Deconstructing Obama

Deconstructing Obama

Posted By Jamie Glazov On March 7, 2011 @ 12:04 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 14 Comments

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Jack Cashill, a Kansas City-based writer and producer who serves as executive editor of Ingram’s, a regional business magazine. He is the author of the just released, Deconstructing Obama: The Life, Loves, and Letters of America’s First Postmodern President, his eighth book and his second on the subject of literary fraud.  He has a Ph.D. in American Studies from Purdue.

FP: Jack Cashill, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Let’s begin with how you came to believe that Obama was not the principal author of his acclaimed memoir “Dreams from My Father”.

Cashill: Thanks Jamie.

I first picked up the book in July 2008.  Early on in the first read, the quality of the writing caught my attention.  Although the book lacks discipline, long stretches of Dreams are very well written. In my twenty-five year career in advertising and publishing, I have reviewed the portfolios of at least a thousand professional writers.  Not a half-dozen among them wrote as well as the author of the book’s best passages.  When I looked into Obama’s other efforts in print, I saw that nothing he wrote was nearly this good.  What surprised me was that no one was even suspicious of Obama’s ability.

FP: Ok, so tell us why it matters if Obama wasn’t the real author.

Cashill: The literary gatekeepers had already anointed Obama a genius on the basis of Dreams, the sacred text in the cult of Obama. The Obama campaign machine, Organizing for America, encouraged its minions to “get out the vote and keep talking to others about the genius of Barack Obama.” This, I sensed from the beginning, was a myth that one challenged at his own peril.

FP: You ultimately came to the belief that Bill Ayers was the craftsman behind Dreams from My Father.  How did you come to make this judgment?

Cashill: Entirely by accident. About six weeks after reading Dreams, I ordered a copy of Ayers’s 2001 memoir Fugitive Days and started reading. The stylistic parallels were stunning. At this point, I had my first Eureka moment, albeit a dumb one—Gosh, I thought, they both live in Chicago.  They must have shared the same ghostwriter!   I had not known that Ayers was a skilled writer and editor.  As a case in point, Hyde Park PLO booster and Obama pal, Rashid Khalidi, credits Ayers in the first sentence of his acknowledgment section of his book, Resurrecting Empire.

FP: In the fall of 2008, what would have happened to the Obama campaign if your thesis had been accepted?

Cashill: Obama biographer David Remnick got this much right.  Said he, “This was a charge that if ever proved true, or believed to be true among enough voters, could have been the end of the candidacy.”

FP: How did the media respond?

Cashill: With a shrug.  This did not surprise me.  Real knowledge might just have undermined their commitment to a philosophy so evasive — “Yes, we can?” — they themselves would be at a loss to describe it.  That much I got.  What I did not get was why the “respectable” conservative media were mimicking the turtle-like defenses of their mainstream peers.  I was not asking them to buy my thesis sight unseen but to kick the tires and take it for a test drive.


FP: How confident were you that you were right?

Cashill: Four weeks before the election I was confident enough in my thesis to submit it to any test.  If proved right, it would have undermined the foundational myth of Obama as genius, confirmed his intimate relationship with an unrepentant terrorist and, perhaps most damningly, established this still untested candidate as a liar of consequence.  In short, it could have turned the election.

FP: Was your thesis ever confirmed?

Cashill: Yes, in Christopher Andersen’s book, Barack and Michele: Portrait of an American Marriage, which was published in September of 2009.  A celebrity biographer with impeccable mainstream credentials, Andersen based his account of Dreams’ creation on sources within Hyde Park.   As Andersen tells it, Obama found himself deeply in debt and “hopelessly blocked.” At “Michelle’s urging,” Obama “sought advice from his friend and Hyde Park neighbor Bill Ayers.” What attracted the Obamas were “Ayers’s proven abilities as a writer” as evident in his 1993 book, To Teach.  Noting that Obama had already taped interviews with many of his relatives,  Andersen elaborates, “These oral histories, along with his partial manuscript and a trunkload of notes were given to Ayers.”  Andersen was reviewed in every major periodical.  Not one so much as mentioned his Ayers’s revelations.

FP: When did you begin to doubt the story that was told in “Dreams”?

Cashill: I had steered clear of the “birther” business. The fever swamps surrounding Obama’s citizenship were swallowing reputations whole, and so I stuck to literary analysis.  It was the poem “Pop,” allegedly written by the 19-year old Obama, that got me interested.  Virtually all reviewers of consequence said the poem was about “Gramps,” Obama’s maternal grandfather.  In fact, as was obvious, it was about Obama’s Hawaii mentor, the poet, pornographer and CPUSA member Frank Marshall Davis. This poem begged the question–why “Pop”?–and opened the doors on Obama’s murky past.

FP: Your own personal belief on the birther issue? Do you think Obama was born in the United States?

Cashill: Yes, but when strategist David Axelrod first combed through the official Obama records—the grades, the SAT and LSAT scores, the college theses, the passport, his parents’ marriage license, the college applications, the birth certificate—he likely saw more red flags than in his parents’ May Day parades and so decided to bury them all.  I think there is something on the birth certificate that will throw the much told nativity story of Barack Obama into doubt, quite possibly the date of birth or even the place.  Unreported so far by the media, little Barry spent the first year of his life in Washington State.

FP: What are your feelings about Obama’s second book, “Audacity of Hope”?

Cashill: To credit Dreams to Obama alone, one has to posit any number of near miraculous variables: he somehow found the time; he somewhere mastered nautical jargon and postmodern jabberwocky; he in some sudden, inexplicable way developed the technique and the talent to transform himself from stumbling amateur to literary superstar without any stops in between.  To credit Audacity to Obama alone, one has to posit at least two additional variables: one is his adoption of a modified and less competent style, and the second is his ability to write such a book given the punishing schedule of a freshman senator.

Whoever wrote Obama’s speeches wrote large sections of Audacity, perhaps all of it.  We found 38 extended passages from stump speeches in 2005-2006 that made their way into this book virtually word for word.  Easily the best candidate for authorship is Obama’s wunderkind speechwriter Jon Favreau.

FP: What happens from here?

Cashill: It was scandalous that JFK won a Pulitzer Prize for Profiles In Courage, a book that he himself did not write.  Imagine if the book had been written not by Ted Sorensen but by Alger Hiss.  That is the kind of scandal we are looking at here.  I need the help of our friends in the conservative media to get the story out.

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine:

Coburn, DeMint Introduce Bill to Defund NPR, PBS

Coburn, DeMint Introduce Bill to Defund NPR, PBS

By Doug Powers  •  March 5, 2011 10:21 AM

**Written by Doug Powers

Quick note: Apologies for the slow posting the past couple of days. I’m “on the road” and haven’t gotten in as much time for a little writing as I originally hoped — which is merely an admission that I’ve failed miserably at the art of simultaneously blogging while playing blackjack.

The Republican vendetta against Elmo stampedes onward, so cue the cartoon aardvark human shields one more time:

Sens. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) introduced a bill Friday to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which doles out federal funds to radio and television stations.

DeMint said it “should be an easy decision” to halt taxpayer money for public broadcasting while the nation is “on the edge of bankruptcy.”

He pointed out that the bipartisan debt commission convened by President Obama suggested ending the subsidies.

The pair focused on NPR and PBS, two major recipients of public media dollars — particularly on the salaries of media execs at both outlets, including the nearly $1 million a “Sesame Street” president takes home each year.

An additional tidbit from CNS News:

DeMint and Coburn also noted that in 2010, NPR accepted a $1.8 million grant from the Open Society Foundation, backed by liberal financier George Soros, to hire 100 reporters. Additionally, NPR has an endowment of over $200 million, they said in a news release.

Imagine the outrageous outrage if Republicans were fighting for public funding for a radio network supported in part by Roger Ailes.

(h/t Weasel Zippers)

**Written by Doug Powers

Posted in Jim DeMint. Tags: , . Leave a Comment »

Charlie Sheen: Typical Addict

Charlie Sheen: Typical Addict

By Nancy


I know Charlie Sheen. I’ve never met him, and I don’t
wish to. But I know who he is and how he feels. He is no super-star and he is
not unique. He is merely a typical addict/alcoholic.

Charlie Sheen’s continuing public meltdowns come as no surprise to anyone
who has ever attended an Alcoholics or Narcotics Anonymous meeting. His drug
induced behavior is the norm for millions who struggle daily with substance
abuse. Some give in to it, as Sheen has, and others manage, for a day at a time,
to remain clean and sober.
Make no mistake, drugs and booze offer an enticing alternative to harsh
reality. When one is under the influence, reality becomes whatever you want it
to be. The capacity for self-delusion is unequaled, at least till it’s time for
another fix or drink. For most substance abusers, this imagined reality must be
maintained at any cost. Hey, who wants to admit to needing a crutch? Better to
redefine reality to a less judgmental interpretation.
Science has not yet determined whether alcoholism or drug addiction is
genetically determined. No-one has figured out why one person can have just one
drink while another must continue drinking well past the drunken stage. There
are, however, certain common patterns of behavior that remain exclusive to
substance abusers. And Charlie Sheen exhibits them all.
Denial: The stock-in-trade of drunks who have not yet lost
everything. To acknowledge a problem means having to deal with it. And taking a
pill or drink instantly banishes that annoying intrusion of reality. Until the
day it doesn’t.
Grandiosity: Anyone who has seen Sheen’s recent appearances on TV should be able to recognize his
increasing disconnect from reality.
Because Sheen has mucho bucks and an entourage of enabling sycophants, it
is unlikely that he will beat his addiction. He will continue to insist his
version of reality is the correct one and will continue to willfully ignore the
myriad warning signs that are so obvious to the unimpaired.
Charlie Sheen is a pathetic drunk. The only thing that separates him from
the gutter is his money. He is not unique. He is a typical substance abuser,
just like the homeless drunks you see in the inner city. The only difference is,
Charlie isn’t homeless.  And despite his insistence on redefining reality to his
specifications, there are certain realities he can’t change.

Alcoholism is a progressive disease. There comes a point when
ever larger quantities of drugs or booze are required to maintain the illusion
of euphoria. Soon the drugs cease to produce a high and instead result in severe
depression and the inability to reason logically. Many drunks hit their bottom
when this happens. Many die. A lucky few are forced to start the rough road to

Another reality Sheen can’t change is the fact that when drunks and
users are under the influence, they don’t mature normally. If a drunk started
drinking at age 17, the emotional and social maturity remains at 17 years old.
Sheen’s show, “Two and a Half Men,” is appropriately titled. Sheen is half a man
— lacking the behavioral maturity that normally comes with age.
Charlie Sheen is one of the unlucky ones, like Anna Nicole, Elvis Presley,
Michael Jackson, and many other stars. He has the means to indulge his addiction
and the money to enable him to continue to escape the consequences of his
destructive behavior. So far.

Charlie has publicly stated that being
sober is boring. It appears he does not have the will or desire to change his
behavior.  I doubt Charlie has the fortitude or character to ever admit he is
just a typical addict, which is the one essential step on the road to recovery.
I predict that when Charlie hits bottom, and he will, he will not be able to
bounce back.

Rasmussen just published a poll showing that 71% have an unfavorable
impression of the “Two and a Half Men” star. But that doesn’t keep Americans
from eagerly watching his life become a train wreck. Sheen’s oh so public
appearances titillate those that need someone to feel better than. Sheen
interprets the interest as support.  I’m embarrassed for him.
Like all of those who live their lives under the influence, the day is
coming when Charlie will hit his bottom. He will self-destruct and finally have
to make a choice that all addicts are eventually forced to make. Death or
sobriety. Personally, I think he has already decided.

is a columnist and news editor for
conservative news site
lives in South Carolina.