut down both Stanley Kurtz’s investigations into his work on Chicago’s Annenberg Challenge with Bill Ayers and to silence any discussion about the results of those investigations.  When the Obama campaign heard that Kurtz would be on a rather scholarly sounding Chicago radio talk show, it sent out an emergency email to rouse the troops to action.  The introductory text spelled out just how serious the threat to the Messiah was:

“WGN radio is giving right-wing hatchet man Stanley Kurtz a forum to air his baseless, fear-mongering terrorist smears,” Obama’s campaign wrote in an e-mail to supporters. “He’s currently scheduled to spend a solid two-hour block from 9:00 to 11:00 p.m. pushing lies, distortions, and manipulations about Barack and University of Illinois professor William Ayers.”

Once the troops were stirred into a frenzy, the Obama team told them what to do (make a call to the radio show) and what to say.  Here are the talking points:

Then report back on your call and sign up for the Obama Action Wire using the form to the right.

The Facts on Barack and William Ayers:

  • William Ayers was involved with the Weather Underground when Barack Obama was eight years old, and Barack has roundly condemned their actions.
  • Last night on Fox News, Kurtz tried to radicalize an education reform program in Chicago called the Annenberg Challenge. The Challenge was funded by Republican Walter Annenberg, introduced by Mayor Daley and Republican Governor Jim Edgar, and one of its initiatives was even praised by John McCain.
  • Kurtz claimed on Fox News that William Ayers recruited Obama to the Annenberg Challenge — a flat out lie. Ayers did not serve on the board of the Challenge, and he had nothing to do with Barack’s recruitment.

Tips for making your call:

  • Be honest, but be civil.
  • Be persistent. It may take a few attempts to get through to the show. Just keep trying. Your call is important.
  • Use the talking points above to help you speak confidently and concisely.

You’ll notice that the facts have absolutely nothing to do with the information Kurtz is investigating based on contemporaneous documentary evidence, which is Obama’s conduct while on the Annenberg Challenge and his relationship with Ayers during that same period. Instead, “the facts” are entirely conclusory:  Kurtz lied.  End of story.  Or, rather, that’s Obama’s story and he’s sticking to it.

The call to action worked.  Incensed Obama fans inundated the radio station with phone calls, something quite unusual for this normally staid show.  Guy Benson, who was coincidentally in the studio at the time the calls started coming, describes what happened next:

As I arrived at the downtown Chicago studios a few hours before show time, the phones began ringing off the hook with irate callers demanding Kurtz be axed from the program.


Why? Because, naturally, Kurtz is a “right-wing hatchet man,” a “smear merchant” and a “slimy character assassin” who is perpetrating one of the “most cynical and offensive smears ever launched against Barack.”


They jammed all five studio lines for nearly the entire show while firing off dozens of angry emails. Many vowed to kick their grievances up the food chain to station management. After 90 minutes of alleged smear peddling, Milt Rosenberg (a well-respected host whose long-form interview show has aired in Chicago for decades) opened the phone lines, and blind ignorance soon began to crackle across the AM airwaves. The overwhelming message was clear: The interview must be put to an end immediately, and the station management should prevent similar discussions from taking place.

What struck everyone on the Right who has blogged about the Obamaniac’s attack is how free of substance it was.  Benson has this to say:

One female caller, when pressed about what precisely she objected to, simply replied, “We just want it to stop!” Another angry caller was asked what “lies” Kurtz had told in any of his reporting on Barack Obama. The thoughtful response? “Everything he said is dishonest.” The same caller later refused to get into “specifics.” Another gentleman called Kurtz “the most un-American person” he’d ever heard. Several of the callers did not even know Stanley’s name, most had obviously never read a sentence of his meticulous research, and more than simply read verbatim from the Obama talking points.

One of Michelle Malkin’s readers, who heard the show as it was being aired, noted exactly the same information vacuum when it came to the attack against the radio show and against Kurtz:

The callers claimed that everything Kurtz is stating is fabricated, so Kurtz then read verbatim from the documents!

Andrew McCarthy saw precisely the same pattern in the calls — wild attacks, unbounded by any facts:

In the last few minutes, two called to scald Milt for having Stanley on without having an Obama rep on to give the counterpoint.  Milt explains, repeatedly, that he contacted the Obama campaign (he gave the name of the campaign official his producer spoke with) and the campaign — the HQ of which is about a quarter mile from the studio where the show airs — declined to come on.  They were offered the opportunity to have someone there with Stanley for the entire two hours, and they said no.

Another pro-Obama woman called and, after accusing Stanley of slander but of course not citing anything he said that was slanderous, stated, “We want it to stop.”  Milt asked what she wanted stopped, and she replied, “It’s just not what we believe as Americans.”  Milt tried again, asking what she didn’t believe.  She responded that it was someone saying bad things about Barack Obama and, again, we just want it to stop.

As you might expect, those who have commented on this frenzied attempt to silence Obama critics — an effort that started at the top with the Obama campaign itself — have noted (a) that this is typical of the Left and (b) that we can expect more of the same if a Democratic White House and a Democratic Congress are able to team together to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine (something that might have made sense in an era that boasted only three TV stations, but that is insanity in the wild market of cable TV and satellite TV, not to mention AM and FM radio).

For a couple of excellent analyses of the situation on the ground — the facts from Kurtz and the fact-free accusations from the Left — I highly recommend Cheat-Seeking Missiles’ take on the subject, Confederate Yankee’s post (complete with illustration), and the summary from the editors at National Review.

I’m going to throw one more idea into the mix, and it’s personal, not political.  I’ve blogged before about the unusual narcissism that characterizes Barack Obama.  He has a staggering level of self-involvement that has him seeing himself as the center of the universe and with everything revolving around him.  In his own mind, he’s better than everyone else and (unsurprisingly, given their inevitable jealously and small-mindedness about his extraordinary virtues) everyone is evil and out to get him.

What this mindset means (and I speak from personal experience having once had a close relationship with a narcissist) is that facts are irrelevant, everything is personal.  An argument with a narcissist will go like this:

Normal person:  Will you pick up milk from the store?

Narcissist:  Stop nagging me.

Normal person:  I’m not nagging.  I’m just asking if you can get milk from the store?

Narcissist:  You drive me crazy.  You’re just blathering on about milk.  You always do that.  I never get a moment to myself.  You’re just impossibly difficult.

Normal person:  Even if that’s true, we’re out of milk, and I won’t be home for hours.  Can you pick up milk from the store?

Narcissist:  This is all your fault you know.  If you’d been more organized, we would have had milk already (ignoring that the normal person has been out of town for a week).  You never take care of anything around the house.

And so on and so on.  What you notice very quickly in arguing with a narcissist is that facts are entirely irrelevant.  The substantive matter at issue (in the above example, the need for milk and who is best situated to get it) is entirely irrelevant.  All that matters is that you are impinging on the narcissist’s comfort level.  From that point on, everything devolves into pure attack mode.  And since the narcissist lives in a world characterized by his immediate needs and concerns, in his own mind, he never tells a lie.  Even if this is the first time you’ve ever asked him to buy milk, his statement that you always do something like that is absolutely true — because for him, if he feels pressured, once equals always.  (For more on this topic and the narcissist’s bizarre, self-referential reality, read that enjoyable book Evil Genes: Why Rome Fell, Hitler Rose, Enron Failed, and My Sister Stole My Mother’s Boyfriend.)

If I’m right about Obama’s narcissism, one that seems to attract others with the same quality, one doesn’t have to look to Leftist political ideology to explain away his and his followers’ blind determination to use bullying, fact-free force to shut down anything that impinges on his ego.  For the malignant narcissist, anything that is inconvenient, that is demanding, that is hurtful, requires, not a reasoned response, but a full throttle, all-out, battle-to-the death defense.

And since narcissists have a strong paranoid streak (it’s always everybody out to get the narcissist), the easiest full throttle attack is a personal one.  Don’t bother with facts.  Just reiterate, loudly and brutally, what an absolutely horrible person the other one is, along with a history (usually made up) of all their exceptionally horrible moments, either general or specifically with respect to the narcissist.

Sure Obama is a product of the Left, as are his followers.  But they all also display the aggressive, self-referential, paranoid behavior of classic narcissists.  I can assure you that the nation will not be happier for having such hostile, self-aggrandizing, self-pitying people in charge and, worse, out to get you.

In his own mind, things probably haven’t changed *UPDATED*

Karl Rove has written a tidy little summary of Obama’s dizzying changes on Iraq:*

Throughout 2006 and early 2007, Mr. Obama pledged to remove all U.S. troops, even voting to immediately cut off funds for the troops while they were in combat. Then, in July 2007, he started talking about leaving a residual U.S. force, in Kuwait and elsewhere in the region, able to go back into Iraq if needed.

By October, he shifted again, pledging to station the residual U.S. troops inside Iraq with two “limited missions of protecting our diplomats and carrying out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.”

Last week, writing in the New York Times, Mr. Obama changed again. He increased the missions his residual force would perform to three: “going after any remnants of al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces.” That’s not all that different from what U.S. troops are doing now.

And just how many U.S. troops would Mr. Obama leave in Iraq? Colin Kahl, an Obama adviser on Iraq, has said the senator wants to have “perhaps 60,000-80,000 forces” in Iraq by December 2010. So much for withdrawing all combat troops.

It’s dizzying. Yet, Mr. Obama acts as if he is a paradigm of consistency. He told a Georgia rally this month that “the people who say [I've been changing] apparently haven’t been listening to me.” In a PBS interview last week he said, “this notion that somehow we’ve had wild shifts in my positions is simply inaccurate.”

Compounding all this is Mr. Obama’s stubborn refusal to admit the surge was right and that he was wrong to oppose it. On MSNBC in January 2007, he said more U.S. troops would not “solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.” Later that month he said at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing that the new strategy would “not prove to be one that changes the dynamics significantly.” In fact, the surge has done far more than its advocates hoped in a much shorter period.

Yet Mr. Obama told ABC’s Terry Moran this week that even in retrospect, he would oppose the surge. He also told CBS’s Katie Couric that he had “no idea what would have happened” without the new strategy. And he still declares, in the New York Times last week, “The same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true.” Given all that has happened, it’s hard to understand how Mr. Obama can say, as he did Tuesday in a story on NBC Nightly News, that “I don’t have doubts about my ability to apply sound judgment to the major national security problems that we face.”

As you see, Rove points to the fact that Obama denies that his position ever changes — and implies that Obama knows as well as we do that this is a lie.  Given that Obama shows every sign of malignant narcissism, I’m beginning to think that, for once, Obama is speaking the truth.  You see, the malignant narcissist has only one truth:  his immediate needs.  Everything else subordinates itself to those needs.  The narcissist, therefore, at any given moment, will convince himself that the facts surrounding him, and the history backing him, are completely congruent with his need right now.  He is his own moral compass, he is the truth, the way and the light.

So when Obama told AIPAC that Jerusalem would never be divided, that was his truth at the moment, since his need was for AIPAC approval.  When he later told Palestinians that he just meant it would never be divided by ugly barbed wire, he was also speaking the truth — because he needed for the Palestinians to hear that so that they too would approve of him.  And in true narcissist fashion, he erased the past entirely.  It never happened, and no amount of video footage would prove it.  The past was inconsistent with his current sense of self and, therefore, no longer existed as an objective reality.

It’s a pretty pathetic coping mechanism when you think about it, because it reflects someone so insecure that he is incapable of dealing with his own past.  Beyond pathetic, though, it’s quite dangerous.  If a person like this is a friend or family member, he can leave you doubting yourself, and destroy completely and irrevocably your friendships and work relationships.  (Because remember, just as he is lying to you about them, he’s lying to them about you.)  The scope of damage he can commit becomes unimaginably worse when you give him leadership of the world’s most powerful nation.

Incidentally, for anyone interested in learning more about severe personality disorders, I highly recommend Barbara Oakley’s Evil Genes: Why Rome Fell, Hitler Rose, Enron Failed and My Sister Stole My Mother’s Boyfriend.


* IBD also has a good summary and editorial about Barack’s pathological refusal to admit that he was wrong on the Surge.

UPDATELarry Elder poses some hypothetical questions aimed at forcing Obama to confront his continuously updated realities.

The audacity of narcissism

Everybody’s talking about it and no wonder.  “It,” in this case, is today’s Charles Krauthammer article dissecting Obama’s staggering self-involvement and recognizably clinical narcissism.  The article is a tour de force insofar as it highlights the worst of Obama’s egotism.  I’ll help out just a little here by providing a list of the clinical signs of malignant narcissism, many of which you’ll recognize as you read Krauthammer’s article and as you think about the Obama we’ve come to know:

Malignant narcissism is a syndrome consisting of a cross breed of the narcissistic personality disorder, the antisocial personality disorder, as well as paranoid traits. The malignant narcissist differs from narcissistic personality disorder in that the malignant narcissist derives higher levels of psychological gratification from accomplishments over time (thus worsening the disorder). Because the malignant narcissist becomes more involved in this psychological gratification, they are apt to develop the antisocial, the paranoid, and the schizoid personality disorders. The term malignant is added to the term narcissist to indicate that individuals with this disorder tend to worsen in their impulse controls and desires over time. Malignant narcissism can be partially treated, with medications and therapy helping to reduce aggravating symptoms. Although narcissistic personality disorder is found in the current version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR), malignant narcissism is not. Malignant narcissism should be considered a theoretical or ‘experimental’ diagnostic category. Malignant narcissism can be comorbid with other psychological disorders not mentioned above. Malignant narcissism is not an official diagnosis, but rather a syndrome. Individuals with malignant narcissism would be diagnosed under narcissistic personality disorder.

Here are the traits you should be looking for, many of which I’ll think you’ll recognize in the Left’s newest Messiah (along with my comments):

  • Glibness/superficial charm [The liberals rave about his suave charm.]
  • Grandiose sense of self-worth [The man thinks he makes the seas rise and fall, and has gotten rich writing books about his many wonders.]
  • Pathological lying [On the subject of Obama's compulsive, self-serving lies, see this and this.]
  • Cunning/manipulative [Flip-flop, flip-flop, nuance massage.  We've seen it over and over again.]
  • Lack of remorse or guilt [Being a self-annointed God means never having to say you're sorry.]
  • Shallow affect [This one is for those of us who feel, looking at him, that there's no there, there.  Take him away from his teleprompter, and he retreats into a cipher, whose only emotion is outrage at attacks against himself.]
  • Callous/lack of empathy [The trail of broken lives in his Chicago community hints at this.]
  • Failure to accept responsibility for own actions [Obama's lies are part of his never admitting that he was wrong.]
  • Promiscuous sexual behavior  [I suspect that this exists too, but that the network around him is Kennedy-esque in its protectiveness on this point.  BTW, you saw this trait in full flower with Clinton, a mere narcissist to Obama's heightened, malignant traits.]