- WND - http://www.wnd.com -

Legitimizing the black fringe

Lest I wax tedious, there are certain truths that must be “drummed home,” as it were, for people to take sufficient notice of them.

We have already witnessed the phenomenon of far-left fringe elements having been emboldened by the election of Barack Obama to the office of president of the United States, despite the fact that his inauguration is more than a month off. This is but a foretaste of what is to come as regards the advancement of radical agendas in America, apart from anything in which our new president is directly or indirectly involved.

As I have expressed previously, a chief concern vis-à-vis race relations in the wake of Obama’s election is the validation of opportunistic, self-aggrandizing activists. These interests sought further legitimacy for themselves and their brand of race politics during the Obama campaign. One of the reasons this was possible lay with Obama’s ties to Trinity United Church and its former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

As the reader may recall, this issue first came to light after my column “Obamination” was published in February 2007. This initially resulted in a flurry of radio and television interviews in which I overviewed the racist and militant Black Liberation Theology espoused by Rev. Wright, and that electing as president a man who was an adherent to same would be wholly unacceptable. The premise, of course, was that someone who had deep, personal ties with Wright and who had been a member of the church for 20 years could reliably be presumed to favor the doctrines taught there.

A year later, when Wright’s rabid, anti-American and racist rants gained more widespread media attention, Obama left Trinity United, claiming that he had never been exposed to any of his pastor’s more over-the-top, inflammatory sermons. Shortly afterward, Rev. Wright retired from his post.

Although Wright and certain other quasi-militants and purveyors of Black Liberation Theology who had connections to Obama remained fairly low-key during the campaign, they did enjoy more than their usual level of media exposure (including BLT’s founder, Dr. James Cone), as did many black activists called to offer commentary and analysis in the press.

The process of validating these individuals, as this columnist has asserted, will take place regardless of whether or not parties in question have been thrown under the bus by Obama, because of the superficial perception many Americans hold toward black leadership as being monolithic. This will be reinforced by the press, because it is they who helped to create this perception and thus have a stake in furthering the goals of such people, who are aligned with the far left.

The Rev. Al Sharpton, for example, is one of the most insincere and odious individuals claiming to represent “black America,” yet he remains a legitimate representative thereof in the eyes of millions of Americans due to his opportunism, media favoritism and public relations efforts. On Dec. 5, 2008, Sharpton appeared on Fox News’ “Hannity & Colmes,” ostensibly to comment on a sermon delivered by Rev. Jeremiah Wright at Trinity United Church earlier that week.

Sharpton’s appearance and Wright’s sermon are both noteworthy in context. In his typical paranoiac fashion, Wright excoriated the media, including outlets that had not portrayed him unfavorably right along with those that had. He executed several personal attacks upon media personalities as well as further criticizing the Bush administration’s handling of the War on Terror, a favorite theme.

As the discussion turned to Black Liberation Theology and its divisive tenets, Sharpton asserted that “Black Liberation Theology is rooted in the biblical expression of liberating oppressed people.”

This was a calculated lie. Black Liberation Theology is rooted in Marxism, and its references to Exodus and biblical tradition are but convenient rationalized extrapolations for public-relations purposes. BLT remains replete with some of the most hate-filled and perverted distortions of Scripture imaginable.

The point is that, on the heels of Obama’s election, we have Wright returning to the pulpit – if only as a guest pastor – and resuming his discordant, anti-American rhetoric, and Sharpton legitimizing this racist, subversive individual.

Inasmuch as America’s awareness is shaped in a great measure by the media – evidenced by Obama’s very election – the likelihood that black activists who promote the politics of division, victimization and entitlement will gain more influence within the black community and more legitimacy among Americans at large is a dark prospect indeed.