Bombshell Obama Vetting: 1979 Newspaper Article By Valerie Jarrett Father-In-Law Reveals Start Of Muslim Purchase Of U.S. Presidency

Sometimes, researchers can find articles from the past to help make sense of what is REALLY going on under the immediate radar of the American people!  However, when the proper research is done, what may seem sensational at first actually becomes logically disturbing (as is pointed out by Pat Dollard in article below) and "suddenly makes a lot of previously confusing things make perfect sense." 

The following article is copied in its entirety, because I want a record of it all here at Talk Wisdom.

 I refuse to post the photos here; especially the face of Ovomit (and that is NOT a strong enough name for the treasonous...well...what comes to mind?...you finish the sentence) or his backside bowing to a Saudi king!

Please spread this far and wide.  Apparently, this article was posted over 5 months ago!  However, this is the first time that I have seen it.  I have read various articles about this possibility before, but none of them put it all together like this one!

Hat tip to Commieblaster for including the link on their webpage which led me to both the Pat Dollard commentary and the original article at the Daily Interlake.com site!

~  Christine

*******

Copy of article posted at Pat Dollard's site:

Why would Muslim oil billionaires finance and develop controlling relationships with black college students? Well, like anyone else, they would do it for self-interest. And what would their self-interest be? We all know the top two answers to that question: 1. a Palestinian state and 2. the advancement of Islam in America. The idea then was to advance blacks who would facilitate these two goals to positions of power in the Federal government, preferably, of course, the Presidency. And why would the Arabs target blacks in particular for this job? Well, for the same reason the early communists chose them as their vanguard for revolution (which literally means “change”) in America. Allow me to quote Trotsky, in 1939: “The American Negroes, for centuries the most oppressed section of American society and the most discriminated against, are potentially the most revolutionary element of the population. They are designated by their historical past to be, under adequate leadership, the very vanguard of the proletarian revolution.” Substitute the word “Islam” for the words “the proletarian revolution,” and you most clearly get the picture, as Islam is a revolutionary movement just like communism is. (Trivia: it is from this very quote that communist Van Jones takes his name. Van is short for vanguard. He was born “Anthony”). In addition, long before 1979, blacks had become the vanguard of the spread of Islam in America, especially in prisons.

Interestingly, in context with the fact that this article was written by her father-in-law, Valerie Jarrett has an unusual amount of influence over Obama (along with personal security that may be even better than his, another unusual and intriguing bit of business here). And equally interesting is that Obama, who may have been a beneficiary of this Muslim money, and may now be in this Muslim debt, has aggressively pursued both of the Muslim agendas I cited above. And, also equally interesting, is that Obama has paid a king’s ransom for court ordered seals of any such records of this potential financing of his college education, and perhaps, of other of his expenses.

Lastly, it’s very important to note that the main source for the article is Khalid Mansour, “the same lawyer who allegedly helped arrange for the entrance of Barack Obama into Harvard Law School in 1988.” (Valerie Jarrett, by the way, was born in Iran. The one country protected by Obama from the sweep of the Arab Spring.) Now all of this may seem sensational, but let’s face facts. What makes it most disturbing is that not only is it all logical, but it suddenly makes a lot of previously confusing things make perfect sense. – Pat Dollard

Excerpted from Daily Interlake: Searching old newspapers is one of my favorite pastimes, and I have tried to use them many times to shed light on current events — or to inform readers about how the past is prologue to our very interesting present-day quandaries.

Recently, I came across a syndicated column from November 1979 that seemed to point 30 years into the future toward an obscure campaign issue that arose briefly in the 2008 presidential campaign.
Though by no means definitive, it provides an interesting insight, at least, into how Chicago politics intersected with the black power movement and Middle Eastern money at a certain point in time. Whether it has any greater relevance to the 2012 presidential campaign, I will allow the reader to decide. In order to accomplish that, I will also take the unusual step of providing footnotes and the end of this column so that each of you can do the investigative work for yourself.

The column itself had appeared in the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Evening Independent of Nov. 6, but it was the work of a veteran newspaperman who at the time was working for the prestigious Chicago Tribune and whose work was syndicated nationally. (1)
 
So far as I know, this 1979 column has not previously been brought to light, but it certainly should be because it broke some very interesting news about the “rumored billions of dollars the oil-rich Arab nations are supposed to unload on American black leaders and minority institutions.” The columnist quoted a black San Francisco lawyer who said, “It’s not just a rumor. Aid will come from some of the Arab states.”

Well, if anyone would know, it would have been this lawyer — Donald Warden, who had helped defend OPEC in an antitrust suit that year and had developed significant ties with the Saudi royal family since becoming a Muslim and taking the name Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour.
Al-Mansour told Jarrett that he had presented the “proposed special aid program to OPEC Secretary-General Rene Ortiz” in September 1979, and that “the first indications of Arab help to American blacks may be announced in December.” Maybe so, but I looked high and wide in newspapers in 1979 and 1980 for any other stories about this aid package funded by OPEC and never found it verified. (Continued after the jump)


You would think that a program to spend “$20 million per year for 10 years to aid 10,000 minority students each year, including blacks, Arabs, Hispanics, Asians and native Americans” would be referred to somewhere other than one obscure 1979 column, but I haven’t found any other word of it.

Maybe the funding materialized, maybe it didn’t, but what’s particularly noteworthy is that this black Islamic lawyer who “for several years [had] urged the rich Arab kingdoms to cultivate stronger ties to America’s blacks by supporting black businesses and black colleges and giving financial help to disadvantaged students” was also the same lawyer who allegedly helped arrange for the entrance of Barack Obama into Harvard Law School in 1988.

That tale had surfaced in 2008 when Barack Obama was a candidate for president and one of the leading black politicians in the country — Percy Sutton of New York — told an interviewer on a Manhattan TV news show that he had been introduced to Obama “by a friend who was raising money for him. The friend’s name is Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, from Texas. He is the principal adviser to one of the world’s richest men. He told me about Obama.” (2)

This peculiar revelation engendered a small hubbub in 2008, but was quickly dismissed by the Obama campaign as the ditherings of a senile old man. I don’t believe President Obama himself ever denied the story personally, and no one has explained how Sutton came up with this elaborate story about Khalid al-Mansour if it had no basis in fact, and in any case al-Mansour no longer denies it. (3)
Back in 2008, while actually supporting Hillary Clinton in the New York primary, Percy Sutton was interviewed on TV and said that he thought Barack Obama was nonetheless quite impressive. He also revealed that he had first heard about Obama 20 years previously in a letter where al-Mansour wrote, “there is a young man that has applied to Harvard. I know that you have a few friends up there because you used to go up there to speak. Would you please write a letter in support of him?”

Sutton concluded in the interview, “I wrote a letter of support of him to my friends at Harvard, saying to them I thought there was a genius that was going to be available and I certainly hoped they would treat him kindly.”

Until now, there really has been no context within which to understand the Sutton story or to buttress it as a reliable account other than the reputation of Sutton himself as one of the top leaders of the black community in Manhattan — himself a noted attorney, businessman and politician. But the new discovery of the 1979 column that established Khalid al-Mansour’s interest in creating a fund to give “financial help to disadvantaged students” does provide a clue that he might indeed — along with his patron, Arab Prince Alwaleed bin Talal — have taken an interest in the “genius” Barack Obama.

It also might be considered more than coincidence that the author of that 1979 newspaper column was from Chicago, where Barack Obama settled in 1986 a few years after his stint at Columbia University. It is certainly surprising that the author of that column was none other than Vernon Jarrett, the future (and later former) father-in-law of Valerie Jarrett, who ultimately became the consigliatore of the Obama White House.

It is also noteworthy that Vernon Jarrett was one of the best friends and a colleague of Frank Marshall Davis, the former Chicago journalist and lifelong communist who moved to Hawaii in the late 1940s and years later befriended Stanley and Madelyn Dunham and their daughter Stanley Ann, the mother of Barack Obama. (4)

And to anyone who has the modicum of a spark of curiosity, it is surely intriguing that Frank Davis took an active role in the rearing of young Barack from the age of 10 until he turned 18 and left Hawaii for his first year of college at Occidental College in Los Angeles. (5)

It is also at least suggestive that Obama began that college education as a member of the highly international student body of Occidental College in 1979, the same year when Vernon Jarrett was touting the college aid program being funded by OPEC and possibly Prince Alwaleed. The fact that President Obama has studiously avoided releasing records of his college years is suggestive also, but has no evidentiary value in the present discussion. (6)

The nature of Vernon Jarrett’s relationship to Khalid al-Mansour is likewise uncertain, but it is very likely they had known each other as leaders of the black civil-rights movement for many years. Under his previous name of Donald Warden, al-Mansour had founded the African American Association in the Bay Area in the early 1960s. He had also helped inspire the Black Panther Party through his association with black-power leaders such as Huey Newton and Bobby Seale. Seale, of course, had a famous association with Chicago later, when he was part of the Chicago Eight charged with conspiracy and inciting to riot at the Democratic National Convention in 1968. (7)

In any case, it doesn’t matter if Vernon Jarrett and Khalid al-Mansour had a personal relationship or not. For some reason, al-Mansour had used Jarrett as the messenger to get out the word about his efforts to funnel Arab oil money to black students and minority colleges at about the same time that Barack Obama began his college career. That doesn’t mean either Jarrett or al-Mansour knew Obama at that time, but eight years later when Obama was a rising star in Chicago, a friend of Bill Ayers and Valerie Jarrett, it is much more likely that he did indeed have the assistance of very important people in his meteoric rise. The words of Percy Sutton about what al-Mansour told him regarding Obama certainly have the ring of truth:

“His introduction was there is a young man that has applied to Harvard. I know that you have a few friends back there… Would you please write a letter in support of him? (That’s before Obama decided to run.) … and he interjected the advice that Obama had passed the requirements, had taken and passed the requirements necessary to get into Harvard and become president of the Law Review. That’s before he ever ran for anything. And I wrote a letter in support of him to my friends at Harvard, saying to them that I thought there was a genius that was going to be available and I certainly hoped they would treat him kindly…” (2)

What possible significance could all this have? We may never know, but Vernon Jarrett, back in 1979, thought that OPEC’s intention to fund black and minority education would have huge political ramifications. As Jarrett wrote:

“The question of financial aid from the Arabs could raise a few extremely interesting questions both inside and outside the black community. If such contributions are large and sustained, the money angle may become secondary to the sociology and politics of such an occurrence.” (1)

He was, of course, right.

As Jarrett suggests, any black institutions and presumably individuals who became beholden to Arab money might be expected to continue the trend of American “new black advocacy for a homeland for the Palestinians” and presumably for other Islamic and Arabic interests in the Middle East. For that reason, if for no other, the question of how President Obama’s college education was funded is of considerably more than academic interest.


Footnotes from The Daily Interlake.com site:

Footnotes:
1) “Will Arabs Back Ties to Blacks With Cash?” by Vernon Jarrett — http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=950&dat=19791106&id=RcFaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=GFkDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6597,1456637&hl=en
2) Percy Sutton interview on NY1, March 2008 — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EcC0QAd0Ug&e
3) The National and International Roundtable posted a one-hour interview with Khalid al-Mansour and other African American Association leaders on the Internet just last week. In the introduction of al-Mansour, the black host notes that his guest had been a patron of Barack Obama and had recommended him for admission to Harvard Law School. You will note that al-Mansour does not correct him.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/solutionsnowradio/2012/09/19/the-national-and-international-roundtable#.UFptoKF6-yA.blogger
4) “All in the (Political) Family,” by Paul Kengor — http://spectator.org/archives/2012/08/03/all-in-the-political-family
5) “Dreams from my Father,” by Barack Obama — http://www.amazon.com/Dreams-From-My-Father-Inheritance/dp/B000R9EG3Q
6) “Why Obama’s College Records Matter,” By Monte Kuligowski — http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/why_obamas_college_records_matter.html
7) “Who is Khalid al-Mansour?” by Kenneth R. Timmerman — http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/khalid-al-mansour-Obama/2008/09/04/id/325191

Hat tips: Pat Dollard.com Daily Interlake.com

*******


HORRIFIED YET???

Envy Is The Great Leveler

It has been interesting to read blog posts which attempt to decipher the reasons why a certain percentage of voters "went Obama."  One writer at American Thinker has a theory:

Who Goes Obama?

at American Thinker - 8 hours ago

Divisive conversation on "Fairness" and motivational phrases such as "We can't wait," "Vote for revenge," "You didn't build that," and "Punish your enemies" were addressed to those whom the campaign already knew would answer "I do" to the question, "Who goes Obama?"

 

A lot of what she writes makes sense and exposes why the liberal leftist socialist/communist indoctrination that has infiltrated our schools over the past 30-40 years has resulted in voters who think BHO is an acceptable choice for POTUS.

 

However, an interesting comment appeared under a recent Talk Wisdom post entitled, BHO Trying To Destroy America:

Anonymous said...

We really can't understand this thing called egalitarianism or equality as the American Thinker author incorrectly labeled it unless we dig into the meaning and intent of envy.

Envy is the great leveler. As the envious person is miserable and unhappy envy desires that all of us must be equally miserable and unhappy. Or poor, sexually perverted, sadistic, beastly, etc.

Schadenfreude, the most secret as well as diabolical aspect of envy, is enjoyment at the suffering of the object of envy. Jerry Springer for instance, invites us to take pleasure in the self-inflicted degradations of his guests.

Part of Tolkien's genius was in portraying evil in a way that we could really see. Thus Sauron is the burning, sleepless eye of envy (Scripture is full of references to the eye of envy) unceasingly sweeping over his "egalitarian" communist hell-on-middle earth where everything is equally twisted, bent, deformed, sadistic,foul, and dead.

We simply cannot understand Karl Marx, Stalin, Alinsky, Obama et al apart from envy and Schadenfreude.

December 9, 2012 1:11:00 PM PST

 

My reply:

Christinewjc said... I think that you are on to something, Anonymous. Causing envy between people by stirring up hatred between black and white, male and female, rich and poor, liberal and conservative are methods utilized to separate, divide, and conquer people. Those who fell for Obama's shell-game (again!!) will one day realize that there isn't anything for them under any of the shells he is circling around around the table!

No wonder that envy is one of the seven deadly sins!

Obama has been exposed over the past four years as a person who regularly utilizes all seven deadly sins in his evil habit of wreaking havoc upon Americans and America:

Pride is excessive belief in one's own abilities, that interferes with the individual's recognition of the grace of God. It has been called the sin from which all others arise. Pride is also known as Vanity.

Envy is the desire for others' traits, status, abilities, or situation.

Gluttony is an inordinate desire to consume more than that which one requires.

Lust is an inordinate craving for the pleasures of the body.

Anger is manifested in the individual who spurns love and opts instead for fury. It is also known as Wrath.

Greed is the desire for material wealth or gain, ignoring the realm of the spiritual. It is also called Avarice or Covetousness.

Sloth is the avoidance of physical or spiritual work

I cannot recall a single instance where Obama has shown kindness towards those in whom he opposes. He has shown only hatred against them and generally attacks them on a regular basis.

December 9, 2012 8:31:00 PM PST

 

 Hat tips:

 

American Thinker

 

Anonymous commentator

          All About God: What Are The Seven Deadly Sins

*******

Catching Wild Pigs

My email friend Bing recently sent me some thought-provoking emails.  The first one was apparently rejected by our local newspaper's "Letters to the Editor."  I present it to readers here, because it aligns well with my previous post as well as the exposure of Agenda 21 whose goal is the death knell of liberty.

In addition to Bing's email, I also include a word picture that he sent to me that explains the title of this post.

~ Christine

“What the government gives you it first must take from you”. (1)

Norman Thomas, Socialist candidate for president, in 1944 said, "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."

Today we have the National Health Care, H. R. 3200 proposal that is one giant step toward socialism; other steps are nationalizing the banks and the auto industry.

H. R. 3200 might well not be adopted if the full H. R. 3200 does not pass muster, but a watered-down version might well pass this year. Next year comes another bite, and so on until we will then wonder how it happened.

Politicians often ask for way more than they really expect, being satisfied momentarily for a little, but bite-by-bite they end up getting the “whole meal”.

Slightly under the radar lies “global warming” with its hidden agenda of world government control that really has nothing to do with CO2, for CO2 is just straw-man in the ambitions for power and wealth and has little to do with warming.

Dr. Irvin  (Bing)



1. Museum of Mid-America College in OK City.

*******

 

We would all do well to heed Dr. Irvin's (Bing) warnings! Perhaps a word picture helps us understand exactly what is happening here in America - under the radar of those who would trade freedoms for goodies...or as Mitt Romney recently relented...the giving of free "gifts."

~ Christine

*******

CATCHING PIGS....

THIS IS THOUGHT PROVOKING!

There was a chemistry professor in a large college that had some

exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab,

the professor noticed one young man, an exchange student, who kept

rubbing his back and stretching as if his back hurt. The professor asked

the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet

lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his

native country who were trying to overthrow his country's government

and install a new communist regime.

In the midst of his story, he looked at the professor and asked a

strange question. He asked: "Do you know how to catch wild pigs?"

The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line.

The young man said that it was no joke. "You catch wild pigs by finding

a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground.

The pigs find it and begin to come every day to eat the free corn.

"When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side

of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the

fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of

the fence. "They get used to that and start to eat again.

You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side.

"The pigs, which are used to the free corn, start to come through the

gate to eat that free corn again. You then slam the gate on them and

catch the whole herd. Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom.

They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught.

Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they

have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves,

so they accept their captivity."

The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees

happening in America. The government keeps pushing us toward

Communism/Socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tax exemptions, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, [Obamacare - added by Christine] etc. while we continually lose our freedoms, just a little at a time.

One should always remember two truths: There is no such thing as a free

lunch, and you can never hire someone to provide a service for you

cheaper than you can do it yourself.

If you see that all of this wonderful government "help" is a problem

confronting the future of democracy in America, you might want to send

this on to your friends. If you think the free ride is essential to your

way of life, then you will probably delete this email.

But, God help us all when the gate slams shut!

Quote for today:

"The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living

are now outnumbered by those who vote for a living." 

******* 

Hat Tip:  Bing via email 

What ObaMARXIST and his BADministration Have Resulted In!

Barack Hussein Obama's actions in office as pResident of the United States and his BADministration have resulted in:

~  Threatened the U.S. Constitution  (Hundreds of examples!! Here's one article!; Recall that he wanted to bypass Congress?)
~  Weakened America's defenses (Benghazi proves this!) (Also weakened our national security!)
~  Encouraged our enemies (Muslim Brotherhood terrorists visited White House all four years)
~  Irritated our closest allies (snubbing of Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu; Obama's radical anti-Israel policies)
~  Moved us towards Socialism  (and communism / Islamo-commie/fascism)
~  Increased our budget deficit (HUGE spending by Obama and Dems in Senate are complicit in NO budget in 3 years!!!)
~  Increased our national debt (added 6 trillion dollars in only 4 years!!!)
~  Weakened our economy (Evil Socialist Soros - Obama's boss); job killing regulations, his anti-coal/gas/oil policies)
~  Trivialized the War on Terror ("Overseas contingency operation"??  How dumb is THAT label??)
~  Failed to meet his promises  (In other words, he LIED to get elected in 2008, has LIED PROFUSELY ever since, and he is LYING ABOUT BENGHAZI-GATE! See Obama's crimes!!)

(This list could go on and on.  See this site: Commieblaster.com ).

America!!!  DON'T BE FOOLED AGAIN BY BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA!!




What are the roots of Obama's anti-colonialism (a.k.a. anti-American) rage?   To find out:

Please see the FREE abridged video of the documentary 2016: Obama's America HERE.


Hat tip for video link: Lea11011

Hat Tips to all additional links.

*******

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:

WND EXCLUSIVE

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?

at 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?

2016: Obama's America

My husband and I watched Dinesh D'Souza's 2016: Obama's America documentary tonight. It is certainly an eye-opening and stunning film that EVERY AMERICAN needs to see before voting on November 6, 2012!

When I did a search for reviews on the film, several liberal leftist newspapers, websites, and blogs popped up with their usual false claims of "propaganda" by the "right-winger" D'Souza.  What is interesting to note is that throughout the film, Mr. D'Souza used Obama's own words from his audio book version of Dreams From My Father.

The movie points out how, when and where Obama became an anti-colonialism socialist/communist/radical Islamist sympathizer (via several communist/Islamist mentors) and why America is correct to feel extremely uneasy about his political policies, doubtful that Obama would govern our nation for improvement,  and fearful about the future of America for our children and grandchildren.  The most stunning information is shared near the end of the documentary.  I don't want to give it away here.  You will need to spend the $4.99 for an On Demand rental or store purchase. 

My husband and I both came away with the thought that all voters need to see this film before voting in November!

Granted, there will always be the ObamaBorg Bots who would not change their opinions no matter what.  But the undecided voters and Independent voters would do themselves a favor to see this film and find out (via Obama's past history and the people he was influenced by) what REALLY made Obama's Marxist, anti-colonialism ideology and what he has planned for America if re-elected (God forbid!!).

I found the following review informative, without giving away too much of the punch that the film gives the viewers. Publius Forum: A Review of 2016 - Obama's America.

The following sentences from the above review sums up my feelings after viewing the movie:

" It sets out clear connections between Obama's radical ideology -- which is D'Souza's conjecture -- and those extremists that he really did surround himself growing up, chief among whom was his anti-American, Marxist father, Barack Obama, Senior."

"...a film that was chilling in its expose of our President's true motivations."

"this anti-colonial ideology serves to explain why he is purposefully destroying America."

"D'Souza doesn't have to make claims that Obama is an extremist, anti-American with ideas that have as a main goal the cutting down of American power and influence. He allows the President himself to tell us that with his own words, in his own voice, from his own book."

Now that the movie is out on DVD, even MORE people will be able to see what we would be in for (and it's NOT GOOD) if Obama were to be re-elected.

Perhaps this documentary has helped raise the Romney/Ryan campaign in the polls.  The debates have obviously helped as well.

Please see this movie!!  And invite as many people as possible to see it too!!

~  Christine



Hat tips:
2016: Obama's America
Publius Forum

*******

P.S.  A bit of a spoiler alert....but when you see the following You Tube video in the movie it is absolutely chilling!!

You Tube Video

Don't you just want to shake some sense into those parents!!!

"Hope and Change" has become Hoax and Chains!

*******

So...That's What It's Called! [Update]

Anti-Colonialism! That term helps sum up just what ObamaBorgLand and his nefarious array of cohorts dislike about America. They are not only for the Marxo-Islamo-Fascist crowd, but are against America because of deep-seeded hatred and an Anti-Colonialism attitude. In Dinesh D'Souza's new book, The Roots of Obama's Rage, Americans are about to find out exactly why Obama wants to "fundamentally transform" America, and how the people who have surrounded him his entire life have attributed to Obama's rage against our Constitutional Republic, our economic system of Capitalism, and our American Ideals.

The Christian Newswire was the site where I first found a positive article about the book.

It's weird. When I first typed in "Dinesh D'Souza's new book" into the Bing search, all of these rabid leftist websites and blogs showed up.

Today, Glenn Beck did most of his show on D'Souza's book. They covered some of the facts found in the book. Tomorrow, it will be revealed how Obama and his cohorts apply opinion to distort the facts and thus ignore the problems that his administration is causing in our Constitutional Republic.

In case you missed the show today, I will include a link here to the Youtube version of Beck's show as soon as it is posted online.

Link to entire show:

Watch Glenn Beck.com: Glenn Beck Show - September 29, 2010 - The Roots of Obama's Rage

Glenn Beck Show- September 29, 2010

What Did Glenn Think About His NY Times Cover Story? If You Missed It, You Can Find It Here.

'The Roots of Obama's Rage'

Tonight: The book that Barack Obama and The White House do not want you to read- 'The Roots Of Obama's Rage' author Dinesh D'Souza joins Glenn tonight to talk about the 'real' Barack Obama. Tonight's show is all about fact vs. opinion. As long as a book is based in facts, then we can look at the theories surrounding them and agree or disagree. When someone says not to read a certain book, you know something must be up. The White House has come out swinging hard..the media has smeared Dinesh D'Souza. Find out why tonight.

Hat Tips to all links.

*******

In other news, check out the 10 page article on Glenn Beck in Sunday's New York Times magazine!

Being Glenn Beck

*******

Others writing on this topic:

The Steady Drip: Why Barack Obama Hates America

*******