Attention-seeking personality disorder

A ridiculously high percentage of Obamacrats appear to suffer from attention-seeking personality disorders. And by “suffer from”, I really mean “make us suffer because of.”

Dem Liars

The “victim” form underlies Rachel Dolezal’s antics, including the latest revelation that she sued Howard University in 2002 for discriminating against her because she’s white.

Her lawsuit claimed school officials blocked her appointment to a teaching assistant post, rejected her application for a post-graduate instructorship, denied her scholarship aid while she was a student, and removed some of her artworks from a February 2001 student exhibition because the mostly black Howard University was “permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult” for her whiteness.

Shorter Rachel: “I didn’t get what I wannnnnt so you must be raaaaaaaaaaaaaaacists!”

The courts did not agree and, a few years later, Rachel transitioned herself into a “black” person making a lifetime career out of her “victimhood.”

An article in Psychology Today says, “Excessive attention seeking is not a character flaw. It is a brain wiring response to early developmental trauma caused by neglect.”

Oh. So it’s her mommy and daddy’s fault she’s a serial liar?

Pbblt. I’m sorry, but that just doesn’t fly with me.

Obviously, childhood helps shape a person’s character, but from the age of reason on up, a person’s own choices are what matter most.

My daughter once repeated that self-esteem mantra her generation was steeped in. “Just because he did bad things doesn’t mean he’s a bad person.”

I told her, “That’s only true until you’re seven. After that, you’re capable of knowing right from wrong and the things you do begin to shape the person you are. So, if you consistently do bad things, knowing they are bad and not caring how they hurt people, then you become a bad person.

Sure, a childhood marked by neglect can leave a person feeling excessively needy. But so too can a perfect childhood leave a person feeling excessively privileged. Either of these conditions could lay the framework for a sinful life of attention-seeking. But they could also lay the framework for a holy and generous life.

  • A person who knows how awful it is to feel unloved can become a person who either demands constant approval from everyone OR is deeply empathetic to those who feel the same way.
  • A person who knows how wonderful it is to feel loved and nurtured can become a person who either demands that every desire be fulfilled OR is committed to providing the same love and nurture to others.

The real problem with Rachel and the other disordered Obamacrats ruining our nation is not a mental disorder, but a spiritual one.

God calls it sin.

And He sent His only Son to fix it.

All we have to do is ask.



Filed under Al Gore, Al Sharpton, Caitlin Jenner, Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, Rachel Dolezal

11 responses to “Attention-seeking personality disorder

  1. Redemption. Forgiveness. Surrender. Freedom. Way, way underrated.


  2. Speaking of attention-seeking personality disorder…
    I was over at the Conservative Treehouse following some Congressional hearing links from iOTWReport. I really think that’s what caused them to go dark, BTW. God punishing them and all, but I digress… I noticed that their cult leader had written a lengthy piece bragging about how he’d spent a lifetime on the water big-game fishing, and so he felt qualified to speculate that a recent drop in tuna prices indicates a surge in tuna harvesting, hence fewer tuna, which explains why 2 people were attacked by sharks at Oak Island, NC recently. And we can expect many more shark attacks, too! Because, tuna.

    So, I spent a few minutes googling this and found out that even though tuna and sharks are at the top of the food chain, they stay pretty parallelized, and sharks rarely feed on tuna because they can’t catch them, anyway. The sharks attacking people in NC are bulls and hammerheads anyway, which eat anything, but especially SLOW things, like rays and seals and little fish. Never tuna. So, the whole theory, which the peanut gallery effusively praised, was just about the most retarded theory ever that had zero chance of explaining anything. There are always attacks on those islands every season. I was just there a few seasons ago and there were a few attacks on nearby Sunset Beach. It happens.

    But the cake icing was the bit about how he’d accidentally caught a 300 lb Big Eye Tuna once off Florida that he sold for enough money to buy a brand new car 20 years ago. Not part of a car. “Enough cash to buy a brand new car.” You don’t even need to calculate it out. Every fisherman knows that a good, rare catch like that is a few grand, tops. At market of about $5/lb, a Big Eye is about $1500. In 1995, that couldn’t buy a small fraction of the used Ford Festiva I was driving at the time, much less the Hummers he claims to have been driving for the last 20 years or so. I’m beginning to think they’ve switched to 100% comedy over there.


    • chrissythehyphenated

      Every time you guys mention that site, I am glad again that I was hibernating from the internet during that period.


    • I subscribe to the Treehouse feed, usually just to scan through the open threads for links (as I do several other sites’ open threads). The one time I link an actual original article on that site, and next thing I know, you come along and bust it. Can’t say I wasn’t warned.

      Thank you for the response to it, and the reminder for me to be more circumspect in my blog linkage!


      • Don’t sweat it, Mindful! Link away all you want. Sorry to be so openly critical about that particular site, but it’s only from multiple unpleasant experiences. But we don’t tell anybody what to do around here, so please don’t feel restricted! 🙂 At least, I think that’s the situation. I can’t speak for the founders, although I know they feel the same way I do about SD & Stella/PatP, in particular. But I also know they don’t wish to be control freaks about it. Please speak up if I have misspoken, Rose, et. al.


        • Ah, Count, I’m thinking you mis-took my sloppily-constructed comment in some regards. I think I deduce where I was misunderstood. Here’s a clarification attempt (which may just add new layers of obfuscation and confusion). 🙄

          By “warned,” I only meant I’d been advised by others and by experience to beware of potentially dubious quality of content there, just such as your rebuttal to the article suggested.

          And, by ‘linked to them,’ I meant I linked from my blog-heap.

          So, nothing to do with this garden spot.

          Clearer? Muddier?

          Ah, how often the quantity of verbiage required to clear up misunderstandings exceeds the value of the original communication!