Source: Theodore S. Williams

In November 2020, Barack Obama released his newest memoir, A Promised Land.  Now, hot on his heels, comes Jack Cashill’s Barack Obama’s Promised Land: Deplorables Need Not Apply, a savvy and ever-diligent effort to prevent fake news from becoming fake history.

Unsurprisingly, many of Obama’s newly offered truths are woefully inconsistent with those he formerly foisted on us.  I’ve lost track of whether this is version 1.2, 2.1, or 3.0.  In any event, we have yet another layer of Obama’s ipse dixits to add to his earlier ones, undoubtedly also likewise intended to be gospel and therefore ineligible for further questioning.  (Fat chance!)  

Thankfully, truth warrior Jack Cashill, the original Obamologist, continues to remind us of the earlier versions that Obama provided so we can track the layers of obfuscation, the fake corrections, and stick with the only reality that can be documented so far.

Cashill’s book also provides the omitted context within which to evaluate Obama’s claims.  The thirty-plus chapters address such issues as the curiously still evolving purported facts of Obama’s childhood, the as-yet unanswered questions about Obama’s birth date and location, and related smokescreens. 

And, on a broader, macro-level where we all actually live and suffer the consequences of governmental malfeasance, the book covers topics including Obama’s role in the origins of the subprime lending disaster and resulting damage to the economy.  There’s also some cui bono analysis of Obama-supporters who thrived while the populace did not.

I applaud Cashill for continuing to fight the good fight.  Maybe, someday, future historians will be able to prove the real Obama life.  Alas, I have only guarded optimism since truth is disappearing at lightning speed.  Even the archives at the Wayback Machine, Vanity Fair, and Justia have been compromised, edited ex post facto, since initial posting on the internet.  So I don’t know what future historians will be able to trust as source material.

My pessimism is exacerbated by unrelenting destruction of the historical record of Democrats’ formerly defended racist acts and crime in the destruction of statues “associated” with slavery, oddly enough removing some of the worst Democrat offenders in history from public view.  But one can only hope and stay the course. 

As a side note, I first noticed Obama, as did much of the country, when he spoke at the televised 2004 Democrat National Convention in Boston.  I thought he was attractive and well-spoken.  Unlike Joe Biden, I wasn’t stunned that a black male could be both, having many such males as classmates, friends, and colleagues.  But I also heard rumors, from friends who were active in the Democrat party in Massachusetts, about an “unusual” array of bodyguards at the convention who surrounded Obama to whisk him away from reporters.  

I had no dog in the fight — not likely to vote Democrat anyway — but was interested in anyone who could possibly prevent Hillary from becoming the next Democrat presidential candidate.  As hapless and ineffectual as Obama was as president, some of us thank him for winning the candidacy from Hillary, fearing that she would have been even worse.

So I became curious about Obama and looked into him further.  I was gobsmacked to see that his famous and moving speech, the speech he later claimed to have written himself, was in fact given much earlier by Deval Patrick — essentially word for word, with similar cadence and hand gestures. 

In other words, the speech had been choreographed and scripted by, and for, an earlier politician, yet Obama was given unquestioned credit for its originality by the complicit media.  I waited for the mainstream reporters to do the same YouTube search I had and report on that impossible coincidence.  

I’m still waiting, though reported on it on January 13, 2008 (“Obama using parts of Deval Patrick’s campaign”) — and noted that David Axelrod had worked for Obama’s U.S. Senate campaign, in 2004, and was a media consultant for Patrick in 2006.  This might explain the recycling of the speech but not Obama’s lie about writing it himself.

Cashill’s book notes many instances of similar unlikely authorship claims by Obama.

So I realized, very early on, that Obama was a fraud.  A faker.  A Famous Amos, but without the free cookie samples.  At least Amos worked hard to build his brand, an entrepreneur who arguably merited his success.  Yet Obama, being “broke” and “nearly 40,” rode someone else’s recipe for him into the Oval Office only eight years later.  

How?  Who provided the seed capital that created a Barack Hussein Obama?  Why isn’t that the major story about Obama?  Who “selected” him — using the verb that the Reverend Jeremiah Wright insisted was accurate?  And for what quid pro quo?  

We still have almost no answers to that critical part of the creation story. 

Even David Mamet, the playwright and scholar of the long con, would have found Obama’s meteoric rise implausible.  And we’re still asking the same questions about him that went unanswered over a decade ago.  The media are still covering for him, and we are still denied the right to know who was shoved into the White House, by whom, at our expense. 

Our best hope for demanding higher standards of integrity from the politicians who purport to work for us will occur only when their ability to lie to us becomes impossible…when we can demand and expect the truth so we can make informed decisions when we vote.  

So I deeply value the truth-seekers who slog through the mud for bits of truth and follow the bits where they lead.  And share their efforts with us for the common weal.  The best of these, in my opinion, is the original Obamologist, Jack Cashill.

Theodore S. Williams is a pseudonym.  The author is a Federalist and defender of the Constitution.  And Red Sox fan.  He graduated from Vanderbilt University.