Friday, October 26, 2012

The Obama Confession

Well, well, well...THIS particular revelation about Obama is certainly interesting!  This morning, I just happened to stumble upon two articles [update:  now three]  that may help us to understand how Obama can outwardly lie in so blatantly the manner in which he does on a daily basis!  But it also reveals something else - a hidden, mysterious "code" (discovered by a psychiatrist about Obama) - which shows us how Obama is actively (but secretly) showing his guilt during speeches that he has done when one is trained to "read between the lines."

This is a Talk Wisdom Reports...You Decide kind of post.  

However,  so much of what is revealed by the forensic psychiatrist in the following two articles makes a lot of sense in deciphering the oft seen senseless, radical, America harming, possibly illegitimate, and dangerous pResidency of Barack Hussein Obama.

~  Christine

P.S.  I personally think that watching Dinesh D'Sousa's documentary - 2016:  Obama's America - helps to decipher Obama's hieroglyphics-type hints about his mindset; which leads us to the roots of his rage as well as the anti-American [stated as anti-colonialism in the movie] policies, practices, and unrelenting harm that he is doing against our nation.


The first article is entitled, WND: Forensic Profiler - Meet Obama The Sandman.

Copy of article:


Forensic profiler: Meet Obama – the 'sandman' Eminent psychiatrist reveals mysterious code in which America’s leader speaks Published: 09/15/2012 at 9:08 PM

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.”

Learn “the Obama code” from Andrew Hodges’ “The Obama Confession” – now available in the WND Superstore.

“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.”

But Obama has referred to himself as “the sandman.” What does he mean?

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.


The second article: WND: Obama Confessing Ineligibility

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 now has analyzed the United Nations speech by Barack Obama and says the president confessed he’s ineligible for the Oval Office and told Americans they must use the Constitution to solve the problem.

Andrew G. Hodges, M.D., author of “The Obama Confession: Secret Fear, Secret Fury,” at the suggestion of WND examined Obama’s Sept. 25 address at the U.N. and offered his analysis.
He 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.
He’s not exactly new to the field, already having identified killers by studying ransom notes, emails, letters and police interviews to spot secret confessions. He decoded O.J.’s “suicide note” to confirm Simpson had committed a double murder. He deciphered the JonBenet ransom note from Boulder, Colo., to identify the child’s killer. He decrypted letters from BTK to predict that he was about to kill again – the only profiler to do so. He studied statements by Joran van der Sloot and Deepak Kalpoe to tie them to the slaying of 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 on TV, revealing the awful pain which led to Clinton’s self-sabotaging behavior.

See all the details in Hodges’ book “The Obama Confession.”

On Hodges’ website, Steven A. Egger, associate professor of criminology at the University of Houston, Clear Lake, wrote that Hodges’ technique is “becoming the cutting edge of forensic science.”

“Dr. Hodges’ investigation of forensic documents in the Natalee Holloway case indicates that his ‘thoughtprint decoding method’ and ‘reading between the lines’ is, in fact, becoming a major contribution to law enforcement tools used by criminal investigators,” wrote Egger.

Hodges says in his analysis of Obama’s U.N. address that the president “continues to reference attacks on America and our Constitution.”

Obama said in the speech: “The attacks on our civilians … were attacks on America … we will be relentless in tracking down the killers and bringing them to justice.”

Hodges writes that Obama “again confesses his illegal presidency was an attack upon America, upon justice. So he promises to relentlessly track down his symbolic killing – destruction of – the Constitution.”

Obama said “the attacks of the last two weeks are not simply an assault on America. They are also an assault on the very ideals upon which the United [States] was founded.
Here, Hodges writes, Obama is “once more alluding to his constitutional attack. He can’t say it enough.”

Obama further stated the “answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution … yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. Moreover, as president of our country, I [accept that people are going to] call me awful things every day.”

Hodges says Obama “unconsciously reminds us that no one has confronted his blasphemy as a false president flaunting our most sacred beliefs — even as he calls his deed ‘awful.’ Obama’s succinct answer to his illegal presidency: enforce the Constitution.”
Hodges concludes that the remarks by Obama at the U.N. reveal truths similar to those he perceived in Obama’s inaugural address.

“Deep down a guilty person cannot stop looking at his misdeed, his crime. Obama’s brilliant unconscious constantly comprehends his guilt and is incessantly moved to confess. Remember, the deeper mind speaks symbolically in a narrative language using key images. It is much like reading a parable,” he said.

“The first thing Obama does in his U.N. address is make reference to his foreign birth – exactly as he did in his 2009 Inauguration Day speech when his opening sentence introduced the word ‘borne’ and thus the question, ‘Where was I born?’” Hodges concludes.

“At the U.N., Obama begins to tell ‘about an American named … who was born in a town called … He came to love … the people of Africa … and he would carry that commitment throughout his life.
“His super intelligence, his deeper unconscious is actually saying, ‘I’m going to tell you the secret story of my supposed American birth – I was really born in Africa to which I have a lifelong commitment.’ His story pictures a foreigner traveling between America and Africa – matching an identical idea in his inaugural address,” the author explains.

“Next Obama unconsciously confesses his illegal presidency was a secret revolution against America. Obama instantly provides a second crucial birth marker linking ‘birth’ to ‘revolution,’” Hodges said. “Note the phrase: ‘the revolution, he supported the birth.’ The super-intel suggests that Obama, the foreigner in America, leads a secret revolution in which his foreign birth subverts America’s constitutional requirements.”

Hodges continues: “In his inauguration address, Obama repeatedly appealed to citizens to hold him to constitutional standards. He declared America was at ‘war against a far-reaching (foreign) network of violence and hatred’ – suggesting as a foreigner he had violently usurped the oath of office.

“In the U.N. speech, we find numerous calls for a change in leadership – Obama’s unconscious moral compass guiding America to the truth about his fraudulent presidency and what we need to do. Just one example,” he said. “‘We supported a transition of leadership … because the interests of the people were not being served by a corrupt status quo.’ His secret call for a change in the U.S. presidency matches his inauguration speech story about how his foreign-born father could not have been served in a Washington, D.C., restaurant – suggesting Obama cannot serve or be seated as an illegal president.”

Obama also called for a leader to emerge to lead the protests in the Middle East.

“We have seen peaceful transitions of power … a new president … a courageous dissident has been elected to parliament … Around the globe, people are making their voices heard,” Obama stated.
Hodges’ says Obama “again suggests that – should he win a second term – the people must march on Washington to oppose his presidency. Absolutely the only way he’ll ever be confronted.”

Hodges earlier said most people don’t understand the intensity and revelations in Obama’s statements.

He has, for example, endured a trauma that controls his life, and Hodges suggests Obama’s statements often imply “the exact opposite.”

In a column later, he wrote that research indicates the human subconscious reveals the truth about the person.

“Keep in mind the super intelligence possesses a deeper moral compass – guilty people confess especially when they get around God,” Hodges said. “Obama did so in his inauguration speech just after taking the presidential oath on Jan 20, 2009, with his hand on the same Bible Lincoln used, looking the chief justice and the American people – and, most importantly, God – in the eye, swearing to his intentions and identity. It is the most unique moment in American presidential inauguration history – and totally apart from race.”

[end of articles]


It almost makes me feel sorry for him.  However, a severely disturbed person, like Obama, who purposely intends to destroy America from the inside out needs much more than just sympathy.  It starts with getting him out of office before he does even more insurmountable harm to our beloved United States of America!!


Here's another article:

ROOTS OF HIS RAGE The secret messages in Obama's inaugural Exclusive: Dr. Andrew G. Hodges sees BHO's own words affirming 'illegal presidency' Published: 10/01/2012 at 7:02 PM

By Andrew G. Hodges, M.D.
As a forensic profiler, I read between the lines. I listen for a person’s unconscious mind to speak, not just their conscious words. In short we have had a breakthrough to the mind – to an unconscious “super intelligence,” which always tells the truth. Malcolm Gladwell in his 2005 best-seller, “Blink,” described the discovery of a “dazzling new unconscious” mind which “quick-reads” ourselves and situations in the blink of an eye and guides us through instincts.
Clinical research beyond “Blink” revealed this new unconscious also speaks by secretly patterning repeat symbolic messages. For example, if President Obama’s unconscious were confessing to a foreign birth, he might repeat the story code in different ways by talking of a “foreigner coming to America.” His super intelligence can repeat any specific confession in code – telling us if he is secretly a Muslim, for example. It is similar (albeit unconscious) to how parents will consciously speak in code around their kids.

In five key Obama communications – particularly in his inaugural address – he reveals a detailed unconscious confession to America of his deceptive plans. I described this in my recent book, “The Obama Confession: Secret Fear, Secret Fury.”

Keep in mind the super intelligence possesses a deeper moral compass – guilty people confess especially when they get around God. Obama did so in his inauguration speech just after taking the presidential oath on Jan 20, 2009, with his hand on the same Bible Lincoln used, looking the chief justice and the American people – and, most importantly, God – in the eye, swearing to his intentions and identity. It is the most unique moment in American presidential inauguration history – and totally apart from race.

First we must understand his deepest motivations. Key stories in his autobiography (and elsewhere) reveal his great secret: He was nearly aborted; in his words he was nearly a “slaughtered innocent.” He never recovered from the near-abortion terror, that his father particularly wanted to destroy his life. As a child he learned this secret but kept it buried.

The inaugural address confirms this powerful story with striking abortion images. He begins with a reference to a “borne sacrifice” – suggesting he existed to be immediately sacrificed. Later he speaks of tormentors, “inducing terror and slaughtering innocents,” underscoring again the constant terror that controls him.

This utter powerlessness led to enormous repressed fury, the real roots of his rage – far greater than any inherited “anti-colonial rage.” (Previously, in “Dreams from My Father,” Obama unconsciously describes himself, writing of helpless, humiliated children who take the short step to “violence” and “untrammeled fury.”)

Secretly furious with his father, Obama misguidedly takes it out on America, referencing in his inaugural address “those who blame their ills on the West.”

Next he unveils exactly how he expressed this fury at America. Again, in his speech we see an immediate birth reference in the first sentence – he is “mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors.” The crucial birth marker (“borne”) suggests “The Question” – where was he born? Did he sacrifice the constitutional birth requirements of our ancestors? He introduces the birth issue more overtly declaring, “Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath.” But is he really an American? 

Immediately he describes the unusual nature of his particular oath. It was taken under cloudy “raging storm” conditions, implying he has just stormed violently and secretly against the oath – confessing he is not a legal president. Again, his self-description: “a raging storm.”

His sequence of ideas confirms the message. He then proclaims America is in a crisis – at “war against a far-reaching (foreign) network of violence and hatred” – again suggesting he has violently attacked the oath as a foreign citizen. He follows this with five references to the Constitution. Obama insists “We the People” have always lived by the Constitution – that it has been our way and must now be our way. Obama’s super intelligence in essence shouts “Remember the Constitution,” implying “I have just violated it – and created a constitutional crisis.” 

Obama’s illegal presidency reflects his misguided fury – a way of attacking America’s constitutional foundation. We must constantly keep his rage in mind, rage he will express in multiple disguised ways.

The rest of the inaugural speech confirms his confession. He repeats the story of foreigners crossing oceans to come to America. He repeats references to America fighting wars with foreign enemies including the British on our soil. Obama mentions America taking in a stranger. He presents repeatedly violent images such as a house being destroyed by a storm (again, Storm Obama) or a fire, suggesting he attacked the White House, symbolic of the presidency.

Numerous other images suggest an ineligible president: taking shortcuts, back-room deals that violate trust, the ground shifting beneath America and clinging “to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent.” Phenomenally, Obama will reference the Constitution innumerable times in his speech revealing a striking unconscious confession of violating it.

We find another key birth marker linked to two stories about his father, secretly about him. First, he notes people “watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born.” Here his super-intel confesses, “Everyone, see my journey from the small village in Africa where I was born to my presidency in this grand capital.”

Unconsciously, he links this story to a compelling appeal to the Constitution: “Our Founding Fathers drafted a charter to assure the rule of law. … Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake” – as he has just done.

Obama’s second father story was about how his foreign-born father in the past could not be served in a Washington, D.C., restaurant, suggesting Obama cannot serve or be seated as an illegal president. Once again, he links this story to a powerful constitutional reference: how all races should unite around our creed – “the price of citizenship.” His super intelligence confesses he lacks citizenship requirements – his illegal presidency is not about race.

Obama closes his inaugural address with a powerful story. Obama begins with another major birth marker pointing once more to his foreign birth and long journey to America. He advises us, “Mark this [inauguration] day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled in the year of … birth.”

He then tells the story of America’s unforgettable fight at our founding with the foreign enemy, the British, unconsciously suggesting he is the “common danger,” the foreigner we must battle today. Then he dramatically insists that only the Constitution – our virtue, our guarantee of freedom – will keep America together. We must fight the foreign enemy – his illegal presidency – and guarantee our children’s children will be sustained by loyalty to the Constitution, symbolic of America’s core foundation.

Consistent with an ongoing Alinsky-style secret attack from within, Obama unconsciously further predicts in his speech that he will attack America’s economic foundation. His criticism of the previous administration matched precisely his devastating economic policies – only worse.

He also secretly confessed that in his unconscious fury he would attack our national security. Obama predicts the ways he will use his energy will “strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.”
Other frightening images confirm the message of a “nuclear threat, and … the specter of a warming planet,” implying his decisions will heat up international tension making the world a far more dangerous place. This matches his scary confession in his earlier 2008 Father’s Day speech, speaking of “a world in grave danger because of what” he will do to the global political climate. How well these descriptions fit his enabling the rise of recent anti-American attacks in the Middle East, a nuclear Iran and a weaker America.

Could Obama be this angry, this dangerous to America? The answer remains. He was that wounded, a “slaughtered innocent” from the get-go now filled with unimaginable rage.

His super intelligence at his inauguration informs us in story form what must be America’s response: “Our challenges may be new (an illegal angry president),” but we meet them with “courage and patriotism.” His destructiveness will require the recognition “on the part of every American” that we have a “new era of responsibility” to our nation. We must all do our duty to the Constitution – “this is the price of citizenship.”

Andrew G. Hodges, M.D., a psychiatrist and forensic profiler, is the author of “The Obama Confession: Secret Fear, Secret Fury.”


Obama's rage would go so far as to allow four men to die while he and his evil cohorts watched and DID NOTHING!!!

Did Obama Watch While They Fought for their Lives?
American Thinker - 27 minutes ago

Our President chose to let these four men fight for seven hours and die alone in that Benghazi compound. How and why did Obama decide not to help them?


steve said...

I saw this the other day and scanned through much of it. I believe it wholeheartedly. Most people think that Obama simply was "in over his head" when he first started playing president. They think he's "incompetent". The problem with them and I mean even people like Beck, Levin, Hannity, Rush ... they treat Obama just like the things I mentioned. They do not seem to believe that this guy really is a fraud and one of the most sinister in nature. The "Manchurian Candidate" is fictional ... yet Obama is the real deal. Always keep in mind that the most outrageous scandals are the easiest ones to dismiss in our (most people's) minds.
Well dammit! I gotta do some actual work now. I'll be back!

Christinewjc said...

So true Steve! Yet...I also think that Obama is fed his words through a teleprompter so often that the "powers that be" behind it all are controlling this evil puppet. It's like that creepy movie called "Chucky;" (I just can't watch that film!) where Obama gets away with the most outrageous lies, corruption, deceit, evil, sin and even murder; but in this case we don't necessarily see the "face" of the additional evil one(s) behind it all.

Did you hear about Donald Trump's argument with Greta on Fox News? She insisted that Obama had to be "legitimate" because his birth announcement appeared in two Hawaii newspapers! Trump went ballistic on her. O'Reilly thinks the same thing about the usurper. "How could the people who placed his birth announcement in the paper have done so illegitimately back then...not knowing that one day he'd be pResident?" is the nonsensical argument. Anyone with a computer search engine could find the answer to that stupid question!!!

Ahhhh!!!! I can't stand the ignorance of some people in the broadcast industry!!

Anyway...Obama certainly is the Manchurian pResident in our White House and NEEDS TO BE OUSTED on November 6th! He deserves to be impeached and jailed during the lame duck session, too! The criminal stench of the man has build up into a mountain of evil crimes that cannot possibly be ignored anymore!

GMpilot said...

Well, here at TalkWisdom is the real "Secret Fear, Secret Fury"! I've been observing it for more than four years now.
At first, it was simple disagreement with the policies of a politician you disagreed with.
Then it became suspicion of "the Other"; belief that he wasn't American-born, constant emphasis on his middle name, dark hints of his sudden rise from 'nowhere'.
Then it became the Full Metal Birfer: repeating allegations that his father was not his father, that his mother was a loose woman, that his religion is not the same as "ours", that he secretly (and not-so-secretly) collaborates with enemies of the United States; that he is a Muslim, a fascist, a communist (all of which are incompatible positions with each other), culminating in an attitude that borders on the pathological.

Even if rMoney wins--which I, of course, doubt--I fear for your sanity after the 7th of November. But the world will not end, the sun will still rise, the Republic will still stand, and you'll still be a birfer. So I guess I'll have to continue as your favorite nemesis.
It's not the long-term employment I'd expected, but I thank you for making it necessary for me to do it.
See you next week.

GMpilot said...

Oh, by the way; there was also a movie--from '78, I think--about a boy who could talk to and control rats...
His name, and the name of the movie, was "Willard". Hmmm...

Christinewjc said...

I was wondering when you would crawl out of your cave again to make a comment, GM.

I'd take an honest man named "Willard" any day over lying and corrupt Hussein.

BTW, have you seen 2016: Obama's America? It made my skin crawl. The documentary certainly reveals the roots of Obama's rage and how much he hates America, rejects our Constitution, and wants to take his hope and change mantra forward and deeper into the hoax and chains of despair.

I guess all the lies surrounding the Benghazi Massacre and cover-up don't bother you? I noticed you skipped over those posts.

GMpilot said...

I'm on vacation, madam, and under no obligation to answer every little spew you project.
Yes, the Benghazi Incident disturbs me. But is there a cover-up? I think not. Have your sources proven a cover-up? I thought not.
If you can find an honest man named Willard, nominate him. The one you have now doesn't qualify.

You were anticipating my comments? Ah, it feels so good to know that madam thinks so highly of her favorite nemesis!

steve said...

Hey Christine!
I have to admit, I kinda like GMpilot. He's exactly like a gentleman that visits my site daily and comments, John Liming. I will give both of them credit. At least they are fairly respectful though misguided. Of course it's beyond belief that any rational person could vote for Mr. Obama ... but that free cell phone is a strong motivation.
Well Sandy is raising the roof out back, so I'd better check on the little guy.
I hope you and your family are doing well.