Narcissism and Tyranny — The Consequence of Executive Egocentrism

Tags

Narcissism, Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD)

Self Service Masquerading as Public Service
By Mark Alexander
May 31, 2012

“He that falls in love with himself will have no rivals.” –Benjamin Franklin, 1758

(Editor’s Note: Your Patriot team rolled out our new homepage this week. While the appearance changes will be obvious, there are also numerous technological upgrades. One key improvement is that reader comments are now “threaded,” which promotes meaningful dialog between fellow Patriots nationwide.)

Paraphrasing the ancient Chinese warrior Sun Tzu: To defeat your opponent you must know your opponent and know yourself.

If our generation of Patriots is to succeed in our mandate to extend the blessings of American Liberty to our posterity, then we must both know the depth of our devotion to Liberty and understand its enemies. Indeed, we must fully comprehend those adversaries beyond topical categorization by political and other affiliations.

Our nation was founded by Patriots who devoted their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to Liberty for all. They truly understood the nature of “public service” as opposed to “self service,” the former defined as the giving of oneself for the greater good as opposed to the latter defined as the taking for oneself to the detriment of anyone or anything else.

In our Republican context of governance, the spirit of public service was and remains essential for the advancement of Liberty, while the consequence of self-service has always been irrevocably linked to tyranny.

Our generation of Patriots understands this distinction, and we are steadfast in our fidelity to the higher calling of Liberty. However, this fraternity of dedicated Patriots has always been, and will likely always be, in the minority — which is to say we must each resolve to give our all. As often noted, Samuel Adams wrote, “It does not take a majority to prevail … but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”

In the generations since our founding, Liberty has suffered excessive insult by the rise of men who, under the banner of “public service,” are motivated principally by self service — and the greater the drive toward self service, the greater the threat to Liberty.

Recent history records the ascension of politicians who were incontrovertibly motivated by self service masquerading as public service — Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Albert Gore, John Kerry and John Edwards, to name a few. All of these men share tragic family histories, which indelibly imprinted them from birth. Each also has a common diagnosis for his behavior: Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD).

Post Your Opinion: Why is NPD epidemic among Leftists?

Understanding this pathology is key to defeating our opponents who manifest it.

By definition, narcissists are deeply insecure and, consequently, have an unrelenting need to be admired by others. Their low self-esteem is often imprinted from early childhood, and for many it is associated with ineffective fathering or worse, parental abandonment. Narcissists have a grandiose sense of self and of entitlement, and they have an excessive dependence upon others for self-definition and self-esteem regulation. Though they may project an image of great confidence, it is nothing more than arrogance pretending to be confidence in a cover-up of their insecurity….READ MORE

Advertisement

Al Qaeda’s “Final Trap” in Yemen: Costly Demise Planned for U.S.

Tags

al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), Saudi Arabia, Yemen

Al Qaeda’s attack on Yemen’s capital, Sana, this week is a graphic demonstration that its franchise in Arabia is getting more dangerous, benefiting from the weakness of the Yemeni state. The U.S. is putting pressure on the jihadi network like never before, but al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) remains determined to strike us at home to drag us ever deeper into another quagmire in the Middle East.

The suicide bombing on Monday in Sana was the deadliest attack AQAP has ever carried out. It comes as government forces are trying to recover lost territory in southern Yemen that al Qaeda has seized since the Arab Spring came to Yemen a year ago. AQAP using a cover name, Ansar al Sharia, has set up seven so-called emirates in southern Yemen in the last year where it can recruit, train, and prepare its fighters and suicide bombers to strike at home and abroad. AQAP even controls some neighborhoods in Aden, the south’s largest city and port. President Obama is rightly trying to put the Arabian Humpty Dumpty back together again in Yemen so Yemeni forces will be able to disrupt, dismantle, and destroy AQAP. It’s an ambitious strategy.

Central to any chance of success for America in Yemen is close cooperation with Saudi Arabia, the rich big brother next door that most Yemenis resent. Any hope of rebuilding a stable central government will require massive amounts of Saudi aid—and this week the Saudis pledged $3.2 billion in new assistance. The joint U.S.-Saudi intelligence operation that foiled al Qaeda’s latest plan to blow up an airliner en route to America was a significant success in the now-12-year-old battle with al Qaeda in Yemen. AQAP also announced the May 6 death (by drone attack) of the airline-bomb plot’s operational mastermind, Shaykh Fahd al Quso al Awlaqi, one of the brains behind the 2000 attack on the USS Cole in Aden and the successor to the New Mexico-born Anwar al Awlaqi, who was also killed in a drone attack last year.

These successes should not obscure the fact that AQAP remains determined to carry out attacks in the United States. Three times in three years—Christmas 2009, October 2010, and now May 2012—AQAP has tried to blow up aircraft in America’s skies. Because the bomb maker Ibrahim al Asiri, who produces these weapons , remains alive and has trained a cadre of understudies in his workshops, we can assume they will try again. AQAP brags that it has already hurt America more than once. AQAP claims al Anwar Awlaki inspired the Fort Hood attack in 2009….MORE HERE

Panetta: India a key partner from Afghanistan to Asia-Pacific

By JENNIFER HLAD
Stars and Stripes
Published: June 5, 2012

NEW DELHI — In meetings with the prime minister and national security adviser, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta stressed the importance of a partnership with India both for ongoing efforts in Afghanistan and for the United States’ new focus on security in the Asia-Pacific region.

Panetta arrived in India on Tuesday afternoon after meeting with Vietnamese military leaders in Hanoi.

“Secretary Panetta underscored the link India plays between East and West Asia and how the United States views India as a net provider of security from the Indian Ocean to Afghanistan and beyond,” acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs George Little said.

After meeting with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Indian National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon on Tuesday, Panetta will visit with the Indian Defense Minister A.K. Antony on Wednesday and deliver a policy speech at India’s oldest think tank.
Economic development has been the main thrust of India’s role in Afghanistan, with an investment of about $2 billion, defense officials said Tuesday.

The Pentagon welcomes increased economic development, and, while the U.S. “doesn’t necessarily envision a role of the Indian military in Afghanistan,” the Indian military police could provide training for Afghan forces as they move forward, a senior defense official speaking on background said.

The relationship between India and the United States has improved and expanded dramatically since 2001, when the U.S. lifted economic sanctions it had placed on India in 1998 for performing underground nuclear tests. For example, the U.S. has sold about $8.5 billion worth of military arms to India in the last 11 years, according to defense officials, and the American military now performs several joint military exercises with India.

hladj@stripes.osd.mil
Twitter: @jhlad

Reid Is Bouncing an Important Check

Tags

Federalist #10

via The Foundry
by Rich Tucker

It seems odd to note this in an election year, but it’s important nonetheless: The Founding Fathers feared unbridled, direct democracy. The Senate is supposed to slow down the legislative process by allowing vigorous debate. But Majority Leader Harry Reid (D–NV) is weakening its purpose by blocking other Senators from participating in that debate.

In Federalist #10, James Madison wrote that “democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

So while they wanted the people to govern themselves through a republic, the Founders wanted to guarantee that the process would include rigorous debate. To help facilitate that, the constitutional republic they created established two houses of Congress.

Because every House member stood for election every two years, that body tended to move more quickly. So the Founders wanted the Senate to be more deliberative. Madison “explained that the Constitution’s framers considered the Senate to be the great ‘anchor’ of the government. To the framers themselves, Madison explained that the Senate would be a ‘necessary fence’ against the ‘fickleness and passion’ that tended to influence the attitudes of the general public and members of the House of Representatives,” as the Senate’s history puts it.

But in a new Heritage paper, Brian Darling warns that this important check is being lost. “The United States Senate is becoming less open and deliberative because Senators’ right to debate and offer amendments has been severely restricted,” Darling writes. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D–NV) “has made a habit of using a procedural tactic called ‘filling the amendment tree’ to block amendments to bills. He has employed this tactic more than 50 times during his more than five years as Majority Leader to prevent the minority party from forcing votes on politically charged amendments.”

“Filling the tree,” Darling explains, “involves the Senate Majority Leader using his privilege of being recognized first to offer amendment after amendment to block all other amendments to a bill.” Other Senators are effectively blocked from the amendment process.

Darling warns that “over the past few years, the Senate has changed from a body with all 100 Senators participating to a body that is tightly controlled by the Senate Majority Leader. This development is disturbing because it has restricted the rights of Senators—Democrats, Republicans, and independents—to participate fully in the deliberative process.”

He recommends that Senators either adopt a point of order that would prevent Reid from “filling the tree” or that Reid simply agree to stop doing so. Either way, Darling writes, the Senate needs to change course if it is to fulfill the Founders’ intentions and remain a forum for vigorous debate.