WASHINGTON – An eminent psychiatrist and forensic profiler suggests Barack Obama is “confessing” to the American people who he is and what he wants to do to the country, but most citizens are just not trained to decode his messages.
Dr. Andrew G. Hodges, in his new book “The Obama Confessions,” makes the case that, because of the hurts he experienced in his young life, Obama has overcompensated with a sophisticated communication system that can be understood by reading between the lines of what he says.
What does that decoding reveal?
“Obama reveals the completely secret trauma that controls his life, resulting in his deep misguided fury expressed toward America,” writes Hodges.
To understand Obama, says Hodges, one must see him as “the sandman” – the way he views himself because of the trauma in his life.
It was author and commentator Thomas Sowell who first drew the allusion to Obama as “the sandman.”
“The track record of Obama’s pronouncements on a wide range of issues suggests that anything he says is a message written in sand, and easily blown away by the next political winds.”
At a Jan. 19 fundraiser at Harlem’s legendary Apollo Theater, Obama took to the stage toward the end of the evening and broke out in song.
“It had been a particularly musical occasion and the president’s appearance followed several performers including soul singer the Rev. Al Green, whom Obama acknowledged,” Hodges explains in his book. “But the entertainers were expected to sing – Obama was only expected to speak. Without warning, however, he delivered a surprisingly pleasing falsetto lyric, ‘I’mmm … sooo in love with you’ – the opening line from Green’s 1972 hit ‘Let’s Stay Together.’ Not believing their ears, the audience bursts into applause. After the ovation subsides, Obama takes it all in, then hesitantly glances toward his staff off stage right. Talking directly to them but also to America, he blurts out, ‘Those guys didn’t think I would do it. I told you I was going to do it.'”
But Obama added a comment most reporters missed.
“The sandman did not come out,” Obama said. “Now don’t worry, I can’t sing like you, but I just wanted to show my appreciation.”
Hodges says “the sandman” did indeed come out that night – and it was Obama, because that’s how he sees himself. It’s part of a pattern in his speech of denying the truth, saying the opposite of what he means.
“Blatant denials often imply the exact opposite – especially following Obama’s emphasis on overcoming denial – suggesting ‘the sandman did come out tonight.’ Indeed, he’s saying, ‘I am the sandman who came out on the stage tonight.'”
What is “the sandman” metaphor all about?
“The vivid image initially suggests something soft and yielding, something lacking a solid foundation,” explains Hodges. “There are other immediate possibilities, but in fact he leads in this very direction of weakness and something not real, not strong – something lacking in character – such as a president who would flippantly take a dare. Also ‘coming out tonight’ suggests coming out with a secret. Is he advising us to look closely at his character and ask fundamental questions to unearth the secret? Surely the character question also fits with telling Americans he has done something unimaginable, gotten elected president in spite of major character flaws.”
Previously, that same evening, Obama denied what he would do – insisting, “I’m not going to sing.” Then he sang. Then he insisted “the sandman” did not come out.
What does all this mean? Hodges writes:
In a Fathers’ Day speech on June 15, 2008, Obama addressed the congregation of the Apostolic Church in Chicago. This wasn’t just any Fathers’ Day but one on which he was campaigning to be America’s leader – the father of our nation.
Obama delivered the speech virtually spontaneously, almost off the cuff, and – on such a personal day for him – he surely wrote it himself. He opens with a striking story, a New Testament parable no less. At the end of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus closes by saying, “Whoever hears these words of mine, and does them, shall be likened to a wise man who built his house upon a rock: and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded upon a rock.”
But Obama stops there, leaving out the second part of the parable about foolish builders erecting a house on a foundation of sand, but he refers to it extensively by implication – the centerpiece of his speech: “Now everyone who hears these sayings of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on sand: and the rains came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, and it fell. And great was its fall.”
A violent storm challenges the foundation of both houses. The home built on rock stands while the home built on sand collapses. Underscoring this parable on Fathers’ Day, Obama depicts fathers as crucial builders of homes, men who structure their children’s very foundations.
And he particularly emphasizes a son’s foundation. “Of all the rocks upon which we build our lives,” Obama tells us, “we are reminded today … that family is the most important. And we are called to recognize and honor how critical every father is to that foundation.”
Obama then goes on to talk about his own absentee father.
“Obama compares two types of fathers, the involved father who builds solid-rock foundations in his kids and the absent father who builds weak foundations for his children, foundations ‘made of sand,'” writes Hodges. “Yet Obama, by omitting the second part of the biblical parable, shows that he simply cannot bring himself to say the words ‘sand foundation.’ Why? For him, that phrase hits too close to home.”
Obama continues: “I know what it means to have an absent father.”
“His words strongly suggest that the parable could be titled ‘How Obama Sr. built Obama Jr.,'” writes Hodges. “He was unconsciously pressured to tell us about that absent father, the foolish builder who left him with a worrisome foundation. Obama makes repeated scathing references to absent fathers – selfish, unavailable, irresponsible, immature, and destructive. He underscores lost boys who have no father to show them how to be a man. He then describes how such absent fathers produce sons with ‘behavioral problems’ which mirror their own. In short, Obama tells us that he is the sandman son of a sandman father, a father who failed to build a solid foundation of character in him but instead left him with nothing but sand inside. Obama in essence warns America that he would be like his father, lacking in integrity and prone to bad behavior which undermined the community. This according to the role model rule Obama so carefully establishes.”
Hodges continues: “Between the lines Obama has verified that an extremely painful trauma constantly lives inside of him. It doesn’t take much to reopen such a wound – ‘a hole’ in himself created by his absent father. That’s exactly what Obama later labeled it, ‘a hole,’ an emptiness within his inner self. Right off he has revealed the motivations that have controlled him his entire life. At the same time, he remains consciously in denial about his personal pain.”
Who is Hodges to draw such conclusions?
He has identified killers by studying ransom notes, emails, letters and police interviews to spot secret confessions. He decoded O.J. Simpson’s “suicide note” to confirm he had committed a double murder. He deciphered the JonBenet ransom note to identify the child’s killer. He studied statements by Joran van der Sloot and Deepak Kalpoe to tie them to the slaying of Natalee Holloway. He showed how Casey Anthony secretly confessed to killing her daughter in 200 letters written to a jail mate. He even decoded Bill Clinton’s Lewinsky confession-apology on TV, revealing the awful pain which led to Clinton’s self-sabotaging behavior. Hodges employs a unique psycholinguistic technique he calls “ThoughtPrint Decoding” to “read between the lines” of people’s statements – called “the cutting-edge of forensic science” by expert investigators.
Hodges examines Obama’s entire life story from his controversial and mysterious birth, to his Muslim childhood, to his earliest indoctrination by radical left-wing activists and finally to his historic ascension to the White House.
“Wherever we look, Obama demonstrates another major boundary violation – more disruption of America’s foundation,” explains Hodges. “His inaugural address again foreshadows the specific boundary he will attack next – in another caution to America. Here he repeatedly insisted on the preeminence of the rule of law and the Constitution, ‘Our Founding Fathers … drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man. … Those ideals still light the world.'”
It sounds good – on the surface. But that’s not what Obama meant, suggests Hodges. He meant exactly the opposite and was telegraphing, in Obama code, that he would follow a path that is the opposite of was the Founders had in mind.
“Of course, Obama himself remains in denial about the full extent of his intentionally destructive motivations, but we can be sure he is consciously aware of significant deception,” says Hodges. “There is a famous phrase therapists use that applies here; we employ it to describe unconsciously intentional motives and actions: ‘accidentally on purpose.'”
Hodges contends Obama’s mind is secretly a master at describing such motives.