For my entire adult life, my local newspaper has been promoting the same type of black liberation theology as that of Jeremiah Wright.
    They won't admit it, of course, and would no doubt argue that they are only providing "both sides" of the issues for people to decide.
    But the subliminal messages are there day after day are there for all to see.  In the stories they write, or in the stories they WON'T write. In the editorials they promote, in the they cultivate, and even in their daily debates between reporters.
    Do you support the Flat Tax??
    You're racist, their reporters have openly argued. Why..... YOU just want to keep food away from the poor and downtrodden minorities. (That was the logic heard in the newsroom when Steve Forbes pushed the flat tax in the 1990s).
     Is it logical to get quotes in a story based on that person's relevancy to a particular issue?
     Well, you're a subliminal racist then.  After all, the paper previously urged writers to obtain quotes for a story NOT based on a person's relevancy or knowledge of an issue -- but based on the person's race.
      As looney as it sounds, the paper at one time "urged" writers to get a certain percentage of quotes from ..... say, Orientals; a certain percentage from Latino's; a certain percentage from African-Americans, a certain percentage from Asians, and so on and so on.
     Although I don't recall the exact racial percentages, I do recall that the 'policy' turned out to be so totally unworkable that even the most 'enlightened' reporters quickly ignored it. After all, how many Chinese-Americans attend the average council meeting in historic Langhorne Borough on any given month -- much less speak out on an issue.
    As for 2008, the paper obviously sees themselves as tolerant and enlightened because THEY endorsed Barak Obama, that same Obama who was so mistreated by the evil American system that he was given a $500,000 Harvard education free of charge because he has the correct anscestors.
    The paper obviously thinks it a political plus that Obama and angry-wife Michelle willingly sat inside their venemous church each Sunday for 22 years, absorbing the vinegar of anti-Israel politics and blame-America politics.
    The sad part is that the editors at the paper obviously feel so guilty about their own racial beliefs that they happily ignore these political bombshells that would destroy a candidate of another race.
    Would John McCain, or Hillary for that matter, be endorsed by this paper if they had attended weekly Aryan Nation meetings where the speaker spoke against people of color?
    No my friends. By supporting Obama, this newspaper in essence supports the same hateful behavior they claim to oppose.
    By supporting Obama, the editors simply close their eyes to the fact that Obama has aligned himself with anti-American hatred throughout his adult life -- the unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers, Jew-hater Louis Farrakhan, and even Rev. Wright.
    In today's media world, it takes honesty and integrity to admit one has made a mistake. It takes guts to do the right thing in the face of the PC nutjobs who demand adherence in support of black liberation theology.
   My local newspaper lost the ability to do the right thing long ago. It will likely be years before it ever returns.