(FinalCall.com) -- On the August 26, 2002 "Donahue Show," Phil Donahue launched a wicked assault on his guest, Minister Louis Farrakhan, uncharacteristic of the host’s liberal image. For many, Donahue’s return to television has been a desirable alternative to the ultra-conservatives who dominated the media. Donahue invited Minister Farrakhan onto his show to discuss his recent peace mission, to talk about Iraq, reparations and Zimbabwe. Instead of discussing those issues, Donahue elected to join the media’s assault on Min. Farrakhan’s image by focusing on tired, old accusations that Min. Farrakhan is anti-semitic. Mr. Donahue had no interest in giving Min. Farrakhan a forum for the free expression of his views.

I am not surprised by Mr. Donahue’s behavior. His actions are true to that of the so-called liberal. A liberal is someone who generously lends his support of your opinions and rights as long as they fit within the established framework. Whereas, the liberal is not strictly bound by the traditional framework, he should not be confused with the radical who seeks a fundamental change in the basic doctrine of the framework. The doctrine in question is White Supremacy, a system based on a paternalistic master/slave relationship. The doctrine of White Supremacy causes the typical White liberal to assume that the ultimate desire of all Blacks is to gain the acceptance and approval of White people.

"White folk rule us with fear. It is not White people, it’s your fear of them, that you got to be free from," Min. Farrakhan stated. The liberal is not free. Nor is he honorable. Pity him. He is not true to himself. Oblivious to Min. Farrakhan’s statement, Mr. Donahue persisted in carrying out his pre-indoctrinated agenda.

"He is banned from Israel and not welcome in Great Britain. And his past meetings in Iraq and support of Saddam Hussein has not won him favors in the United States," Phil Donahue agitates. "He (Saddam) didn’t see you this time? Where have you gone wrong? I mean, you‘re one of the most famous faces. How many adherents? Islam, the Islamic world boasts over a billion people. I‘d see you if I were Saddam. What is it?"

Donahue’s message was clear: "Saddam Hussein doesn’t respect you. If you don’t go along with White folks, they won’t like you either and who else can you turn to?"

Referring to Minister Farrakhan’s recent statements, "Saddam Hussein was no more terrible than Bush’s father É no more terrible than Clinton, because all of them do things in the name of their government, that if the truth were made known, there would be a Nuremberg trial for American presidents," Mr. Donahue’s paternalistically questions, "Are you proud of that statement?"

"Absolutely. And I know that what I am saying is the truth," Min. Farrakhan responded.

Mr. Donahue concedes that, like Farrakhan, a significant number of Americans condemn an attack on Iraq. However, he felt obligated to state his objection to Min. Farrakhan’s (free speech) choice of expression.

"Why the Nuremberg comment? The Nuremberg trial is one of the most civil attempts to redress horrible grievances É to bring justice to those who did these horrible things to Jewish people." It is Donahue’s liberal duty to chastise Min. Farrakhan for what he (Donahue) perceives as a violation of imposed White paternalistic tradition. "You raise this É it’s almost like, ‘I’m going to get these Jews again’ sort of a meanness about this, sir. A meanness that’s not becoming of a minister."

Commenting on America’s refusal to be a part of the International Criminal Court, Min. Farrakhan stated: "Here’s the president of the greatest nation on earth, ordering a hit on Saddam Hussein. What makes our president any better than a mob boss or gang leader or a drug leader, that orders hits on people that you don’t like? That is not the civilized way to behave. Nor is that the way for the president of the greatest nation on earth to behave."

Acknowledging that a significant number of Americans, including Brent Scowcroft and General Schwarzkopf, support the position that this is not a good idea to go in unilaterally. Donahue proceeded to ask the question that liberals have asked since slavery: "The question is, do you do your brothers and sisters, the members the African American community, a service by this kind of mean reference? It sounds like you’re doing your best to turn off the White folks and not make a step forward."

Later in the interview, Donahue arrives at the traditional liberal perception. "You know there is something mean about the (Farrakhan’s) smile when you make statements like that." Add to that: "But, you make it tough on the White reporters. I mean É with all this (Farrakhan’s) history of this kind of rhetoric. You can’t get up there and talk like that, a man of God, using language like you do. So I’m asking for some understanding here. You bring this on yourself."

Donahue’s liberal, paternalistic message is consistent with the historic liberal agenda: We Whites folks like you, we support your right to free thought and free speech, as long as we approve of what you think. It’s not what you say, it’s how you say it. It’s your attitude. If we don’t like you, it’s your fault. And, if you do not capitulate, you are subject to our scorn; lest we are derelict in performing our "rightful duty" to uphold White Supremacy.