For decades the liberal media have known about – and seen the videotapes of – Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., and the Marxist, racist, anti-American and anti-Semitic "sermons” he has delivered to the roaring approval of his 8,000-person congregation at the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.

 

2003 sermon: "The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God Damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people. God Damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God Damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

 

2001 sermon on the Sunday after September 11: "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye...We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."

 

I asked Marie Paulette Beauvil, the co-pastor of her Haitian church, how her congregation would have responded to Rev. Wright’s statements. "We once invited a preacher to speak at our church,” she said, "and when he started saying ugly things, one by one everyone just stood up and walked out. He was never asked back.”

 

But Obama went back – for 20 years! – to listen to, absorb, reflect upon, and apparently approve of the inflammatory invective that his "spiritual mentor” spewed forth. As did his wife Michelle – she of the famous "for the first time in my life, I’m proud to be an American” and "America is a mean country.” And so too were his young daughters exposed to Wright’s "liberation theology,” which most people in our country would say is a form of child abuse.

 

As Aliza Davidovit has written: "If you’re in the pew, you share the view.”

 

Black Liberation Theology is a relatively recent phenomenon in our nation’s religious history. It is heavily influenced by Marxism, aligns itself with revolutionary movements, advocates social unrest, emphasizes agitation and perpetual class struggle, and stresses a condemnation of society for its failings.

 

The liberal media knew all this, but the inconvenient truth of it all somehow escaped their reportage.

 

The liberal media knew  that the church published on its "Pastor’s Page” newsletter a "manifesto by Hamas that defended terrorism as legitimate resistance, refused to recognize the right of Israel to exist and compared the terror group's official charter – which calls for the murder of Jews – to America's Declaration of Independence.” But that inconvenient truth somehow escaped their reportage.

 

The liberal media knew of the endorsement of Obama by the New Black Panther Party, a group that the Anti-Defamation League has called "the largest organized anti-Semitic black militant group in America.” But that inconvenient truth somehow escaped their reportage.”
 

The liberal media have known much more damning evidence of Obama’s highly questionable if not shady relationships since they began following him in 1990, when he became the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review in its 104-year history. They followed him – uncritically – when he was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996 and reelected in 1998, and when he became a U.S. Senator in 2004. And when he gave the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, their coverage was nothing less than rhapsodic.

 

Today, after Democrats have sustained years of humiliation at the hands of Republicans, election loss after election loss, and complete impotence after they finally took power in the 2006 midterms, their philosophical allies in the liberal media have finally found their perfect candidate for president – a man who is the apotheosis of all of the left’s misguided, divisive, and failed beliefs: multiculturalism, diversity, moral relativism, and socialism.

 

And so, through Obama’s remarkable run, in which he has garnered significantly more delegates and a greater popular vote than his arch-rival Hillary, the liberal media have purposefully – and to their everlasting lack of professionalism – withheld any meaningful scrutiny of candidate Barack. They thought they could deep-six the videotapes of Rev. Wright’s inflammatory perorations until after – they hoped – Obama was inaugurated, but they failed.

 

Why the Honeymoon Ended

To the left, nothing is more reviled than free speech. That is why liberals – who now laughably call themselves "progressives” – yearn to bring back The Fairness Doctrine, which would, in essence, destroy conservative free speech, especially over the radio airwaves.

 

But to the great fortune of the American electorate, conservatives still reign supreme on Talk Radio, none more so than the powerhouse Rush Limbaugh, who has successfully exposed not only Hillary’s socialist aspirations, fundraising scandals, and utter paucity of "experience” in both domestic or foreign affairs, but now those of candidate Obama, both of whom want to convert our free-market economy into economy-destroying entitlements and our pro-military, pro-intelligence nation into a country of white-flag-waving appeasers that aligns itself with the America-loathing United Nations.

 

Like the liberal media, Rush had access to Rev. Wright’s rants, but decided, strategically, to save them for future airing. He chose, instead, to invoke Operation Chaos, in which he urged Republicans to vote for Hillary against Obama in the primaries in order to perpetuate the ferocious internecine battles of the Democrat Party.

 

His strategy worked. In spite of polls to the contrary, Hillary beat Obama in Texas and Ohio, which left her "alive” and the fight between them going, as they now scramble for revotes in Michigan and Florida and scrounge for superdelegates. As many of my e-mail friends say, "Gotta love it!”

 

But in Rush’s "strategery,” there was something missing: Why is this guy (Obama) getting a pass? That pass didn’t last for long, as Rush and then Sean Hannity and then Laura Ingraham and then Dr. Laurie Roth – all prominent conservative national radio hosts – decided it was time for the American public to hear Rev. Wright’s blasphemous "sermons,” which they blared forth, non-stop, from their own "pulpits” last week.

 

In so doing, they literally shamed the liberal media into following suit. At first, Obama repudiated some of Wright’s more egregious statements and compared him to the kind of uncle a nephew might not always agree with. But he clearly underestimated the outrage Uncle Jeremiah had fueled and the questions his own tepid responses generated. It was only then that Obama was forced into giving his major speech on race on March 18th in Philadelphia's National Constitution Center.

 

The Feedback

Predictably, The New York Times was in hog-heaven ecstasy about Obama’s speech, calling it a "Profile in Courage" and even a "symphony.” Other leftie newspapers, pundits, and talking heads called it, among other things, "history in the making,” "courageous,” "brilliant,” "a watershed moment,” and Chris Matthews said it was "worthy of Abraham Lincoln.”

 

The hosannas notwithstanding, Obama’s speech also generated outrage. Columnist Don Feder asked: "Did he stand up in the middle of one of Wright's hate-filled sermons and shout ‘Enough of this crap!’ Threaten to resign from the congregation? Send a letter of protest to his pastor and spiritual mentor? Express outrage to the church's governing body? Answer: None of the above.”

 

When Obama was questioned about saying, "I can no more disown him [Rev. Wright] than I can disown…my white grandmother who helped raise me...who once confessed her fear of black men who passed her on the street," he explained to an interviewer that the very-much-alive Madelyn Dunham was just ‘a typical white person.’ An answer that compelled international journalist Mark Steyn to wonder: "Is Jeremiah Wright a ‘typical black person’"?

 

Syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker wrote: "Between the lines of change and reconciliation were a discomfiting hint of buried fury, a sense of racial righteousness and a tacit approval attached to his expressed disapproval of Wright's now-famous raves that will leave many Americans wondering: Is he with us? Or is he against us? "

 

"His speech was magnificent in its elegance and rhetoric,” said the former Secretary of State of Ohio, African-American Kenneth Blackwell. "But today Mr. Obama reminded me yet again of his worldview that embraces, among other things, partial-birth abortion, military weakness, and economic socialism.”

 

Writer Ercille I. Christmas, who is black, said:

 

"Truthfully, even if Obama promised to part the Red Sea, he never had me, and he never will. If he does not buy into his wife's and his ‘advisor's’ philosophy but went along with them, then he is more easily led than I would like a president to be. Malleability in dough is a fine characteristic, but not in a politician.”

 

And saying that Obama’s run for the presidency "is based more on the manipulation of white guilt than on substance,” African-American writer, author and filmmaker Shelby Steele added that Obama’s "public persona thrives on a manipulation of whites...and his private sense of racial identity demands both self-betrayal and duplicity.”

 

President Obama?

According to Jim Vandehei and Mike Allen of Politico.com,

 

"Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning...the only way she wins is if Democratic super-delegates are ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party’s most reliable constituency...An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else...People who think that scenario is even remotely likely are living on another planet.”

Translation: Barack Obama will be the Democrat nominee for President of the United States of America.

 

Vandehei and Allen explain that the reason for the fraudulent coverage that portrays Hillary and Obama as neck-and-neck is because "journalists have become partners with the Clinton campaign in pretending that the contest is closer than it really is.”

 

Given the probability that Obama will prevail in Denver, will the liberal media continue it’s dishonest reporting? Will they – as they should – investigate the following? (Cited from NewsWithViews.com).

 

▪ Obama is now being accused by a top official at the Pentagon and former CIA intelligence officer of having an oh-too-cozy relationship with former Weather Underground mastermind William Ayers, who funneled money to Professor Rashid Khalidi, a known terrorist sympathizer. While Ayers and his wife Bernadette Dohrn were hiding from law enforcement, the Weather Underground participated in the bombings of the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon and a State Department building. In his 2001 memoir, Ayers wrote, "I don't regret setting the bombs. I feel we didn't do enough."

 

▪ Obama’s deep ties to indicted businessman Tony Rezko, a major fundraiser for his presidential campaign, who is now on trial for corruption in Illinois.

 

▪ Obama’s position on the board of The Woods Fund in 2002, in which he participated in awarding grants, including a $70,000 grant to the Arab-American Action Network, a Chicago-based group founded by Rashid and Mona Khalidi. Rashid Khalidi, from 1972 through 1983, was the director in Beirut of the official Palestinian press agency, FAFA. When he and his wife left Chicago for Columbia University in New York, he was honored with the Edward Said Chair in Arab Studies. Their goodbye party in Chicago included testimonials from Bill Ayers and Barack Obama.

 

▪ Obama’s approval of one of his campaign headquarters keeping a Ché Guevara poster posted on its wall. Yes, that Ché, Dictator Fidel Castro’s ruthless Marxist-Leninist chief executioner.

 

▪ Obama’s connection to his childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, a Communist Party member and anti-American revolutionary.

 

▪ Obama’s continued affiliation with his black-separatist church.

 

If history is a guide, the liberal media will go out of its way to cover for Obama, paper over his far-left liberalism and spin away any gaffes. It will be up to conservatives to sustain Operation Truth.