Moreover, only a person with intensely negative sentiment toward America as a whole would want to “fundamentally transform” it. Maybe tweak, improve, refine or reform, sure, but transform? And what are America’s fundamentals, anyway, if not Democracy and capitalism? Therefore, an ominous Obama — to anyone who accepts democracy and capitalism, at least.
To illustrate with an example from a more thorough analysis (see my “America’s Anti-American President: Governance and Security Implications” (http://inpolicy.org/2017/02/white-paper-the-.erican-president/ ) ) Obama’s endorsement and then denial of the avowed anti-American, anti-Semitic, Marxist preacher the Rev. Jeremiah Wright is inherent in a 20-year discipleship so strong that the reverend baptized the Obama children.
What do you suppose the outcry would be if George W. Bush, or any Republican, had consorted with David Duke for two decades — a comparable reciprocal to the Obama impropriety? In fact, Mr. Bush was nearly crucified politically for: a) a quarter-century-old Class D misdemeanor DUI arrest, b) prosecuting a war that had the overwhelming endorsement of Senate Democrats, c) poor grammar, d) all of the above. Can we acknowledge a partisan double standard?
On the Obama-Wright nexus, one detail needs to be explicated for the public record. Mr. Obama has compounded the offense by dissembling about his Wright background, which can readily be proven per the customary confidence level standards of social science, as follows:
Suppose Obama had been present for half of Wright’s sermons over the 20 years, as he himself has estimated. If the reverend had delivered only one Marxist/racist/anti-American rant in his 20 years with Obama, the statistical probability that the future President was not present is 50 percent. Only twice, and the probability that Obama attended neither is down to (approximately) 25 percent. Three times yields a roughly 12.5 percent chance of an innocent Obama, and so on.
So after even a handful of objectionable, to say the least, Wright sermons over the period, the probability of Mr. Obama telling the truth about not having been present would be so low as to be dismissed, literally, about 3 percent after only five occasions. Thus is the statistical evidence that Mr. Obama was not telling the truth about his indulgence of thoroughly vile hate speech, evidence that easily meets the scientific standard for robustness, i.e., less than or equal to 5 percent.
Other supportive evidence is that the “Dreams from My Father” autobiography (1995) reports in detail much of Wright’s incendiary oratory. Apparently, Mr. Obama assumed little overlap between his book’s readers and the Wright-denial audience.
Conservatives and Republicans will concur that Bill Clinton lied, so there truly is nothing non-mainstream or controversial about this type of conclusion applied to Obama. Ideologues of any persuasion can probably achieve rare agreement upon summoning the specter of Richard Nixon, just to bolster the immediate point further.
Even with this single example, the rough operationalization of Obama’s anti-American construct is established. Moreover, it clearly does not rely upon domestic policy disagreement across the political divide. Nothing in the illustrative content portrayed above relates to policy.
All of which allows me to pursue the seemingly radical hypothesis that this U.S. president maintained a uniquely hostile attitude toward the country he was sworn to serve — that is, an anti-American American president.
John Gaski, Ph.D., an adjunct scholar of the Indiana Policy Review Foundation, is an associate professor in the Mendoza College of Business, University of Notre Dame. He is a long-time registered Democrat and a long-time registered Republican but intermittently, not sequentially, which should dispatch any possible impression of partisanship.