(This post has been updated/edited a few times since May of 2017)
My first comment is that the Left weaponizes and diminishes what it “leaches” on to. Second, here is the modern issue put forward by Dr. John Gartner, PH.D., Psychologist and author. Yes, he is “shopping” his book:
PSYCHOLOGY TODAY has a mediocre article… even though they get it wrong… but I liked this part:
…The Goldwater Rule is as valid as ever, insists Steven Berglas, a Los Angeles psychologist and executive coach and consultant. What’s more, he says, Gartner’s petition is a flagrant misuse of the DSM. “You cannot discern from public behavior whether a person’s behavior represents an authentic personality style or is choreographed.” How do we know, he asks, that Trump isn’t “throwing paint balls at the wall, creating chaos so that he can dial it down later to get what he wants.” In fact, he points out, the President seems to be behaving quite rationally in that he is fulfilling his campaign promises.
“I specialize in narcissists, says Berglas. “Many effective leaders are narcissists. Diagnosis is not a cudgel to be tossed around in anger.” And in fact, he believes that doing so is a disservice to the field. The DSM is meant to guide treatment and referrals, and it loses value when it is applied to diagnosis at a distance. He thinks the DSM should come with a warning label: Don’t use this at home.
Calling Gartner’s petition “a temper tantrum,” Berglas insists that keeping out terrorists the wrong way does not warrant calling Trump mentally ill. And the fact that Donald Trump mocked a reporter is deplorable but doesn’t mean he’ll be faster to press the nuclear button….
Above, Dennis Prager discusses Dr. Gartner’s article and petition saying Donald Trump is a danger to society and the world. Prager reads from and comments from Dr. John Gartner’s article in USA TODAY “Donald Trump’s malignant narcissism is toxic: Psychologist”. The same “psychoanalysis” happened to Barry Goldwater, and since there has been the “GOLDWATER RULE” –
On occasion psychiatrists are asked for an opinion about an individual who is in the light of public attention or who has disclosed information about himself/herself through public media. In such circumstances, a psychiatrist may share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However, it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement. ~ “The Principles of Medical Ethics With Annotations Especially Applicable to Psychiatry“. American Psychiatric Association (2013 ed.).
What Dr. Gartner is practicing sounds like “transference,” which is this:
1.Conveyance of an object from one place to another.
3.Displacement of affectfromoneperson or oneidea to another; in psychoanalysis,generallyapplied to theprojection of feelings,thoughts,andwishesontotheanalyst,whohascome to representsomepersonfromthepatient’spast.
It sounds like Dr. Gartner may need some counseling. Here is another article linked at my YouTube by 4TIMESAYEAR:
The psychiatrist who defined narcissistic personality disorder says President Trump may be a “world-class narcissist,” but claims that the president is mentally ill is an insult to those who truly are.
Dr. Allen Frances, a professor emeritus of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke University Medical College, wrote in his letter to The New York Times this week that diagnosing Trump at a distance is not an appropriate way to push back on his policies.
“Fevered media speculation about Donald Trump’s psychological motivations and psychiatric diagnosis has recently encouraged mental health professionals to disregard the usual ethical constraints against diagnosing public figures at a distance,” Frances wrote.
“Most amateur diagnosticians have mislabeled President Trump with the diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder. I wrote the criteria that define this disorder, and Mr. Trump doesn’t meet them. He may be a world-class narcissist, but this doesn’t make him mentally ill, because he does not suffer from the distress and impairment required to diagnose mental disorder,” the doctor added.
Frances argued that putting Trump in the same category as the mentally ill is an “insult” to those who suffer from mental conditions.
“It is a stigmatizing insult to the mentally ill (who are mostly well behaved and well meaning) to be lumped with Mr. Trump (who is neither),” he wrote.
“Bad behavior is rarely a sign of mental illness, and the mentally ill behave badly only rarely….
To follow is a more recent attack by psychology professionals [and legislators! Sad] that again show the lack of concern for the medical ethics involved, and make the profession that truly helps people more of a tarrot card reading with a political flavor to it.
The DAILY CALLER notes that the Yale University psychology professor who called President Trump “mentally impaired” appears to lack a valid license to practice psychiatry in her home state of Connecticut (h-t WEASEL ZIPPERS). The WASHINGTON EXAMINERadds a call by the American Psychological Association (APA) to “cease-and-desist”
The American Psychiatric Association urged members of its profession to uphold its decades-long principle that psychiatrists should never offer diagnostic opinions about people they haven’t personally examined, in light of President Trump’s impending medical exam and questions about his mental fitness.
“We at the APA call for an end to psychiatrists providing professional opinions in the media about public figures whom they have not examined, whether it be on cable news appearances, books, or in social media,” the group wrote. “Arm-chair psychiatry or the use of psychiatry as a political tool is the misuse of psychiatry and is unacceptable and unethical.”
The rebuke came Tuesday as politicians and members of the media were ratcheting up their rhetoric about Trump’s mental health. Earlier in the day, Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. Brendan Boyle unveiled legislation that would require presidential candidates to have a medical exam and publicly disclose the results before the general election. Joe Scarborough also has said on his MSNBC program “Morning Joe” that Trump has dementia, and more than a dozen lawmakers have discussed Trump with a Yale University psychiatrist who said that Trump was “going to unravel, and we are seeing the signs.” The psychiatrist, Dr. Brandy Lee, who has not examined Trump, edited The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, which includes testimonials from 27 psychiatrists and mental health experts.
But the association reminded its members that one of its core principles, known as the “Goldwater Rule,” has been in place since 1973 and states that psychiatrists should not publicly issue medical opinions about people they haven’t personally examined in a medical context….
Author Michael Wolff admitted Monday that he did not interview Vice President Mike Pence or any Cabinet members, though some of the more incendiary claims in his book “Fire and Fury” are credited to Cabinet members. (GATEWAY PUNDIT)
Host Norah O’Donnell asked Wolf,
“Did you speak to any members of the president’s Cabinet for this book?”
Wolff responded, “I did not.”
You did not?” O’Donnell repeated.
“I did not,” Wolff confirmed.
She then asked Wolff if he ever interviewed Vice President Mike Pence.
…Some of the claims in the book have proven to be false, such as when Wolff wrote that then-candidate Donald Trump did not know who former Speaker of the House John Boehner (R.-Ohio) was. Trump tweeted about Boehner in 2015, repudiating the book’s claims.
One New York Times reporter said that the overall message of White House chaos under the Trump administration is believable despite the information included in the book.
New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman, whom WikiLeaks exposed as being the reporter who would “tee up stories” for the Clinton campaign, is one of the reporters who has tried to toe the line on whether the book’s claims are true:
“I believe parts of it and then there are other parts that are factually wrong…”
“I can see several places in the book that are wrong. So for instance, he inaccurately describes a report in the New York Times. He inaccurately characterizes a couple of incidents that took place early on in the administration. He gets basic details wrong…
“He creates a narrative that is notionally true, conceptually true, the details are often wrong.”
On the other hand, CNN’s Alisyn Camerota criticized Wolff’s book and said, “this isn’t really journalism.”….
For extra measure to make the point that Leftists are driven by “feelings,” MSNBC’s Katy Tur told “Fire and Fury” author Michael Wolff Monday that his controversial book “FEELS TRUE,” adding, “congratulations on the book, and congratulations on the president hating it” (TOWNHALL):
Below are two positions taken by a left leaning columnist and a right leaning columnist that essentially say the same thing. SOMETHING, mind you, Dennis tapped into some time ago in his article entitled, “AMERICA’S SECOND CIVIL WAR.” Here are the other two articles mentioned in these audios:
Before beginning I just wish to say that California is working against the clear Constitutional mandates that the Federal government controls and protects its borders… and the Trump administration is working against the Constitution in its trying to fight against California’s legalization of marijuana. NOTE! If you are for the state of California choosing to legalize pot, but against the state defining marriage as between one-man and one-woman… you are a confused individual who makes choices on emotion and not Constitutional foresight/understanding. When Walsh and Prager discuss “arresting California lawmakers,” in my minds eye the legal standing ta do this is Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution — which reads:
“The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government…“
I have been warning about this for years in regard to The Golden State… California is setting itself and our country up for a world of hurt.
NEW YORK TIMES:
* Michael Walsh is a journalist, author, and screenwriter. He was for 16 years the music critic of Time Magazine. His works include the novels, “As Time Goes By,” “And All the Saints” (winner, 2004 American Book Award for fiction) and the “Devlin” series of thrillers; as well as the recent nonfiction bestseller, “The Devil’s Pleasure Palace.” A sequel, “The Fiery Angel,” is scheduled to appear in 2018.
All the fervor of hatred — really just people emoting on Trumps personality and how they don’t like it — is helping the conservative agenda win, in bigger leaps and bounds since Reagan. Keep it up Dems, you are helping us! Everyone will be talking about Steve Bannon. Good.
Rush Limbaugh reads some points made in this article by a left leaning columnist at Politico, warning his compatriots that the MSM and comedy shows railing on Trump’s buttons, hair, and other Tweets and misspoken points… much is being passed. Here is the article headline and link:
55 Ways Donald Trump Structurally Changed America in 2017: These are the concrete actions his administration has taken to alter how the country works. (NEW YORK MAGAZINE)
138 Things Trump Did This Year While You Weren’t Looking: Behind the crazy headlines, more conservative priorities got pushed through than most people realize. An exhaustive list of what really happened to the government in 2017. (POLITICO)
Howard is one of the most amazing people I have ever met. Among other things, he is a corporate lawyer turned entrepreneur, inventor, and corporate executive.
Howard faced down the government. The jury didn’t think much of the government’s case. It returned with a verdict of acquittal on all charges after a day of deliberations, and that includes the time spent electing a foreman.
Howard’s case is important in its own way. The prosecution was based in part on prosecutorial misconduct. The crimes charged were bogus. The case represents the poison fruit of the Yates Memo. Howard had the resources to fight the government’s unjust prosecution of him and his company, but the case exacted an enormous toll. It cries out for study and reform.
NOTE: Howard told his story at a Center of the American Experiment presentation last year in downtown Minneapolis (video below). It is the most powerful 45-minute presentation I have ever seen. Here we have human interest, self-deprecating humor, life lessons, politics and proposed reforms, a scrappy struggle for success in the medical device business, federal regulation and the administrative state, criminal law, trial practice and (as in Howard’s Wall Street Journal column) Sally Yates and the Department of (In)Justice. And that’s not all. We also have Amy Klobuchar and the Star Tribune. It’s a riveting story and an incredibly rich case study. If you missed it when I posted it last year, you may want to check it out now.
Prager plays and comments on Paul Callan’s change of mind on Trump and others “slamming” of the FBI (REAL CLEAR POLITICS). Apparently, this deep bias wasn’t just in the leaders of these investigations, but in the grand jury.
This was a comment on the latest upload of mine from YouTube (posted on LIVELEAK):
Keep convincing yourself the whole FBI is corrupt and it’s not just Trump. What makes more sense?
The problem is that the evidence is saying something different. If they were as “clean” and “noble” as I have been told, they should have recuse themselves — like Sessions. But by not doing so the cards are being played and the poker faces are melting away…. here is my response:
That the same three or four guys at the FBI (that were getting money directly from the DNC or that had wives working at GPS Fusion and exonerated Hillary and mentioned a “fail-safe” for defeating Trump is he won) are corrupt… that is where the evidence points. No one is saying the W-H-O-L-E FBI. Dumb.
Another comment from my YouTube notes this: “The more CNN squeezes the more the anti-Trump narrative slips from their fingers.” Yep.
I excerpted the very end of a larger post over atPOWERLINE and received a challenge of sorts from a friend:
………..It’s always nice when these folks let the mask slip and reveal their hatred of individual freedom and capitalism, and the open embrace of a statism that is indistinguishable from fascism. Lukacs’s conclusion is: Jeremy Corbin will save us! You can expect the same impulse to dominate the Democratic Party as it heads toward 2020. Elizabeth Warren or Bernie will save us! Anything less than this will not be tolerated by the increasingly leftist base of the Democratic Party. And this is the best thing Trump has going for him.
Here is the challenge:
But it’s not just the left Sean, with a 30% ( being generous ) approval rating, this means a lot of Conservatives aren’t on board either. I personally know a few fiscal conservatives that would’ve voted no strictly due to what it adds to our debt. How do you square this?
Fair question. I respond:
This is how I square it. These fiscal conservatives do not, apparently, believe in a fiscal conservative “gods” edict:
➤ “I am favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it’s possible.” — MILTON FRIEDMAN
Also, the press is pushing the CBO’s idea that growth will not be over 1.8% for ten years… um… yeah. So these fiscal conservatives are taking the -under 2% approach when the coming quarter will be 3.8%
Every 1% in growth the deficit is reduced [over ten years] by 3-trillion dollars (Just over 4-minutes):