They are the dynamics of a toddler.

Women/ mothers are hard-wired to love push-pull antics as they must be genetically compelled to love their offspring even as the toddler (and adolescent) repeatedly swings to and fro: push and pulling against Mom’s heart strings.

Men/ fathers are not genetically compelled to love rebellious children, far from it.

So keep that in your hat when looking at fatherless Barry. To the extent he had any role model it was Frank M Davis — which must have consisted of arrogant lectures as to how he (FMD) had the world all figured out — and he was going to send Barry on a mission — with anti-Whitey racism as his boon.

That ‘race card’ has trumped every hand he’s ever faced — until the Presidency.

He has a pen and a phone!

He simply does not have a self-limiting personality.

Quite the opposite is the case.

He has what psychologists term “boundary issues.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_boundaries

As a first person witness, I can assure you his grandmother had SERIOUS boundary issues.

Consequently her daughter acted out by sleeping with a Black lover —

And their offspring (Barry) remains in perpetual rebellion against grandmother’s nostrums. This involves some ‘splitting’ — as Barry is on board with grandma’s hatred of White society — while totally “against the Woman” ( as a power figure ) in his interpersonal dealings.

Thus, Barry positions many women to high political positions — and then runs roughshod over their opinions and advice.

To a woman, they can’t make any sense of him.

[Think of the push-pull dynamics. They end up being pulled even closer into his (emotional) orbit. Push-pull is chick nip.

Barry carries push-pull into all of his dealings. He can’t stop it. The results are disastrous in foreign affairs. Men (Alphas) LOATHE push-pull when it’s applied to them. At an instinctive level, they realize that they’re being treated like a woman — and Barry thinks that (emotes) he’s seducing them! ]

At the core of his psyche, Barry is totally unsuited for the role he has attained. So, it’s not for nothing that he role-plays as an introverted president.

He can’t get out of his crippled teen programming.

FYI, from http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-fall-of-mosul.html :

The issue of the President’s legal authority to deploy the military to Iraq under current circumstances, absent a new statutory authority, presents interesting legal questions.

President Clinton deployed the military to Iraq throughout his presidency with the statutory authority of P.L. 102-1 (1991). President Bush deployed the military to Iraq with the redundant statutory authority of P.L. 102-1 and P.L. 107-243 (2002). Because a “specific statutory authorization” is equivalent to a declaration of war under the War Powers Act, within the constitutional scope, there is no domestic legal controversy over the U.S. military mission with Iraq from 1991 to 2011.

The failure to negotiate a new Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq that was effective past 2011 was cited as the main reason for the withdrawal of U.S. Forces from Iraq. However, did the departure of U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011 coincide with an actual severing of all the relevant, or at least plausible, statutory authorities for deploying the military to Iraq? Or was some legal authority retained, perhaps applicable in the event of an emergency such as the current crisis, despite the physical removal of U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011? I don’t know; I hadn’t thought about the post-OIF legality of deploying the military to Iraq without a new statutory authorization.

Note that the United States has a Strategic Framework Agreement with Iraq. See the State Department press release, U.S. Iraqi embassy statement, and a PDF of the agreement. Also see this legal summary.

The first question is whether P.L. 102-1 and/or P.L. 107-243 are still live. Since they authorized the President to enforce the UNSC resolutions relevant to Iraq, a related question is whether the UNSC resolutions related to the security of Iraq are still live. For example, UNSC Res 1511 (2003) “authorizes a multinational force under unified command to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq”. Update: The answer is that the 17NOV08 agreement between the US and Iraq terminated the authority of the older UNSC resolutions. However, I haven’t come across that P.L. 102-1 and P.L. 107-243 have been repealed, so if the UNSC passes a new resolution for Iraq, the President should be authorized to enforce it.

The second question is whether P.L. 107-40 (2001) or other counter-terror law cover the situation in Iraq “in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism” (P.L. 107-40), especially if a plausible ‘organizational’ link can be drawn between ISIS and al Qaeda. Furthermore, the standing policy since the Clinton administration has been “the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States”. The unsettled question, which was debated for OIF, has been the specific character of a threat that opens such authority. If President Obama can make the case that ISIS is a threat to the U.S., this seems the most likely route for Obama to take military action without seeking additional authority from Congress.

The third question is whether the U.S. has an operative Congressionally approved multi- or bilateral security agreement (treaty) that covers Iraq. For example, President Clinton cited to the NATO treaty when he skipped Congress for the Balkans intervention. As far as I know, we only have the Strategic Framework Agreement with Iraq, which only states a commitment to “close cooperation” on defense and security issues. That does not by itself rise to a treaty.

The fourth question is whether there is a statutory authority linked with a security agreement under international law. For example, President Obama claimed the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ justification was authorized by the general U.S. agreement with the United Nations covenant when he skipped Congress for the Libya intervention. I thought R2P was a weak stand-alone legal basis in domestic and international law to deploy the military even before Obama severely stretched an already controversial novel application of R2P in the Libyan regime change. Nonetheless, it is a precedent.

The question of statutory authorization may be rendered moot if a U.S. entity is attacked in Iraq. According to 50 USC 1541 (1973) of the War Powers Act, other than by Congressional declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, the military can also be deployed by the President “pursuant to … a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.” When I served with 2ID in Korea, we sometimes would joke that our function was less to stop (really, delay) a north Korean attack than to serve as a tripwire for the insertion of U.S.-led UN forces.

Your description sounds to me like the author wants a competitive check on inefficiency and corruption but not on policy.

problem for him was that there was no girls to rescue
they strapped explosives to them and blew them up in different actions

People are often baffling, but that guy is especially so.

I only brought it up here because the guy apparently writes on a foreign policy website.

Odd reasoning indeed. The guy basically said he think it’s great to have a two party system without any one entrenched in power, and so he hopes to vote Republican after Hillary’s two inevitable terms – if only they become more like Democrats. That’s the line in the sand!

People just baffle me sometimes.

And Artful @ 11:33: this is one of your more fascinating posts. There may be a lot to it, especially given BO’s background as a red diaper baby. I just wish I did not have to leave for a social engagement so I could say more about your post.

Among other things, though, I do not believe that random citizens (“students”) of Russia could be flashing images on the American embassy of BO performing fellatio without Putin being totally aware.

It seems to go beyond mere ridicule and taunting.

The Epstein interview really is extraordinarily scary because of the potential implications. Neo as usual early called some of the probable facts, but there is a lot more which is deeply disturbing, not least because we cannot know what is what, other than deeply disturbing necessarily.

I did read that article yesterday. I was thinking of writing about it, but it was so oddly-reasoned (or not reasoned at all) that I decided it was hardly worth writing about at any length. I can’t imagine that the author’s approach would be shared by anyone else.

It was just bizarre.

Remember the whole “bring back our girls” crisis that lasted maybe 1-2 weeks, with Barack claiming he thought of those girls every morning? Yeah, he sent a couple hundred advisors and then….nothing. No follow-up. Never even had to acknowledge that this wasn’t some isolated instance of the “war on women” but a years-long slaughter of Christians by the Muslim Boko Haram. But Obama got to pretend to “do something”, get credit in the press, and then move on.