By Andrew G. Hodges
Editor’s Note: Dr. Andrew G. Hodges is a psychiatrist and forensic profiler who decoded O.J. Simpson’s “suicide note,” deciphered the JonBenet Ramsey ransom note and worked on the Natalee Holloway murder case. He’s author of “The Obama Confession: Secret Fear, Secret Fury,” and uses 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. His work previously was profiled here.
Obama’s first two presidential debates with Romney gave us another look deep into his mind – into a continued confession which he simply cannot stop himself from making.
From my experience as a forensic profiler, I know when a guilty person starts to break. Law enforcement describes how guilty suspects show signs of cracking during an interrogation – and they push on those weaknesses. We can view Obama’s poor performance during the first presidential debate with Romney on Oct. 3 in a similar way. The debate – a symbolic interrogation – was the first time Obama had faced tough questions since 2008.
And he showed signs of cracking.
Consider the following. As a forensic profiler I listened in a neutral fashion to key Obama communications around the time of his 2008 election. I explain my method of reading between the lines – where people always confess – in my recent book, “The Obama Confession: Secret Fear, Secret Fury.” I demonstrated how, driven by secret guilt, Obama confessed in a powerful way to violating the Constitution, running as an illegal foreign-born president which was just the tip of the iceberg of his misguided rage directed at America. (He also provided the massive personal wounds and stark hidden terror which prompts his anger.)
Additionally, I showed how in recent communications Obama’s unconscious guilt is off the charts. Running for reelection has especially triggered his misdeeds in a fresh way. Again he is trying to pull the wool over America’s eyes with plans for more disguised fury directed at our nation.
This I believe is how we can ultimately understand his poor presidential debate – deep-seated, powerful guilt. Obama was a “no show,” he kept looking down. He could not look America in the eye. Frequently he never answered Romney, allowing him to dominate.
All in all we have a behavioral confession: “I do not belong in this office.” A non-verbal confession of his illegal presidency.
All along Obama has told us a major key to understanding him is reading his behavior (as commentator and former psychiatrist Charles Krauthammer has also observed). Remember, Obama stressed in his 2008 Fathers’ Day speech as a candidate how absent fathers produced sons who attacked community foundations. He talked about how sons of absent fathers repeated the destructive behavior of the father. Clearly he made plain his father was absent in his scathing criticism of absent fathers.
The day following the debate, Obama insisted in a speech that Romney “ought to tell the people the truth” and that he wasn’t during the debate. Unconsciously, Obama points to his own enormous guilt and tremendous deception of the people. This also harkens back to his hidden confession in his inaugural address with numerous images suggesting an ineligible president: taking shortcuts, back-room deals that violate trust, and clinging to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent. Obama repeatedly shows us how his brilliant unconscious – the honest super intelligence we all possess – eventually confesses in words that match his behavior.
Regarding the first debate, several key commentators including WND’s Joseph Farah theorized that some powerful integrity issue among Obama donors was greatly distracting him. But Farah suggests he intuitively picked up on the deepest integrity reason as his column showed. He observed Obama falling apart beyond belief, and noted that Obama “grew increasingly uneasy, nervous … an inability to think clearly on his feet.” He underscored an extreme deficit in Obama’s “executive capabilities” (all these are signs of cracking) and raises the key question, “Why are we seeing this now?”
Farah emphasizes that Obama was never challenged as a candidate and, most importantly, was “never screened for constitutional eligibility.” Farah recognizes that such a major offense would mean enormous guilt deep down.
Consider that Obama’s unconscious super intelligence was posing the toughest question of all by his behavior and poor performance: “Have those of you who missed my secret confession and lack of media vetting ever seriously asked if I am a legal president, if I belong in office?” In short, a hidden confession. Obama demonstrates the power of the unconscious super intelligence to have its way and how the conscious mind is no match for someone who must confess.
As many anticipated, Obama’s second debate performance on Oct. 16 was overtly much different than his first. He appeared more assertive and having regained his wits.
But the question was whether or not he would overcompensate as a sign of his deep guilt. Would we see signs of his ever-present secret anger (which even came through in flashes at the first debate)? Dick Morris believed we did, noting after the second debate, “Obama came over as boorish and Biden-esque. He did not learn from his vice president’s mistakes. When a president gets into a barroom brawl, he loses his dignity and his aura, key assets for an incumbent. Romney was polite but firm. Obama seemed quarrelsome, frustrated, nasty, and cranky.”
Obama of course made his erroneous case filled with exaggerations that he had been good for the economy – new jobs, more American oil production, and friendly to the coal industry. Appropriately, Romney pointed out the truth, “… what we don’t need is to have the president keeping us from taking advantage of oil, coal and gas. This has not been Mr. Oil, or Mr. Gas, or Mr. Coal. Talk to the people that are working in those industries.”
See this as another sign of Obama’s guilt – to blatantly attack America’s energy policies and economy and then deny it.
Disguised in accusations directed at Romney and the Republicans, unconsciously he presented America with several striking comments secretly describing himself.
He accused Romney, the businessman, of shipping jobs overseas, bankrupting companies and laying off workers which would fit precisely with Obama shipping oil-drilling jobs to foreign countries, causing layoffs and heading America toward bankruptcy with his out-of-control spending.
One shining example occurred when he belittled Romney’s economic plan.
“Governor Romney doesn’t have a five-point plan. He has a one-point plan. And that plan is to make sure that folks at the top play by a different set of rules. That’s been his philosophy in the private sector … that’s been his philosophy as a presidential candidate.”
Once more Obama confesses unconsciously that all along, even as a private citizen (and college student), he planned on playing by a different set of rules, which he has carried out as president. We could have predicted that he would get in yet another striking unconscious confession that he had violated the rule of law and by extension the Constitution as an illegal foreign-born president. In both his inauguration speech and his recent U.N. speech he repeatedly insisted how we must live by the Constitution as his deeper moral compass pointed to his guilt.
Go back to his Fathers’ Day speech as a candidate in 2008 when he warned America who he was: “When I was a young man, I thought life was all about me – how do I make my way in the world, and how do I become successful and how do I get the things that I want.” Obama was telling us then and now that he had a one-point plan. It was and is all about him to do whatever he wanted with the United States Constitution. But deep down he insists he must be stopped.
We can be certain that Obama’s guilt and anger will show up in similar ways in the third debate.