We left with the first part of this series with Barack Hussein Obama stating, “There’s going to be a revolution. We need to be organized and grow the movement.” In Obama’s view, our role must be to educate others so that we might usher in more quickly this inevitable “revolution.”
Given this early idea of Obama when he was around 19 one must wonder if this had been embedded into his mind so thick that he would remember it in later years? Now with the brief forensic profile of Dr. Andrew G. Hodges, we must wonder what drives Obama and what Dr. Hodges went on to find out with his forensic profile of Obama, a profile not done by many others to see what makes Obama’s mind tick.
Dr. Hodges writes, “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.”
We are sure that most people can remember Obama and his little skit at a January 19 Fundraiser in Harlem’s Apollo Theater where Obama stopped his speech and sang the lyric of Al Green’s song, “Let’s Stay Together” where Obama sang, “‘I’mmm … sooo in love with you’” What no one was allowed to hear or see is what Obama himself stated after. “Those guys didn’t think I would do it. I told you I was going to do it. 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.”
Now we know what he meant by being the “Sandman.” His thoughts blow like the sands in a desert, always changing never piling up in one place for long! Obama, alias, Barry Soreoto, alias, Barack Husein Obama, alias, Barack Obama, alias, “The Sandman”. It would seem our President is like a criminal with aliases all over the place picking the one that suits him well and then discarding the other at will.
We do realize we have shifted off course a bit here, but we had to do that to bring in some more of what Dr. Hiodges stated in his forensic profile of Obama.
“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.”
Dr. 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.
Now with this part in mind we only need to shift to the present to understand what Dr. Hodges means, Obama says one thing but means another. In Obama’s classic move based upon this, he came up and stated that they would not have any new Taxes in his health care bill, yet His attorney argued before the Supreme Court that it was a Tax measure that would allow the government to “Force’ people into the program. Here is a very clear example of what Dr. Hodges shows in his forensic profile of Obama!
Dr. Hodges goes on with the following:
“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.”
Is this why Obama is so very weak in nearly all phases of his office except speeches? It would seem to indicate that Obama just does not care about anything but himself and will go to extreme lengths to get what he wants done even to the height of circumventing the Constitution and Congress! This may show a leader to some, but in reality, it shows a rebellion by a man whom considers himself as the “Sandman.” Dr. Hodges shows without a doubt that Obama himself is a bit disturbed because of his absent father and this goes back to his history that is hidden under a veil of questions that few have come out to ask. But today the Washington Post has begun to ask those questions after a quick 4 month investigation revealing an Obama that few know about and an Obama that actually did have a “Silver Spoon!”
We will look one last time at Dr. Hodges forensic profile of Obama and then we will move on to what we could find out about his associations and how they match up to this profile.
Dr. Hodges writes, “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.”
“Between the lines Obama has verified that an extremely painful trauma constantly lives inside of him,” Hodges continues. “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.”
“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.’”
Here we can see pretty clearly what Dr. Hodges means when Obama was running for office in 2008, he stated that everything he did would be seen on C-SPAN and everywhere, well that did not happen and that was exactly what Dr. Hodges describes about Obama and saying one thing and doing another 180 degrees from what he said he would do.
We left off with Obama in California, but unlike the Washington Post, we do not have the resources nor the money to peel back and find those whom would be willing to discuss Obama’s time in New York, and Harvard, both places have their records sealed by Obama and we did try to obtain them but met no response back at all. But we find a report, like the one by David Gilbert and David Loud Called, “Communism in Chicago and the Obama Connection”. This report was published by America’s Survival, Inc..
We will show through this article or snipits of it along with other facts we have found just how close Barack Obama is to being a full fledged Socialist/Communist and his early thoughts of having a revolution may well be part of his modus operandi now! We will be jumping from Obama’s beginning in his politics in Chicago where he actually was elevated to a Senate seat by a Communist lady by the name of Alice Palmer, and when she wanted to get her seat back from Obama after she failed at her attempt for another political, position, Obama fought her and had her name removed from the ballot, turning against the very lady that elevated him into politics!
The report we will refer to was done on February 14, 2008 so it will reference Obama during his campaign for President. But most of this will show links to the very people Obama denies he even knew or had a fleeting pass with. This will only be a very brief part of the report since it is rather long and we will be entering other information which not only backs up Mr. Kincaid’s words, but shows the links to the people that helped Obama rise in the political world.
In the first paragraph of this report Mr. Kincaid states, “On February 22, 2008, Ben Smith of Politico reported a story that ran under the headline, “Obama once visited ‘60s radicals.” It concerned how, “In 1995, [Illinois] State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district’s influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.” Dr. Quentin Young, National Coordinator of Physicians for a National Health Program based in Chicago, described as “a prominent Chicago physician and advocate for single-payer health care,” was quoted as saying, “I can remember being one of a small group of people who came to Bill Ayers’ house to learn that Alice Palmer was stepping down from the senate and running for Congress.”
Now we look back at this Alice Palmer and see what her background was and low and behold, she heralds from a Communist ideology! The 4 talking points about Alice Palmer on www.discoverthenetworks.org, shows the following:
1 Former Democratic state senator in Illinois 2 Former member of the U.S. Peace Council, a communist front group 3 Strong supporter of the Soviet Union during the Cold War
4 Former friend and political ally of Barack Obama