What, then, is the public to assume when, in spite of the best efforts of our most brilliant thinkers and politicians, freedoms erode, prosperity decreases, and for a great many, justice seems elusive? Surely, sinister forces must be at work.

Let us take for an example the nation’s system of public education. For years, American taxpayers have been sold on a triad of public policy fixes for public education. In order to improve student performance, state and federal governments must dedicate a greater portion of their budgetary dollars to education; class sizes must be reduced, and there must be greater oversight by the federal government. So fervent is the belief in this holy trinity of education, that to even ponder the efficacy of the federal Department of Education is seen as heresy. Any politician who attempts to curb the unrestricted flow of tax dollars to public schools is accused of not wanting to “invest in education.”

And yet, increases in spending have not resulted in a corresponding increase in student achievement. Studies have shown that over the last 50 years, student proficiency in math and English has shown little improvement even as spending and federal government oversight has increased and class size has decreased. Given the brilliance and dedication of our public servants, the failure of significant academic gains to materialize, in spite of billions spent on education, can only be the devil’s work.

And if you are a black man, the devil must, indeed, be working overtime.

Information recently culled from the National Assessment for Educational Progress, based on national math and reading tests given to students in the fourth and eighth grades, revealed some rather disheartening results. According to the New York Times, the report paints a picture for black males that is, “even bleaker than generally known.”

In 2009, math scores for black boys lagged behind those of both Hispanic boys and girls, and black males fell behind white boys by an average of 30 points, which is interpreted as three academic grades. Black males drop out of high school at a rate twice as high as white males and their SAT scores are on average 104 points lower. In short, the report shows that black males fall behind academically early on and never regain ground.

These are not students failing because they do not have access to the internet or don’t have Olympic sized swimming pools. The sad fact is that the report demonstrates that middle-class black boys are scoring about as well as poor white boys. These are students who are not proficient in the basics of math and English.

The social cost of this failure is not to be underestimated.

Half of these students will drop out of high school; lacking a high school diploma and being functionally illiterate will qualify them for manual labor, which is steadily in the decline. They will join the ranks of the chronically unemployed; many of these men will make a life hustling on the streets and eventually become involved in the criminal justice system. Criminal records will make these men more unemployable, which will make it even more unlikely that they will have the financial means to support the children they father. It is a hellish cycle that will repeat generation after generation.

Ronald Ferguson, director of the Achievement Gap Initiative at Harvard, says, “There’s accumulating evidence that there are racial differences in what kids experience before the first day of kindergarten.” Ferguson gives voice to something that many of us have long suspected: how well children perform in school depends, to a great extent, on the kind of training they receive in the home.

Battling the dark forces aligned against our children may necessitate the asking of some uncomfortable questions. For instance, is the continued academic under-performance of black boys the result of a failure of the educational system? Or, is the issue rooted in black culture?

Of course, we can always avoid the discomfort of those questions and continue to rely on the original thinking of our best and brightest. In response to the chilling figures presented in the report, the authors have come up with the original idea of urging Congress to “appropriate more money for schools.”

In his seminal book, “The Souls of Black Folk,” NAACP co-founder, W.E.B. Dubois describes awakening to a morning “when men ask of the workmen, not ‘Is he white?’ but ‘Can he work?’ When men ask artists, not ‘Are they black?’ but ‘Do they know?’”

Sadly, the NAACP has veered far from Dubois’ vision and the realization of the principle of racial non-discrimination. The NAACP is now a defender of a system of racial spoils, a champion of big government, and a promoter of progressive politics. In short, the organization has been transformed into an enforcement arm of the Democrat Party. And that enforcement is achieved through the use of race as a weapon.

The NAACP’s recent report on racism within the Tea Party is a rather clumsy attempt at wielding that weapon in order to demonize political opposition to the Democrat agenda. It is also dangerous because it undermines black political and cultural progress.

The Tea Party has steadfastly held to a few core principles: limited government, fiscal responsibility, and free markets. The NAACP leaders have made it their mission to paint these objective and decidedly race-neutral positions into “white-supremacist beliefs.” The difficulty, of course is that there has never been a sign on the Tea Party door saying “whites only.” There is a difference between a blocked door and a door through which one refuses to enter. Woe to any people who adopt as a measure of ethnic authenticity the belief that limited government, fiscal restraint on the part of the federal government, and free-market capitalism as antithetical to their ultimate success, and who further come to believe that those principles are, in fact, the tools of their oppressor.

Sadder still is when that misguided vision becomes a form of political and cultural indoctrination. Consider what I witnessed while attending an NAACP youth council luncheon.

After the luncheon program, the local NAACP director rose to deliver her closing remarks. She began by discussing the plight of a death-row inmate in Atlanta. She then asked the children if lynching in America was still going on. In one loud voice the children answered YES! The director then proceeded to warn the audience that the Ku Klux Klan and other racial hate-groups were on the rise. I sat in a bit of a daze. My first thought was, “This organization is living in a time-warp.” Yes, racism still exists. Yes, idiocy still exists; I suspect hatred and bigotry in some form will always exist. If, however, the NAACP leadership still believes that the KKK is the chief impediment to black success, then as leaders, they have defined themselves as irrelevant. The fact that the organization would teach black children that black people are despised means the organization has sold-out its original charter and is now worthless!

Perhaps, it is time for the NAACP to change its moniker. I will leave it up to the members of the former august organization to choose its new name. I would, however, like to suggest that they consider “The National Association for the Advancement of Progressive Politics Everywhere” or NAAPPE. The members of the new organization could then rewrite their charter to reflect the true aims of their political advocacy.

For instance, NAAPPE would be very candid in its belief that white racism is the primary cause of black wretchedness. For this reason, NAPPE must have as its main occupation the sniffing out of every last vestige of racism in America. Like hound-dogs, NAAPPE members will sniff through the cultural and political landscape and point when they pick up the scent of racism, especially when that scent seems to emanate from the ranks of all those who oppose the Democrat Party and its national agenda, or who oppose those political groups allied with the Democrat Party.

Unlike NAAPPE, the NAACP simply can’t have it both ways. The organization can’t profess that it is the last word on civil rights and at the same time be an arm of ANY political party. Its moniker can’t announce that it is fighting for racial advancement and at the same time the body remains ambivalent about a policy that results in the death of more black people than heart disease, cancer, strokes, accidents, diabetes, homicide, and chronic lower respiratory diseases combined. The NAACP can’t claim the leadership of the black community and then stand idly by while members of the Congressional Black Caucus garner favor (and campaign donations) from the teachers unions, while selling-out the interests of black schoolchildren in Washington D.C. And it can certainly no longer claim to be a civil rights organization while at the same time it advocates a system of governance that relies on redistributing the fruits of one man’s labor in service of other men.

It is little wonder that polls consistently find that the TSA is the most hated U.S. government agency, even more despised than the Internal Revenue Service. Americans believe that the TSA is rude, invasive, obnoxious, and dull-witted. Sure, there are good, honest, hard-working folks employed with the TSA; I have met some of them. However, I tend to share the negative assessment that airport security is not firing on all cylinders.

When I finally reached the security station, I discovered the source of the delay. In addition to TSA incompetence, the lines were backed up going through a new security machine ironically called a “Rapid Scan.”

The “Rapid Scan” is one of the new x-ray machines recently employed by the TSA to perform full-body scans on airline passengers.

It is truly a testament to the adaptability of the American spirit that not only does an hour long wait at security barely raise eye-brows, but passengers are willing to submit to a virtual strip-search with nary a whimper as well. Perhaps it is ambivalence. I suspect, however, that after the abuse of waiting in lines for everything from parking to security, stripping down to one’s BVDs is a small price to pay to be allowed to sit down.

The federal government has also convinced a great many Americans that the TSA is the thin gray and blue line standing between the terrorists and their wives and children. As far as the Federal Government is concerned, long, slow-moving lines, the invasion of privacy, and the dull-witted rudeness of the TSA agents are the costs of peace of mind.

Apparently, I am not the only one who believes the Transportation Safety Administration has an inflated opinion of itself. I wish I had the guts of Tennessee pilot Michael Roberts.

Last week, Roberts, a first officer for ExpressJet Airlines, refused to take a body scan and then refused to be “manhandled” by the TSA giving him a physical pat-down. Roberts went home and is now waiting to see if he will lose his job. According to newspaper reports, Roberts said that like all Americans, he has safety concerns, but called TSA a “make-work” program that doesn’t make travel safer.

And he is correct.

The TSA has largely succeeded in enforcing its own rules. How many bombers has the TSA thwarted since its inception? The answer is zero. Contrast that figure with the gallons and gallons of hand lotion the agency has confiscated. As bags pass on the conveyer belt, agents stare intently at x-ray screens. What could they be looking for? Could it be that one of these passengers standing in line could be attempting to smuggle a bomb on board? Of course not! The agents are looking for yogurt! They are looking for baby formula! They are looking for deodorant larger than the allowable three ounces.

Often, the security lines move slowly because the TSA has not assigned enough agents to pour over every passenger’s identification with a jeweler’s loupe and a black-light. But wait, all 19 of the “murderingscumwhoarecurrentlyburninginhell” responsible for the attacks on 9/11 had legal identification. In fact, the only reason we know who they are is because they presented proper, legal identification at the security station. The same is true of Richard Reid as well as the Christmas day bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

As for the Rapid Scan? Alas, it is only rapid compared to an MRI. Passengers must stand still in a box for 10 seconds and then wait for the machine to analyze the data it has compiled. Oh, and you have to take the money out of your pockets because this brilliant piece of equipment apparently can’t distinguish between a dollar bill and a bomb!

Airline passengers now have a choice: virtual strip-search or be subjected to the much longer process of being physically groped by a stranger. Sadly, in the same way that travelers now look at an hour wait in a security line as, “Hey, that’s not so bad.” We will also get used to having our privacy further infringed upon. The long and short of it is that the entire process has lost its civility and is on the verge of losing any semblance of dignity. No? Consider that the not-so-rapid-scan is also unable to scan inside the body cavity. How long will it be before all travelers are asked to drop trou, bend over, and cough?

The body scanner would not have discovered the explosives hidden by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and yet Americans continue to be told that the TSA is making travelers safe. I am of the opinion that the security measures at airports have largely been successful only at irritating passengers and making air-travel more unpleasant than, well, just about anything else I can think of.

Senate majority leader, Harry Reid (D-NV), running for his political life, accused his opponent, Sharron Angle, of wanting to “kill Social Security.” Of course, Harry Reid has a rather elastic definition of “the truth,” so his attack lacks a measure of veracity. Angle has taken the position that in order to save Social Security we must stop raiding the (non-existent) lock-box and that “going forward, we need to personalize Social Security the same way that Harry Reid has a personalized account.” Reid has routinely characterized Angle as an extremist. Alas, Reid also suffers from the political malady known as “Venetian memory:” Recalling that which is advantageous and forgetting everything else. You see, in 1999 Harry Reid was all for “putting a small amount of Social Security dollars into the private sector.”

What is also interesting is how fast Angle changed the subject. And who can blame her? Democrat warnings that Republicans want to roll the dice with the retirements of the elderly have been extremely effective. Republicans running for office must distance themselves from the topic of Social Security reform, lest they commit political suicide.

Unfortunately, such scare tactics have also scuttled any hope for finding a real solution to the very real problem of securing the financial future of the Social Security system.

This year, Social Security went into deficit; the program is paying out more than it is taking in. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this deficit will continue for the next four years, “with small surpluses reappearing briefly in 2014 and 2015.” The report continues: “After that, demographic forces are expected to overtake the fund, as more and more baby boomers leave the work force, stop paying into the program and start collecting their benefits. At that point, outlays will exceed revenue every year, no matter how well the economy performs.”

To this happy news, progressives shout that privatization, which really means giving private citizens ownership and control of their Social Security dollars, will lead to disaster. Such pronouncements are really an example of the old political game of saying one thing while doing another. In neighborhoods outside of Washington, D.C., this is also known as lying.

In order to stave off the impending collapse of the system, Congress must either raise taxes, raise the age of retirement, cut services, implement means testing for recipients, or some combination thereof.

In other words, in order to get votes, liberal politicians are convincing citizens that conservatives want to take away their retirement savings. Once in office, those same Democrat politicians will pass laws that will take Social Security away from large swaths of the American public.

As it happens, there is also another way to save Social Security: import workers. In addition to the potential of providing Democrats with several million new voters, “comprehensive immigration reform,” (or amnesty), would also add millions of new workers to pay into the Social Security system. The idea of importing workers to sustain entitlement programs is not new. France buoyed its social welfare programs by importing millions of North Africans; Americans can sustain its entitlement programs by looking south of the border. And like France, we might also look forward to millions of citizens rioting in the streets when the financial rubber finally hits the road. But I digress.

The great irony is that what conservatives are really saying is that workers should be allowed to own the fruits of their labor. What a radical concept!

Actually, it turns out that it’s not all that radical. You see, there are approximately six million state and municipal employees, including policemen, firemen, and school teachers that have been able to opt out of the Social Security system. In fact, prior to 1984, federal employees did not participate in the system. In an effort to shore up the system, federal employees were brought into the fold. That process was vehemently opposed by none other than that old radical, then-Congressman, Harry Reid.

My, how times have changed!

It struck me that the words could be an anthem for a new political generation. Of course, they might also be a prescient warning for voters casting ballots on November second.

As Election Day approaches, there is a feeling of excitement among conservatives. Republicans are poised to take control of both houses of Congress. As of this writing, both the Gallup and Rasmussen polls have Republicans holding a commanding double-digit lead among likely voters. There is even speculation that Republicans could win as many as 100 seats in the House of Representatives and 12 seats in the Senate.

Pardon me if, like Chris Matthews, I do not have a tingling sensation running up my leg at the prospect of Republican victory in November. Perhaps I would feel differently if Republicans had done something to earn victory in November. Alas, being the only alternative to an over-reaching, liberal congress and a president who is out of touch (and seemingly in over his head) is no great accomplishment. Yes, Republicans have stood in the way of Democratic hubris, as they should have. They are the opposition party and shouldn’t get brownie points for doing their job.

Certainly, I am not alone in recalling that it was the “me too” Republicans who increased federal regulation of public education, gave us the largest new entitlement program in a generation, failed to reform government entitlements, voted to pass the TARP, and were on the verge of giving us “comprehensive immigration reform” before saner minds steps to the fore. It was a big government president that arrogantly announced that he was abandoning free-market principles in order to save the free-market. Given their recent track record, it is unclear why the political right believes a Republican led Congress will be any more fiscally responsible than the previous Republican led Congress.

Oh, yes, there is the “Pledge to America,” which, of course, will make all the difference. What remains unclear is why there must be an official pledge in order for Republicans to behave like, well, Republicans. Just a few years ago many of these same Republicans were spending money like drunken sailors and spouting the big-government conservative mantra, “Deficits don’t matter!” Now, of course, in large part because of the Tea Party movement, Republicans have found fiscal religion, except that the same folks that brought us big-government conservatism are mostly the same folks behind this years GOP resurgence.

Perhaps the difference this year is the Tea Party; the power and activism of the grass-roots will keep Republicans honest. It may very well be that the Tea Party is the natural response to leftist attempts to transform America. However, I maintain that had Republicans eschewed big-government conservatism in favor of traditional conservatism, there would have been no need for Tea Party activism because President Obama would still be Senator Obama.

Contrary to what the New Left would have us believe, the Tea Party movement is not the white racist rejection of a black president. The Tea Party is a rejection of government over-reaching: bank bailouts, government ownership of automobile companies, government healthcare, government control of school loans, and government attempts to regulate the very air we breathe. The Tea Party movement is the American people shouting, “Enough is enough!” As such, the Tea Party is a terrific gadfly, but as the Obama administration has discovered, there is a difference between community organizing and governing. The Tea Party is not prepared to govern; the Republican Party is. The question is: “Will they?” And if so, “In what manner?”

Sorry, but the cynic in me simply isn’t getting that warm, fuzzy feeling. In my lifetime I have noticed a tendency for politicians of both of the major parties to feed the beast of government rather than slay it. Sure, they talk tough and make promises, but Washington seduces them into engaging in all manner of devilment.

The cynic in me is whispering in my ear that ObamaCare is here to stay. Republicans may tinker with it, snip a few pages here and there to hold up as trophies, but the beast is here to stay. The doubter in me is saying that no matter how many pledges the GOP writes, there will be no meaningful reform of our entitlement system. The beast will demand to be fed tax-dollars and it will get them with a cherry on top. The skeptic in me is certain that in a very short time the public will be treated to “climate legislation.” Sure, there will be a few stalwart conservatives willing to be martyrs for the cause, but they will be shouted down by the “me too” Republicans, who are all too eager to out-Democrat their Democrat colleagues.

So, what is the alternative? I suppose one could pull the lever for Democrats, but that seems an odd choice for a conservative to make. I have long held that to vote for the lesser of two evils, still results in a vote cast for evil. And yet, to vote for a third-party candidate with no chance of winning, only seems to empower the party that I would like to see out of office. It is little wonder that I continually find myself holding my nose, and falling to my knees to pray that “We don’t get fooled again.”

Norris, a Seattle cartoonist, was the unfortunate, creative mind who conceived of “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day.” Ironically, her satirical comment on the demise of free speech in America led to protests and death threats from fundamentalists Muslims, who apparently take cartooning very seriously. Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born cleric who became an al-Qaida leader, then issued a fatwa. According to this man of God, the mere suggestion that people should draw Muhammad was cause for assassination. The FBI then suggested that Norris “go ghost,” which is to say, move from her home, change her name, stop drawing her cartoon—essentially wipe away any trace of her existence. Molly Norris is dead! So too, apparently is the American notion of freedom of speech as well as any vestige of American back-bone. Since when can those living in other parts of the world threaten American citizens with impunity?

It’s too bad that Norris didn’t pick-on Christians. Imagine if, instead of encouraging her fellow cartoonists to draw Muhammad, Norris had implored them to draw Jesus Christ. Sure, she would have been the subject of a few fiery Sunday sermons, received some nasty letters, and even been the object of some loud protests, but she would still have her life. In fact, there are even those Christians that would have prayed for her, rejoicing that drawing Christ might be the first step in coming to Christ.

Moreover, she may have even become a star in the artistic community, celebrated as a “provocative, post modernist, commentator on contemporary religious life.” But, alas, she chose to throw a punch at Islam and practitioners of the “religion of peace” threatened to kill her.

And the guardians of free speech—those same good folks that expressed such indignation at protesters of the Ground Zero mosque, that would have hailed her as a hero had she pointed her pencil at born-again Christians—have simply shrugged their shoulders and whispered, “what a shame. I knew Molly when.”

Clifford May, president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, notes that:

The saga of Molly Norris has elicited hardly any notice from political leaders, elite journalists, and celebrities. Nor has it stirred to action [among] those who claim to represent America’s Islamic community. Nor have I seen anything from Human Rights Watch. The ACLU is actually defending al-Awlaki. At the UN, Islamic countries are pushing to ban criticism of Islam under international law.

Indeed, there has been no outrage expressed by the moderate Muslim community. Other than the remarks of the Seattle area executive director of CAIR, the organization has had little to say. Celebrities have not turned out in mass to decry the injustice. And sadly, this president, who felt compelled to lecture Americans about the constitutional rights of Muslims to build a mosque anywhere they desired (a right NO ONE was questioning), has not felt moved to rhetorically defend the right of Molly Norris to her life. Ironically, rather than defend Norris, celebrities, journalists, and politicians are still choosing to lecture Americans about the increase in Islamaphobia.

There should now be little doubt that the cultural elites are in fact cultural bullies and like most bullies, deep down they are cowards. The proof is discovered in the silence with which they have greeted the death of Norris and in the fact that as of yet, no artist has deigned to toss elephant dung on a Muslim icon or have sex with the Koran. No. They stick to the easier fare of fundamentalist Christianity.

In some sense, it makes perfect sense. The fact is that we Christians can be annoying. Christians tend to consult God about, well, everything. We all know Christians who have consulted the Lord about everything from their health to which shoes to purchase on sale. And there is all the moralizing! Christians have a habit of preaching about “living the right way,” and warning all within ear-shot to get right with God.

For some, this behavior can be downright bothersome. Who are all these smiling, flawed people to comment on the behavior of others? It is therefore little wonder that Christians take so much abuse and criticism. It might also be because Christians tend to pray for those that persecute them, not assassinate them.

A few weeks ago the Nettleton Middle school in Nettleton, Miss., came under fire when it was discovered that the school was dividing offices on its student council by race. The offices open only to black or white students rotated each year. In addition, the school maintained separate racial titles for its prom and homecoming kings and queens.

The unfortunate information came to light when a young sixth-grade girl decided she wanted to run for class reporter. She was told that the office of reporter was only open to black students, but that she could run for class president, as that office was open to white students. The student in question is of Italian and Native-American parentage, so you can imagine her confusion. In an attempt to gain clarity, the girl’s mother wrote a letter to the school board. According to the mother, she was told that for the purposes of classification, the school goes by the mother’s race because “with minorities the father isn’t generally in the home.”

When the story hit the Internet, the consternation was palpable! The school’s principal, (who, by the way, is black, as is the vice-principal), and the school board office were inundated with phone calls. Within a day, Nettleton superintendant of schools, Russell Taylor, had issued a statement, which read in part, “beginning immediately, student elections at Nettleton School District will no longer have a classification of ethnicity. It is our intent that each student has equal opportunity to seek election for any student office.”

This was, as the old saying goes, “much too little, much too late.” The damage was already done.

For many, this was simply the people of Mississippi allowing the red on their necks to show. Here, for the world to see was the true state of race in America! Dumb racists in Mississippi were just the tip of the iceberg! Or so the blogosphere declared.

Of course, what is most distressing about this episode is that the racialists on the left are too busy preening in their righteous indignation to see their own reflection in the Nettleton policy.

As Taylor explains in his statement: “These procedures were implemented to help ensure minority representation and involvement in the student body…” And so they were.

The student enrollment in the Nettleton schools is about 70 percent white. Thirty years ago, the school’s administrators reasoned that black students would never be elected to serve on the student council and would never serve as homecoming or prom royalty because white students would never vote for them, at least not every year. To ensure that blacks would have the opportunity to fully participate in the school’s student government and social life, they instituted a policy of rotating student council offices and separate prom and homecoming kings and queens based on race. The policy implemented by the school was not a segregationist policy; it was an affirmative action policy meant to insure diversity!

And here is the absurdity racialism has wrought: Racialists point the finger at red-necks in Mississippi for separating student council seats and homecoming royalty by race, while at the same time demanding seats on corporate boards be divvied up by gender and race; screaming bloody murder if state assembly and congressional seats are not divvied up by race (because, of course, they hold it as a matter of fact that white people will never vote for black candidates); and insisting that acceptances to a college or university be divvied up by race and gender. It remains unclear why folks that demand separate dormitories for black students, hold separate college graduation ceremonies for black students, and who become apoplectic at the very mention of rolling back racial preferences feel they are qualified to lecture the people of Mississippi (or anyone else) on race relations.

Did the school administrators abandon the policy because they now believe white students will vote for black students and visa-versa and that the racial make-up of the student council does not matter? Let us hope. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that they were motivated primarily by a bit of bad publicity. I further suspect that they will find another means to the same end.

This past June, Judge Stephen Robinson, along with the Obama justice department, decided that the people of Port Chester, New York were racists because they had not yet elected a Hispanic member to its board of trustees. Justice Robinson therefore ordered the city to institute a system of cumulative voting, wherein each voter is allowed to vote six times. Perhaps the Nettleton school district will borrow a page from the book of Justice Robinson.

Sadly, the people of Mississippi will continue to get it wrong on race because they have not learned that when the racial wildcard is played, the fix is in. As the writer John Edger Wideman wrote, the inventor of race always “holds the winning cards because he can choose when he plays them and names their value.” None of us will move beyond race until we realize that the racialists are simply making up the rules as they go along.

“…Particularly as African-Americans, I feel we are in no real position to idealize the American experience and get too choked up about institutions and symbols that were not created with us in mind. Certainly, we cannot cast our lot with those who are actively seeking to destroy those gains we have made.”

I have a number of issues with the above statement, not the least of which is that the principles that inspired the American founding were always viewed as universal principles, which applied to all of mankind. Curiously, it wasn’t until the introduction of Historicist and Darwinian philosophy (which gave birth to Progressivism) that some Americans began to argue otherwise. And of course, I disagree that conservatives are actively seeking to destroy all of the gains black America has made.

It is important to note that the sentiments that my friend expresses are similar to the political attitudes which continue to permeate much of the black community. These same attitudes are also particularly present in the thinking of the black leftists, who have long held the conviction that the existence of slavery at our nation’s founding renders our Constitution a hollow document; the institutions and symbols that sprang from the founding were bereft of moral authority; the founders were hypocrites and liars, and the American dream is little more than a cruel myth.

From this conviction a kind of “cultural revolutionary defiance” has arisen, that is to say: black authenticity began to be increasingly measured by the degree to which black people defined themselves by way of their ethnicity, expressed anger at historical injuries, and were critical of, or rejected American symbols and institutions.

In this respect, my friend is a true new-revolutionary. But the issue he raises is not a new one, neither is it exclusive to American blacks.

In July of 1858, Abraham Lincoln addressed the question of how almost half of the citizens of this country could take pride and ownership in the accomplishments of the nation when they were not “historically related” to the founders, or those living on these shores at the time of the founding. Lincoln answered: “If they look back through this history to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find they have none, they cannot carry themselves back into that glorious epoch and make themselves feel that they are part of us, but when they look through that old Declaration of Independence they find that those old men say that ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,’ and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration, and so they are. That is the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together–that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world.”

The essential element that my friend and the black leftists have missed is that what binds us together as Americans is not shared blood, race, ethnicity, or tribe; it is the unshakable belief in certain universal principles. The American experience is not attached to men who were flawed, but is instead fixed to ideas that remain flawless. The institutions and symbols of America are reflective of the revolutionary idea that all men are the property of God, created with an equal right to life, liberty, private property, and the free pursuit of bettering their station in life. Martin Luther King, Jr., put it more succinctly: “The American dream reminds us…that every man is an heir of the legacy of dignity and worth.”

All of us, whether our ancestors arrived through the gates of Ellis Island or survived travel through the Middle Passage are heirs to that grand idea. It is this idea that animates true conservatism and moreover, it is ONLY that idea—those principles—that made possible the huge gains that black Americans have made in this country and indeed in the world. It is, perhaps, also the reason that more Africans have freely chosen to come to America than were ever imported in slave ships.

In response to my friend, all Americans should ask: If not America, where? If not American symbols, which symbols? If not American institutions, which institutions will do? If not the principles of the American founding, upon which principles do the black left propose to build a new America—an America they can “idolize” and “get choked up about”?

Ask Van Jones.

These forward-thinking paragons, nursed on the mother’s-milk of Marx and Mao, would build their new America on the bedrock of economic redistribution and racial favoritism. I believe we tried that once in this country…

Last February, in a speech to honor Black History Month, Attorney General Eric Holder remarked that Americans of all colors should stop avoiding an honest discussion of race in America. Said Holder: “Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and I believe continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.”

I disagreed with Holder at the time and still do. Americans are not cowards when it comes to discussions of race, neither are they dishonest. Rather, I believe Americans are simply bone-tired.

The American conversation on race began more than two centuries ago and frankly, we have talked of little else. The topic permeated the discussions during the drafting of both our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution and continues today, with a black man sitting in the white house.

Not cowards, just exhausted and so very, very eager to move on!

This was the great “hope” for Barack Obama. The great tide that swept Barack Obama into the White House was not the hope of a hard left social and economic agenda. Americans were eager to move on to a new and more uplifting conversation about their nation and their lives as citizens. And one of the things they wanted to change was the conversation on race.

In fairness, changing America’s racial conversation may have been a bit too much to ask of one man. Although for a man who promised that his nomination as a candidate for president would be remembered as the moment the planet would heal and the oceans would calm, such expectations were perhaps not so outrageous. Nevertheless–his ability or inability to calm the tides notwithstanding–he is only human.

And early on, there were signs that it was all too good to be true.

There was the revelation of his 20-year association with the reverend Jeremiah Wright, pastor of the universal church of “get back whitey.” This eye-opener was followed by several editorials introducing voters to the new “racial code.” We discovered, for instance, that talking about Obama’s elitism was code for saying he was “uppity” and to point out his inexperience was to call him a “boy.” Alas, this was all a harbinger of what was to come.

This administration has attempted to marginalize its opponents by labeling them as racists; movements have been slandered with charges of racism, and principled disagreement is suddenly seen as evidence of bigotry. It all seems a bit surreal. As a nation, we seem to be talking about race now, more than we have in a very long time. As far as leading this nation into a post racial era, the election of Barack Obama can only be seen as a bust.

But perhaps I have misread the tea leaves. It may be that what we are witnessing is race- as-we-have-come-to-know-it in its death throes. We might also be seeing first hand the birth of a new paradigm of race in America—one that will carry us into the next generation.

This past March, in a deliberate attempt to provoke a racial incident, members of the Congressional Black Caucus marched through a large crowd of angry, mostly white, ObamaCare protestors. But the trick failed. The fire hoses didn’t appear; neither did the attack dogs, or the white racists shouting the N-word. Sure, the left claimed it happened–that these noble black heroes were spat upon and called ugly names as in days gone by–but the lie failed to gain traction.

Representatives Charles Rangel and Maxine Waters have claimed that race is behind investigations into their behavior, as opposed to the possibility that they have been unethical and dishonest. There was a time when such charges would have been greeted with seriousness as opposed to the snickering these recent protests have garnered.

The new left media is hard at work attempting to prove racial animus. Increasingly, however, their charges seem to read like a laundry-list of falsehoods and rather mundane annoyance: Scrutiny of the first lady, for instance.

It would be difficult for Americans to witness the cynical, dishonest, and hollow way in which race has been at issue over the last two years and not sense that something is afoot. Indeed, it may be that this nation is moving in a new direction on race. Sure, there will continue to be those who cling to the outdated view of black-white relationships, but increasingly they must be seen as out-of-step with the times. If true, it is both reason to celebrate and to shake Mr. Obama’s hand.

Of course, the issue is not whether the American Society for Muslim Advancement has a constitutional right to build a 13-story, mosque, and community center within 600 feet of Ground Zero. There are a number of things citizens have a right to do—things that the constitutional protection of speech protects—that people of good conscience choose not to do and that others might view as offensive or insulting.

It is important to point out that there have been no pronouncements from opponents of the mosque that the American Society for Muslim Advancement does not have a right to build the mosque wherever they wish. Opponents have simply asked that the building not be built in that location. What remains unclear and unanswered is why the supporters of this mosque are choosing to move forward in spite of its offense and emotional injury to others.

Spokesman and chief fundraiser for the mosque, imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, maintains that the project is about “promoting integration, tolerance of difference and community cohesion through arts and culture.” The complex “will provide a place where individuals, regardless of their backgrounds, will find a center of learning, art, and culture; and most importantly, a center guided by Islamic values in their truest form—compassion, generosity, and respect for all.”

Tolerance, compassion, and a respect for the feelings of others might lead the builders of the mosque to issue a statement, saying something along the lines of: “While we strongly disagree with the sentiments of those opposed to the location of this center, we understand and are sympathetic to the deep emotions fueling those sentiments. Moreover, we are respectful of those feelings and, so, in the name of love, we are going to move our mosque a few blocks up the street. It is our sincere hope that this gesture will be the beginning of a healing process that will put us all on the path to a victory of our common humanity over the ideals that fueled the horrible events of 9/11/01. We are dedicated to making this center a beacon of hope, learning, and compassion not only for the city of New York, but for the entire nation.”

Alas, there have been no statements approaching that kind of generous tone. Instead, what opponents have heard are accusations of bigotry and ignorance, lectures on American values, and a conviction that the medicine of this insult is good for America no matter how bitter it tastes.

So much for tolerance, compassion, and community cohesion.

What could possibly account for the disconnect between the elites and the seventy percent of Americans who oppose the building of the mosque at Ground Zero?

There is a small segment of the left that simply hates America. There is no other way to describe it. These hard-core leftists do not respect America’s traditions or institutions, so they are comrades-in-arms with any force that seeks to undermine or insult those institutions and they rush to stand in opposition to anything that smacks of patriotism or national pride.

A much larger segment of the political left has chosen to wrap its patriotism in the brown-paper wrap of multi-culturalism. For these soft leftists, America’s great strength is its diversity, (as opposed to the founding belief in certain objective truths to which all men must be bound). For them, American values must be malleable enough to fit into the larger context of world citizenry. Thus, everything is American! And yet, in truth, nothing is American because America is so many different things and all of them of equal value, none more sacred than any of the others!

The over-riding motivator, however, is guilt. Leftist—both hard and soft—are still seeking to atone for the sins of our nation’s past. They are hesitant to stand in defense of Western civilization and American ideals and culture lest they be seen as defending whiteness, and by extension, to be standing in opposition to non-whiteness. It is only through national humility and apologetic, cultural indulgence that we can absolve ourselves of the nation’s original sin and win the hearts of our enemies.

Most Americans, however, seem to understand that we are engaged in a battle for the soul of America. No amount of genuflection toward our enemies will make us safer. And each accommodation we make in the name of political correctness brings us one step closer to ruin. It is both fascinating and infuriating that the mosque’s supporters do not understand this simple truth. Or perhaps they do understand it, but simply choose to ignore it.