Obama Says Would Meet With Iran President

The You Tube evidence.

Jimmy Carter's Second Term

Democrats claim that a John McCain presidency will be like George Bush's third term. Mark Noonan contends Barack Obama will fulfill Jimmy Carter's second:

While Jimmy Carter was wringing his hands and lecturing the
American people about taking the bus and obeying the speed limit, Ronald Reagan
was plotting a reborn American economy which would have the freedom from
government regulation and taxation required to adjust to the new energy
realities…and as we still live in the economic house Reagan built, even the
monstrous increases in oil prices - prices which killed the US economy under
Carter - have failed to push us over into a Carteresque “stagflation”
recession…Obama proposes more handwringing; and John McCain? He proposes
actually doing something about it…increasing our energy supplies, including the
construction of 20 nuclear power plants. McCain = Do Things. Obama = Worry About Things.

Actually a third Bush term might not be too bad. Winning the War on Terror, a pretty good economy considering we have been a war for 7 years, plus continually frustrating the Mainstream Media on why they can't influence national policy, as they will definitely do if their chosen candidate Obama is elected.

Back to the 1976 Election

It now appears inevitable that Democrats will nominate Senator Barack Obama as their candidate for the White House, instead of the early favorite and once-thought inevitable Senator Hillary Clinton. Too bad they have chosen an anti-war appeaser as their nominee in this Age of Terror, though this is good for conservatives.

During the 1976 Elections, liberals voted in an eerily similar candidate, Jimmy Carter, a so-called man of peace at a time of Détente with the communist Soviet Union. Carter's peace plan actually caused more wars than it stopped, with the rise of Islamic radicalism in Iran, Marxist wars of revolution spreading unchecked, plus the surprising (to our Democrat President) Russian invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Also, while the US was disarming, the communists were rapidly exploiting our naiveté to create the largest military forces in all history, surpassing the US in most weapons systems.

Obama as Carter, and the ongoing threats facing our nation isn't the only comparison we can garner from this Era. In the Republican battles for the White House, between incumbent President Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan we can view a glimmer of the Obama/Hillary contest. That year, the hard-line Cold Warrior Reagan gave the more moderate Ford a tough struggle, though the latter won his Party's nomination, it was such a close race that eventually the he lost the Election in November to Carter. Reagan, with his realist vision of the Cold War, turned so many conservatives and independents against the naive advocates of Détente, he paved the way for his own victory in 1980, while hurting our chances in 1976.

Clinton appears as the insurgent candidate this year, playing the role of Reagan 32 years later, though hardly with the Great Communicator's worldview. Though she may be on the losing side this election cycle, her impressive run and stubborn refusal to quit has impressed even her many critics on the Right. Meanwhile, her more moderate views (compared to Barack Obama's) are more acceptable to the majority of Americans still wary of the terrorist threat we have faced since 9/11.

Fortunately, in the "Carter role", prepared to take advantage of the chaos in the other Party is Republican Senator John McCain. Only in this can he be compared to the disastrous Carter, who proved woefully incapable of contending with the rise of Radical Islam in Iran, or the resurgent Soviets. In contrast, the Maverick is for smaller government, fiscal responsibility, pro-life, and most importantly, prepared to take the fight to our nation's enemies for as long as it takes.

Obama's Elusive Patriotism

Barack Obama once again finds himself having to defend his patriotism to the country. How did we ever get to this point in America? Obama is continually forced to reassure the electorate, because of statements by his pastor, his wife, his own plans to talk to terrorist supporting states, that he will not sell this nation's security up the river if he becomes its commander in chief. His latest knee-jerk overreaction to comments President Bush made before the Israeli Knesset must only compound the continued doubts that the Democrat Senator has the stuff to defend America against her many foes. Listen to this latest criticism from Obama of President Bush:

(Bush and John McCain) need to answer for the fact that Al Qaida's
leadership is stronger than ever because we took our eye off the ball in
Afghanistan.
They've got to answer for the fact that Iran is the greatest
strategic beneficiary of our invasion in Iraq. It made Iran stronger, George
Bush's policies.
They're going to have to explain why Hamas now controls
Gaza, Hamas that was strengthened because the United States insisted that we
should have democratic elections in the Palestinian Authority.

This is the kind of blame America first that raises questions of Obama's judgement. Instead of blaming the terrorists, the radicals who blow up innocent civilians including women and children without compunction, the democrat frontrunner blames America's leaders and her policies. We have to wonder if a future President Obama is faced with another terrorist attack on a US city on the scale of 9/11, 2001, where over 3000 innocents died in the Twin Towers and Pentagon, would he respond with military force or with regrets and apologies for "George Bush's policies"?

More-His own Party is helping much either:"House Democrats Reject Troop Funding" and "Joint Chiefs Chair Admiral Mullen says the funding must be provided within days, or the Pentagon will be forced to begin sending layoff notices."

Hillary and the Conservatives

Sen. Hillary Clinton's ongoing guerrilla war on titular Democrat nominee for the oval office, Sen. Barack Obama, is becoming a conundrum for many on the Right. Something which Conservatives take particular delight in is her "sticking it" to the Mainstream Media, who are constantly exasperated for her defiance of their chosen candidate Obama, a rookie politician at best who they have an odd affiliation for.

Hillary's continued defiance of those in the Democrat Party, who wish to have the nomination process over and done with so that they can get on with the business of attacking Republicans, is also of immense satisfaction to the latter. With the Left undergoing their own civil war, the GOP's nominee Sen. John McCain is looking more Presidential everyday to many in the country who are tired of the constant partisan nickering.

Then there is the support Clinton is garnering from the "vast right wing conspiracy" itself, talk show host Rush Limbaugh and his legion of radio listeners. Limbaugh has mobilized his forces under "Operation Chaos" to keep the often teetering Clinton campaign ongoing, apparently to continue the uncertainly within the Democratic Party up until the last possible moment.

Limbaugh's motives are suspect, however. He contends he is doing this for the good of the Republican Party, which is likely true. One has to wonder if his definition "of good for the Party" means a Hillary Clinton Presidency. Rush has made his views well known, especially earlier this year, that only a major Republican loss would get the Right back to the principles of Ronald Reagan. My own take on the Liberals winning both the White House and Congress is similar to Jerry Pournelle's:

The argument is to give the Democrats their head, and pick up
the pieces after the inevitable crash. I think that overlooks the resilience of
tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect regimes. We haven't seen much in
the way of reforms in Europe. The Democrats will create new bureaucracies that
can never be dismantled...
As to the war: if we give the Democrats full control of the
government, we won't get a sensible foreign policy: see Kosovo if you doubt
that. We may get a disengagement from Iraq: the price will be high, in blood of
those in Iraq who trusted us, and in honor. We may not. Disengaging from Iraq
will not be a simple matter. A gradual withdrawal won't work well: as we pull
out, the insurgents will be heartened. The result won't be pretty...I conclude
that McCain as president is a far lesser evil than Obama would be.

Then, there is John McCain himself, who insists on alienating the Right by his close ties with the MSM, refusal to attack Barack Obama on issues of substance, and repeating liberal talking points. Yesterday the "maverick" gave a major speech on Global Warming and all I could do is ask "why, with all the problems in the world from energy to war, must we get berated by one of our own with this new religion of the social elites?"

Still, in this year of resurgent Democrats, he may be our only alternative. Anything the far right has to offer seems such a long shot as giving us Ralph Nader for Al Gore in 2000, or Ross Perot for Bush #1 in 1994. The best choice is we have no other choice.

Obama's 57 States

I kid you not.

Will Democrats go the way of British Labour?

With terrorism, energy, illegal immigrants, trade, jobs, and America's crumbling infrastructure, the Nancy Pelosi Congress' position has been to do nothing and blame President Bush. Rather than seek some compromise with the opposition party, they defer instead to the bias wishes of their radical base, the Netroots, who suffer no dealings with Republicans.

If the Democratic Party continues their pursuit of being the "worst Congress in history", they may find themselves elected out of office, much as the British cast out its Labour Party last week. The once triumphant party of Tony Blair did its very best to make their nation's resurgent economy worse. American Liberals in their 2nd year in power has done little to stop a 60% rise in gas prices, an economy in the doldrums, plus make good on their vow to force a withdrawal from Iraq (thankfully).

All polls still seem to point toward a good year for Democrats, yet as seen with the once wildly popular Labour Government, political fortunes can change overnight. If the present occupiers of Congress fail in their mandate for change, it is very likely they too will be forced out as were Republicans in 2006.

The Democrats also seem set to choose as their Party's candidate for President someone who is closer to their out-of-the-mainstream Far Left ideology, Senator Barack Obama. The more we learn about the man with the most liberal voting record in the Senate, the less likely he appears as a viable match against the conservative John McCain. In contrast is the more moderate Hillary Clinton, who the Netroots despise, but knows how to win against Republicans, if her husband's political victories at the height of the Reagan Revolution is any comparison.

Another example of how fortunes change is Italy's recent election which saw Bush ally Silvio Berlusconi return as President. The Italians snd the British apparently have learned that easy answers are no answers at all. Democrats could learn this lesson, that their recent comeback could be short-lived unless they can find answers to our nation's myriad woes, rather than the too-easy but familiar gridlock and partisanship.

The O'Reilly and Clinton Show

Bill O'Reilly conducted a surprisingly good interview with Hillary Clinton on Fox last night. She more than held her on against the insufferable O'Reilly who hit her pretty good on some tough questions, my favorite being "you're going to bankrupt America with Hillarycare".

Thought they also made an excellent team. The nation would likely be better served with a new "Hill and Bill" show on the network, less so if she siphons off the nation's prosperity with her Health Care proposals.

Not certain why the Left candidates are afraid of appearing on the Right leaning network, preferring rather to get the soft-ball questions from the Old Mainstream Media. What we saw last night was a real interview, real journalism. How can we know what a candidate really believes in until they get an opportunity to defend those beliefs, something that won't happen from a sit down with Bill Moyers?

Now that the Democrats are getting over their fear of Fox, this come as a warning to John McCain. Just as Clinton increasingly becomes the anti-elitist, anti-Obama, she could very well become the anti-McCain. He should consider this next time the Maverick decides to throw his base conservative support under the bus, as happened recently in North Carolina.

The Man Who Sabotaged Barack Obama

The greatest piece of advice that Senator Barack Obama's pastor of 20 years, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright never gave to his young protege, was to forget about their long and close association, at least until after the 2008 Presidential Election. Sadly, the advice wasn't given and Obama chose to stand by his man, whose racially charged sermons and anti-American point of view were the antithesis of the Senator's message of hope and reconciliation among people of all colors.

While Obama did eventually distance himself from Wright's more controversial statements, such as blaming whites for the AIDS virus and the US government for 9/11, he failed to sufficiently denounce the Reverend and prove to potential white supporters that all forms of racism was wrong, no matter who was espousing them.

Still, the numbers seem to favor the first black candidate with a realistic chance of becoming US President. His support is as strong as ever, as is fundraising which numbers tens of millions higher than any other candidate, Republican or Democrat. Yet, these same opponents have pounced on this new chink in Obama's political armor. Against Hillary Clinton especially, the frontrunner early on in this election cycle, he has been unable to "close the deal", with the former First Lady clinging desperately to his heel.

Though it is still early to say for certain, this could be the beginning of the end for the Press' favorite candidate: the demise of Barack Obama's aspirations to the White House. Jeremiah Wright, plus his elitist speech in San Francisco, followed by an embarrassing loss in Pennsylvania all suggest that the glory days are behind the Senator.

Meanwhile, Wright garners much attention and large funds at successive speaking engagements, while settling down in his church-funded million dollar mansion. Thus, while his young friend flounders in the polls, the Reverend is living the good life he once denied his followers to seek, the American Dream.
Perhaps this was his intent all along, to sabotage what was for Obama a clear path to the White House. How could he and his cabal of race baiters continue to rail against "the man", when one of their own was "the man"? Where then would Wright's legion of followers along with their monetary support go?

Hillary in the Forge

Some in the media have declared that Hillary Clinton's continued persistence in the race for the oval office has been a needed learning experience for Barack Obama. Her tough and experienced form of campaigning is supposedly making a better candidate of the first term Senator from Illinois. My own view is the opposite is true, as Obama's own hypnotic, non-threatening, but ultimately empty speech making, as he's propped up by the fawning mainstream media and George Soros' war chest, has finally allowed Hillary to "find her voice" and her legacy. Early on the former First Lady has been accused of riding her husband coattails to the nomination. Who can say so now, when if anything Bill has been a thorn in her flesh, with the wife performing surprising victories often in spite of her husbands numerous gaffes in the Press?

We also saw an interesting side of Hillary Clinton during this weeks' Pennsylvania primaries that we haven't seen of late. We have been used to her stance since Barack Obama began rising in the polls of questioning the Iraq War, going so far as to label our military leaders as being dishonest on recent gains in the 5 year conflict. Now that her fortunes seem to be on the rebound, we see a more hawkish, more moderate side of the liberal Democrat.

Clinton's recent tough speech vowing to obliterate Iran, plus the Pennsylvania ad viewing her as a pro-military hawk in the tradition of Truman and Roosevelt is a welcome change. So, in her quest to be the polar opposite of her far-left opponent Obama, whose stated intent to negotiate with our enemies and punish America's allies is well known, we see a better, more rationale Hillary. Just as her husband sustained Democrats during a resurgent era of conservatism in the 1990's, this new Hillary might just be the antidote to the elitism many Americans see the Party has fallen into in recent years.

LA Times: Is McCain Fit for Command?

Because he receives disability payments for having been tortured in Vietnam, the LA Times dares to question his fitness for service. The story is from FoxNews:

The Los Angeles Times is after John McCain, reporting that
while he boasts he is in robust health and can hike the Grand Canyon, he also
receives a 100 percent tax free disability pension from the Navy.
McCain has
said he receives a pension of about $58,000. He suffered extensive injuries when
his plane was shot down and he was tortured as a prisoner of war in North
Vietnam. He cannot raise his hands above his shoulders and walks with a slight
limp.
California tax lawyer Robert Schliemann tells The Times, "It is a
legitimate question to ask about the commander in chief: Is he fit to
serve?"...McCain senior adviser Mark Salter reiterated Wednesday that the
senator is in good health: "He is disabled from his war wounds which is why
receives the pension."

Here is the Times story. So in their view, this man would be unfit to serve in the high office:

Who led America through the Great Depression, fought and won World War 2, created the United Nations, and basically established the post-war world, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Seeking Sanford for VP

The maverick Senator from Arizona John McCain plus the maverick Governor of South Carolina Mark Sanford for the oval office in 2008? Sounds like a winning combo, to me and the Wall Street Journal's Brenden Miniter:

Over the past six years, Mr. Sanford has amassed a political record
that many within the GOP would like to see enacted in Washington: tax cuts,
school choice, market-based entitlement reform and a long list of vetoes handed
out to a profligate legislature. Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove and Sen. Lindsey
Graham (a stalwart John McCain backer) have all floated Mr. Sanford's name for
veep...
South Carolina isn't the first state many Republicans might think to
find a running mate; it's likely to vote Republican no matter who Mr. McCain
taps. But Mr. Sanford is popular on the right because he understands markets.
"There are only two ways to raise the standard of living," he said, "through
technology – one backhoe can dig more dirt than 50 men with shovels – and
through brain power . . . And that's it."

I still can picture Sanford walking into the State Capitol building with the pigs pooping all over him. That's basically what pigs do, in real life and in politics.

God, Guns, and Obama

Well, not surprisingly Barack Obama's foes are giddy at the Senator's recent gaffe, which seems rather insulting to rural Americans when you hear it:

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of
small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing
[has] replaced them. And it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling
to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or
anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their
frustrations."

Sounds really out of touch, right? There are so many things wrong with the statement, at least in my South. First, most people I know often are faithful church members whether they have a good job or not. Most are grateful for the comfort our faith brings when the bad times come. We praise him in the good times and bad which is how He instructs us: True Religion.

Though I personally am not a hunter, this is so common where I've grown up that its obvious men and some women do so for the pure enjoyment. Some really enjoy the taste of wild game, and uses the sport to cut down on the grocery bill. I can't imagine someone so upset over losing their job that they suddenly decide to go hunting!

Finally, a common assumption our politicians make is that ordinary Americans outside California are against immigration as a whole, when it is illegal immigration and the unimpeded flow of ever more dependents on our schools, so-called jobs Americans won't do, plus the strain it has on our hard pressed hospitals and government institutions. By claiming rural citizens are against all immigration, they shut down the debate, claiming we are a bunch of racists, all for the sake of more votes for whatever Party.

I must admit that Hillary is making alot of sense on the subject, whether her motives are noble or not. For once she didn't sound like she was pandering or phony when she stated:

"Americans who believe in the Second Amendment believe it's a
matter of constitutional right. Americans who believe in God believe it's a
matter of personal faith," she said. "The people of faith I know don't 'cling'
to religion because they're bitter. People embrace faith, not because they are
materially poor but because they are spiritually rich."

Sounded much better on video if you happen to catch it on the news.

Surprising words from Obama, considering his well-known faithfulness to a single church for 20 years. It begs the question, what would the Senator and his elite supporters have us replace the Joy of Living with? Perhaps his own faith that government is so all powerful that that it can supply the common man with all the answers, which we think we have found already in our God and traditions.

Interesting-This is via Daily Kos"Pennsylvanians fought and died for liberty, a Constitution, and a government that would obey the law. When they thought it was stretching its powers, they had the Whiskey Rebellion. When they ask about "patriotism," you can talk about the Constitution. It was written here, OK? People get it.
Religion? This state was founded on religious tolerance, with Quakers, Shakers, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, and lots of Catholics. You can still hear Mass in Polish, and churches aren't the size of aircraft carriers. People know the "The Rapture" is strictly from crappy paperbacks, not the Bible."

The Great Democratic Divide

Remember, it all began in 2008! Here's Victor Davis Hanson:

For the Democratic party, 2008 was supposed to have been an ideal
year...Now we can expect months more of infighting. As the Democrats raise tens
of millions to destroy themselves, McCain can only sit back and smile.

With Obama the likely nominee, we can also expect to hear more from, and
about, his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. Reporters no doubt are scanning Rev.
Wright’s massive corpus of texts and DVDs for more hate speech.

Even before the Wright controversy, the Democratic vote had been split heavily along racial lines — whites for Clinton, blacks for Obama — in certain states,
including the all-important Ohio. That’s not a good sign for a party that’s
supposed to be a model of racial transcendence.

The Party of tolerance now sees their obsession with race and diversity inciting chaos. If the Right stands by McCain, hopefully the Dems won't take the country down with them.

Recently I wrote an Oped titled-The Democrats Crash and Burn, discussing the liberal turmoil.

Is it McCain/Romney?

I sure hope so. What a ticket! From the AP:

In a show of Republican unity, one-time bitter foes John McCain and
Mitt Romney raised money and campaigned together Thursday for a single goal -
getting McCain elected president.
"We are united. Now our job is to energize
our party," the Arizona senator said in an airport hangar, flanked by Romney and
Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., an early McCain supporter. Both have been mentioned
as potential vice presidential picks, and McCain praised each.
Romney lauded
McCain and promised to do all he can to help, saying: "He is a man who is proven
and tested" and without question the right man to be president.

Reading the article, it seems all the old campaign animosities are set aside for the good of the Party. Also, McCain's lastest video is totally awesome!!!

Further Thoughts on the 2008 Race

John McCain is sitting pretty, while the Democrat candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton continue their war of words. Meanwhile, the Maverick is visiting foreign dignitaries, making major speeches on top issues, garnering welcome endorsements, all the while looking very presidential these days.

"Democrat Civil War" was the headline on MSNBC yesterday morning. It's what we are all thinking but better when the Left considers itself in such straits. Perhaps they should also consider pulling out of another tough fight and leave the hard work to the adults on the Right.

Barack Hussein Obama lectures us all on race relations, while refusing to disavow his 20 year relationship with his hate-spouting pastor, Jeremiah Wright. His attitude seems to be "Racism is OK for me, but not for thee."



"Impossible for Hillary to win" considering the delegate count, is the new mantra for the Press. Aren't they tired of always being wrong, since we've heard the same talking point with each new Democrat Primary, as they continue to prop up their chosen nominee Obama. Maybe the media considers a falsehood told long enough by them will eventually become the truth.

In spite of her politics and lineage, Chelsea Clinton is my new hero with her derogatory attitude towards the Press. "None of your business" was a recent response to a prying questioner concerning her mother and the Monica Lewinsky scandal of the past decade. The Media claim they speak for the people when they berate and defame our elected officials and private citizens, but it is clear they have long ago abandoned public service for their own agenda.

Waiting for the Trans-racial Candidate

Michael Myers of the NY Civil Rights Coalition says Obama "blew it". From the LA Times:

I waited in vain for our hybrid presidential candidate to
speak the simple truth that there is no such thing as "race," that we all belong
to the same race -- the human race. I waited for him to mesmerize us with a
singular and focused appeal to hold all candidates to the same standards no
matter their race or their sex or their age. But instead Obama gave us a full
measure of racial rhetoric about how some of us with an "untrained ear" --
meaning whites and Asians and Latinos -- don't understand and can't relate to
the so-called black experience.

Well, I am black, and I can't relate to a "black experience"
that shields and explains old-style black ministers who rant and rave about
supposed racial differences and about how America ought to be damned. I long ago
broke away from all associations and churches that preached the gospel of hate
and ethnic divisiveness -- including canceling my membership in 100 Black Men of
America Inc., when they refused my motion to admit women and
whites.

Please read the rest.

Barack Seeks to Have it Both Ways

Can you denounce rascism and embrace it in the same speech? Astoundingly, in a speech seeking to promote unity among the races, Barack Obama compared the bias of the grandmother who raised him, to the angry and crazed rantings of Jeremiah Wright:

"I can no more disown [Jeremiah Wright] than I can my white
grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and
again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world,
but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the
street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic
stereotypes that made me cringe."

Obviously, he is unable to distinguish between what is hate speech seeking to shock and cause division and what is not. Jeremiah Wright had an audience of thousands, while the grandmother's only confident was her close relations. Obama has lost a great opportunity to finally unite a majority of whites and blacks to win the presidency. He promised us his campaign would transcend racial issues, but when it comes to the wire, he just can't let go. I was never a supporter, but deep down, even I was hoping there was real sincerity in a black candidate this time.

What Obama Knew, and When Did He Know It?

Concerning the Reverend Jeremiah Wright controversy, Victor Davis Hanson weighs in:

Almost everything Barack Obama has said about his relationship
with Wright is untrue. He is hardly ‘not particularly controversial’. No one
needs to “cherry-pick” his sermons to find in them hatred; in some speeches that
venom is the entire theme. Obama mentions Wright’s AIDs work—never that Wright
blamed America for the AIDs epidemic. Obama mentions Wright’s positive work on
apartheid, not that Wright claimed the U.S. put Mandela in jail. And on and
on.

Obama knew of his extremisms as evidenced by past
interviews in which he mentioned Wright’s flair (cf. especially his encomium on
6/5/07), by his church attendance for more than twenty years, by his mention in
his memoirs of Wright’s take on Hiroshima and other controversies, and by his
admission he took Wright’s tapes to Harvard for inspiration.

First there was Obama's refusal to wear an American pendant, then Michelle Obama's admitted shame for her country. Now this. I think our vision of what we want Barack Obama to be, a healer and uniter, and his actual persona are world's apart.

Obama Apologizes for Ranting Pastor

Some are wondering what took him so long! From Yahoo/AP:

As video of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright has widely aired on
television and the Internet, Obama responded by posting a blog about his
relationship with Wright and his church, Chicago's Trinity United Church of
Christ, on the Huffington Post...

"I categorically denounce any statement that disparages
our great country or serves to divide us from our allies," Obama said. "I also
believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public
dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject
outright the statements by Reverend Wright that are at issue."
In a sermon on
the Sunday after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, Wright suggested the
United States brought on the attacks.

What puzzles me, is how could the Senator sit listening to these type sermons denouncing America's culture for 20 years without being affected by these ravings. The question is, how much of Obama's worldview has been formed by his close association with this man?

Here, then, is the shocking video (Warning, Racist Statements):