PostHeaderIcon WTP-03 Deconstructing Obama

The Obot vs. Birther debate continues apace on Bernie Goldberg’s site, where newcomers are always welcome to help the Obots to earn their paychecks. Interestingly, there aren’t any real traditional birthers among the currently active protagonists. None of us much cares where he was born; it is the frauds he is perpetrating trying to conceal his ineligibility that has most folks upset. For me, of course, the issue remains, “Born a Brit – Not Legit,” wherever that may have occurred. I reckon that to be an outrage against our Constitution that we must not let stand.

I received a lame response to the post I shared in WTP-01, where we were discussing Jack Cashill‘s devastating book, “Deconstructing Obama: The Life, Loves, and Letters of the First Postmodern President (Which I highly recommend). I refer to it as the ‘prosecutor’s case file’ in the analogy I was using to try to get through to this Obot legal beagle wannabe, whereby Cashill is the prosecutor, ‘bob’ is the defense lawyer, and we the readers (WTP) are the jury. Don’t miss the last block quoted book review. He describes Obama as well as I have ever seen it done. The case continues:

August 9, 2011 | 10:27 am

Your fantasy trial would never happen; it would be dismissed before it ever got to a jury BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE.

Where are the statements by President Obama admitting that Ayers wrote “Dreams”? Where are the documents between Ayers and President Obama that indicate Ayers wrote “Dreams”? There are none.

All that is left is Cashill reading both books and then speculating the same person wrote both of them. Again: Cashill’s speculation IS NOT EVIDENCE.

If somehow this fantasy trial did get to a jury, President Obama’s statements that he wrote “Dreams” *is* evidence that he did, in fact, write “Dreams.”

And there’s the Oxford professor who wrote a computer program to detect plagiarism, who looked into the allegations and concluded, “I have found no evidence for Cashill’s ghostwriting hypothesis, and rather strong (albeit limited) evidence against.”

August 9, 2011 | 7:58 pm

You are delusional, Bob, and starting to make a fool out of yourself; because you have not the slightest idea what you are talking about. You failed to draw a partisan judge, and the case was not dismissed. Now you are going to have to answer to the bar for your dereliction and incompetence. Your client should sue you for every nickel you have.

Not only did you skip discovery; but after your opening remarks, where you only tried to tell WTP on the jury that the prosecutor had no evidence, you promptly went to sleep while he presented reams of statistical evidence compiled independently by several computer-assisted plagiarism experts. The very credible testimony of these experts affirmed the theory of the prosecutor, and iced his cake beautifully; but you seem to have slept right through it.

When the clerk awoke you, still pitifully unaware of the depth and breath of the prosecutors case, you trot out the only partisan expert witness you could find, making a feeble attempt to impeach the prosecutor’s theory. Of course, WTP on the jury had already heard the testimony of several similar experts, and they came off more competent and less biased than yours.

Then, you offer your summation, and all you have is more cries of “THERE IS NO EVIDENCE,” upon which you rest your case. Sorry, Bob, but WTP on the jury have deliberated, and we are back with our verdict. Ready for it? That is right, we find your client to be a total fraud, and his defense council not much better. Here are some notes from our deliberations, which are published in the review section of the prosecutor’s case file on My favorites, of course, address your assertion that there was no evidence:

///”The reason I gave the book four stars instead of five is that Cashill presents so much detail in support of his thesis that at times I had trouble seeing the forest for the trees. I’d heard an interview by Cashill (which is why I bought the book), and if I hadn’t heard him recite the bones of this story very clearly and concisely, I think I’d have had something of a struggle to keep my eye on the main thread of the argument. I should point out also, that he did not start out to prove that Ayers was the author, in fact Cashill hadn’t even considered that. It came to him slowly as the evidence added up.”///

///”The evidence that Bill Ayers wrote the Obama biography is overwhelming. There are many provable falsehoods in the narrative, prominent among them that Ann Dunham and Obama Sr lived together as a family with baby Barry. The cumulative effect of the many provable falsehoods leads to an overwhelming impression of Obama as a calculating phony. Though he is nowhere near the intellectual that he is made out to be, neither is he the Manchurian candidate that others have suggested. He has cynically exploited the system and many people in his climb. The press has suffered from an unusually aggressive narrative bias in enforcing a willful ignorance to all things not adhering to the Obama party line. This web of lies will come undone. Any Obamabot that reads this book with an open mind will come away with unbearable cognitive dissonance.”///

Then, there was this one. It ventures beyond the facts of the case into personal opinion; but it does describe your Obamessiah as well as I have seen it done anywhere:

///”This book was not only a fun read but it also might be of historical importance. First, it was a fun read because the author wrote it like a detective novel and added lots of ironic humor. Its potential historical importance, however, is that it could well be the beginning of the unveiling of the real Obama. Obama is not the Manchurian Candidate or the Radical-Chief. He is not even a liberal in conscience — our President is nothing more than a complete counterfeit who has made a career out of the self-loathing of white liberals and the mortal fear of everyone else of being labeled a bigot for vetting a black man.

During the 2008 campaign, I watched a video of Obama talking about the constitution being a barrier to wealth redistribution. As a law school graduate, I was not alarmed by the candidate’s will to subvert the constitution (all liberals want to do this), but rather, I was alarmed by his complete lack of sophistication with constitutional law. Obama’s command of constitutional law was that of a freshman political science student — not that of a graduate from an accredited law school. His command of the law was what could be expected of someone who played the diversity card to the fullest and found it as an alternative to doing real scholarship. Any real liberal law student will tell you that the constitution is a “living document” that says whatever you want to say.

During a primary debate he complained about an employer paying less taxes than his secretary. This reflected his failure to understand profit and loss and the fact that an employer only pays taxes on the company’s profits. In the best of times, many good companies experience profits that are little or nothing. When this happens, they pay less taxes than their secretaries because they have less income than those secretaries.

Throughout the campaign, Obama appeared intelligent as long as he was following a teleprompter or a speech writer. A Capella, Obama always demonstrated that there really was nothing on the inside of the Armani. I do not believe that Obama is a writer, a lawyer, a Keynesian economist, or even a loving husband and father. He is just a pretend Wizard of Oz and this book is doing the job of Toto, opening the veil to show that it is all just a console of wheels and levers.”///

See what you missed, Bob? Next time, if the Bar permits you a next time, do your discovery and stay awake in court. Meanwhile, it is not too late to learn the truth. Twelve Bucks on Amazon. Then, you should find there is still plenty of room for you over here, among the productive members of society. Most of us are ex-Lefties, who finally outgrew our Robin Hood fantasies. â—„Daveâ–º

6 Responses to “WTP-03 Deconstructing Obama”

  • Troy says:

    Thanks for the book tip — I just bought a copy on my Kindle. I will report my impressions after I read it.


    • Cool. It is a good read. There is a good video of a talk he gave at a book store on C-Spsn, which I also found enjoyable:

      • Troy says:

        I am well into the Cashill book now and, despite the occasional redundancy, I am enjoying it.

        It takes no skill whatever to recognize that the Obamanation is not skilled in his use of the language. His addiction to teleprompters shows that. The few times he has tried to say anything significant without one, he fumbles and mumbles so badly that I almost feel sorry for him.

        Clearly, someone(s) helped write “Dreams”. Cashill has convinced me that that someone was Ayers, although that was not hard to do.

        Now I want someone to unravel the rest of the Obamanation mysteries. What really went on while he was supposedly at several universities? Where was he really born? Who, besides Soros, has propelled this nobody into the highest office in the land, despite his absolute lack of qualifications?

        I get the queasy feeling that NOTHING is right about this guy.


  • Troy says:

    BTW, I was never a leftie (I guess because I skipped college). I am embarrassed to admit that I was once a conservative (not the neo flavor or a Bible thumper though). But I did suffer under the mistaken notion that we needed more laws to regulate personal behavior. I now know better. Thank you Ayn Rand!


    • I still remember the first time I encountered the terms ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative.’ I was a Jr. in high school, taking a required class entitled, “World Government.” The premise of the text book by the same name, was that we would eventually progress to a world government, on the model of the UN (Later in life, I discovered that the book was written by a communist for UNESCO). The teacher was young and cool, the most popular one in the school, much active in student government and other extracurricular activities. We loved the guy.

      He explained that a liberal was a “young dynamic person, who wanted to change the world for the better,” and a conservative was “an old-fashioned fuddy-duddy, like your parents, who either wanted the world to stop progressing, or even regress to be like more primitive times.” Then he asked for a show of hands… you guessed it, presto… 35 new little liberals were born, and I am constrained to admit my hand was up with them. 🙁

      I did a flip-flop after three years in the Army, and became a conservative. It wasn’t until I was nearly 30 that I discovered Ayn Rand, and found my philosophical home. â—„Daveâ–º

      • Troy says:

        When I was in High School, I got high marks for a paper I did extolling the glories of democracy. I am ashamed to admit how gullible I was then. I didn’t just take it hook, line and sinker, I was trying to swallow the rod and reel. Then I got my first “real” job, working at Cape Canaveral, rubbing elbows with ex Nazis and getting an education you could not buy. To say there was a contrast would be the ultimate understatement.


Leave a Reply

Political Spectrum
Political Circle

Think Up/Down not Left/Right

Internal Links