Remember how the talking heads applauded Barack Obama’s Democratic presidential nomination in June, calling it a historic moment for the United States? He not only personified the uniqueness of America’s story, because of his ethnicity, he became a powerful symbol of progress. “Hope, disbelief and a renewed faith in the American dream,” National Public Radio intoned on June 6. “These are some of the thoughts being expressed today by many African-Americans who, quite honestly, never thought they’d see the day a black person would actually be within reach of occupying the White House.”

In August, once again, we were reminded of the historic significance of Obama’s candidacy when he accepted his nomination on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech. The event signified, the New York Times told us, “a powerful moment of arrival for blacks.”

But with the political grand prize to be awarded in less than four weeks, and having discarded all remaining semblances of objectivity, the major media not only yearns for an Obama presidency, it is now obsessed with the possibility of racism preventing that from happening.

“Race is a powerful subtext of this presidential election,” Hans Nichols wrote for Bloomberg last week, “and its impact is largely hidden, with few white voters willing to acknowledge openly that they won’t vote for Obama because he is black.”

Meanwhile, whites and blacks are expected to take it for granted that 95 percent of African Americans will be voting for Obama in November. Obama will also reign in about two thirds of the Hispanic vote. And as his previous campaign against Hilary Clinton proved, tens of millions of whites will also punch their ballots in favor of Obama.

Still, you can expect the mostly white, leftist elites in the media to intensely scrutinize and cross-examine white America, in a dogged search for any sign of racial motivation that might influence the vote. In September, for example, Michele Norris said on npr (emphasis mine throughout), “We’ve been asking if we can find racial fingerprints on the ballots we’ll cast this November, and by racial fingerprint we’re referring to the personal experience, the individual racial experience we all carry into the voting booth”—meaning all whites, of course.

“Most voters say their decision between Barack Obama and John McCain is not based on race,” npr continued, “but we’re trying to get at something more subtle than the standard questions in a poll. We wondered if the decision is not based so much on the candidates’ race but on the racial experience of the voter” (September 11).

Imagine what might turn up if they invested that kind of energetic scrutiny into uncovering Senator Obama’s radical leftist views or his troublesome associations with criminals, terrorists and bigots. As Dick Morris summed up in a recent column, Obama’s

chief financial supporter was Tony Rezko, now on his way to federal prison. His spiritual adviser and mentor was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, of “God d___ America” fame. And the guy who got him his only administrative job and put him in charge of doling out $50 million is William Ayers, a terrorist who was a domestic Osama bin Laden in his youth.

To dutifully address those legitimate concerns, however, one runs the risk of being branded as racist by those on the left. Meanwhile, Democratic strategists and media elites are simultaneously urging Barack Obama to raise concerns about hidden racism among whites and how it might impact voting in this election.

In early September, when a newly appointed Sarah Palin invigorated the McCain campaign, senior members of the Democratic party, Tim Shipman wrote for the Daily Telegraph, believed Obama was in “denial about warnings from Democratic pollsters that his true standing is four to six points lower than that in published polls because of hidden racism from voters.” Shipman added,

Party elders are also studying internal polling material which warns the Obama camp that his true standing is worse than it appears in polls because voters lie to polling companies about their reluctance to vote for a black candidate.

Since that time, largely because of the financial meltdown, the Obama campaign hasn’t needed to play the “hidden racism” card. But that hasn’t stopped his teammates in the media from repeatedly playing the race card. According to the results of an AP-Yahoo poll released in late September, 40 percent of white Americans “hold at least a partly negative view toward blacks.”

It’s not clear how many blacks hold a partly negative view toward whites, but that’s beside the point. “How can it be that in 2008,” the Associated Press asks ruefully, “that racial misgivings could cost Sen. Barack Obama the election?”

The way the media sees it, that’s perfect cover for Obama’s campaign as he surges ahead of John McCain in all the critical battleground states. Whites are already guilty of hidden racism, they propagandize, so you better not criticize the black candidate. In June, remember, the chairman of the Democratic Party, Howard Dean, said it would be racist to even raise concerns about Barack Obama’s former pastor, Jeremiah Wright.

Last week, hoping to preempt John McCain’s strategy for the final month of the campaign, the New York Times published its defense of the Obama-Ayers connection, saying “the two men do not appear to have been close.” Even though Ayers, to this day, has not expressed one ounce of remorse for his terrorist attacks on federal targets—he wishes his organization could have killed more, in fact—the Times assured us that during his years in Chicago, “Mr. Ayers has largely been rehabilitated.”

Responding to that whitewash at a campaign rally last week, Sarah Palin blasted Barack Obama for “palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.”

As soon as she said that, the major media furiously rushed to Obama’s defense. On Sunday, the Associated Press said Palin’s characterization of the Obama-Ayers relationship was “exaggerated at best if not outright false.” Furthermore, the AP charged, Palin’s comments were “unsubstantiated and carried a racially tinged subtext.”

That from—not a left-wing blogger—the Associated Press! William Ayers, remember, is a confessed, unrepentant terrorist whose working relationship with Barack Obama has been described as “friendly” by David Axelrod, Obama’s strategist. Besides that, William Ayers is white.

It’s as if Obama’s allies in the elite media are hardwired to detect non-existent racism. This goes far beyond biased coverage for the media darling. It is dangerous and criminal to incite such racially charged hatred on the eve of a hotly contested election.

Democrats are now accusing John McCain of a last-second “Hail Mary” pass to rescue his faltering campaign. In desperation, he’s resorting to “smear tactics,” they say, with these “unsubstantiated” scandalous allegations—an argument that actually smears racism on those who would criticize Barack Obama.

This is the way the elite media will frame McCain’s strategy in these last few weeks should he follow through with what one adviser recently told Fox News: “Before people pull that lever in November, they have a right to know, and we have a duty to tell them, who Barack Obama is—and to shine a light on some of those fairly liberal and sometimes downright troubling relationships that he’s had.”

Americans deserve to know, McCain’s advisors say. But to even address the subject is racist, say Democratic strategists and their friends in the media.

It’s a ticking time bomb.

If Obama maintains his lead and wins on November 4, his radical leftist ideology will accelerate America’s already precipitous decline as a world power.

And if he loses, it could trigger race wars. Not long after President Bush barely beat Al Gore in the 2000 election, William Ayers told the New York Times Magazine,

This society is not a just and fair and decent place. … We’re living in a country where the election was stolen, and we didn’t have a mass uprising. It’s incredible. … It makes me want to puke.

With racism now added to the 2008 campaign, William Ayers may well get his wish this time around, especially if his friend and colleague loses to John McCain.

Either way, America loses. Either way, race relations will deteriorate, as we have been saying all along.

Back in June, when pundits from both sides of the political isle were lauding the progress of black Americans and the healing power Barack Obama would bring to race relations, my father predicted that this election would actually uncover racism in America. Furthermore, he presciently warned, “It is also inflaming more racism as it continues.” (Portions of that June 12 co-worker letter were later converted into an article we posted on July 21.) He continued,

Poisonous race relations have everything to do with Bible prophecy. This dangerous buildup within our society is a racist bomb that most of us will see explode in our faces!Many people believe that Mr. Obama is going to greatly improve race relations. But our racial problems are going to rapidly get much worse!

In the website article, he added, “The race card is going to be played often for political gain! And it is going to cost America dearly. This is not a small problem.”

How right he was!

To learn more about the race wars soon to explode across America, even prior to the prophesied Great Tribulation, study what the Prophet Ezekiel wrote. We offer a detailed explanation of those prophecies in our free booklet Ezekiel: The End-Time Prophet.