by J.C. Phillips

We, the American public, hold it as an article of faith that those responsible for devising and implementing public policy have our best interests at heart. Our best minds are hard at work, striving to make the world a better place. Our elected officials are dedicated to protecting our freedoms, increasing our prosperity, and securing justice for all.

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.”

by J.C. Phillips

For decades the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People fought the good fight against racial discrimination. The organization was instrumental in defeating Jim Crow and discrimination in the work-place; it led the charge in establishing voting rights for all and equal access to quality education. Even now the NAACP does some good work in local communities. However, as a national civil-rights organization, it has lost its way.

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.

by J.C. Phillips

I arrived at the Los Angeles Airport more than an hour early. I had made good time on the highway. I wasn’t checking any bags, so with my boarding pass in hand I proceeded to the gate. I was greeted with a security line that was almost an hour long. The line snaked around the terminal, out the door, and stretched down the sidewalk. At the front of the line sat a lone Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) officer studiously checking identification with a jeweler’s loupe, the small magnifying glass jewelers use to look for flaws in gemstones.

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.

by J.C. Phillips

There is, perhaps, no better testament to how far this nation has drifted from the principles of individual liberty, free markets, and private property than that those proponents of real reform of the Social Security system are now looked upon as radicals.

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!

by J.C. Phillips

While listening to music on my I-phone, I began to contemplate the upcoming mid-term elections. The rock band, The Who sang: “I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution/Take a bow for the new revolution/Smile and grin at the change all around me/Pick up my guitar and play/Just like yesterday/And I’ll get on my knees and pray/We don’t get fooled again”

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.”

by J.C. Phillips

I am curious to see what happens when President Obama invites Molly Norris to the White House for a beer. Oh, Wait…Molly Norris can’t go to the White House for beer because Molly Norris no longer exists; any trace of her has been wiped clean.

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.

by J.C. Phillips

The absurdity of race continues to rear its ugly head and once again, the succubus appears in Mississippi. The folks in the Magnolia state can’t seem to get it right on race even when they use the liberal racialist play book.

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 rednecks 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.

by J.C. Phillips

Is America only for white people? The question stuck in my mind following yet another e-mail exchange with a friend of mine, regarding my conservatism. For this particular gentleman, being black in America is at odds with conservatism. As he put it:

“…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”?

by J.C. Phillips

According to the website CNN.com, some of the criticism of first lady Michelle Obama is driven by partisan politics. However, “others say the attacks are rooted in white resentment of the “uppity Negro.” Two things quickly come to mind. The first is that no one other than Harry Reid uses the word “Negro” anymore. Second, that it is the 21st century and yet there are those who continue to talk about race as if it were 1955.

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, nor 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.

by J.C. Phillips

I am fascinated that the same people who have been able to find a Constitutional right to government control of education, healthcare, and the energy industry are unable to divine from that same document any rational basis for the government to prevent a mosque from being built on Ground Zero.

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. Leftists—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.

by J.C. Phillips

In its coverage of the Philadelphia voter intimidation case, conservative media has unfortunately chosen sensationalism over clarity. There are layers to this case to be explored that might highlight the idealism of the right and expose the pessimism of the left. Unfortunately, those layers of exploration are not as sexy as the continuous video loop depicting New Black Panther Party member King Samir Shabazz screaming about killing crackers.

The vast majority of black people respond to such rants this way: “That brother is crazy!” Indeed, to see the video of Samir suggesting that black liberation can be had only through the murder of white babies is to witness a man in the throes of mental illness.

Mental instability may not be a requirement for membership in the New Black Panther Party, but believing in time travel certainly is. The small membership of the Panthers routinely attempts to transport themselves back to 1968. They have appropriated the look of Huey P. Newton and borrowed their rhetoric from Elijah Muhammad and early Malcolm X. In addition, other than standing on the street corner yelling at people, or appearing on Fox News, they appear to do very little actual work.

They also share the opinion of most New Leftists that because of slavery, the American founding was illegitimate; that because of racism, American values are bankrupt, and that so long as any measure of racism continues to exist in American society, that will be proof that blacks remain the victims of an inherently white, racist system.

(Pause here for the obligatory admission that racism continues to exist in America and has not been entirely flushed from the system of our national body.)

Each national election season, the Democratic Party floods the black community with warnings that evil Republicans are preparing to prevent black voters from casting ballots in order to steal the election. Following the electoral losses in 2000 and 2004, the New Left accused Republicans of intimidating black voters.

A few quick facts: According to the United States Census, black voter participation in 2000 rose four percentage points over 1996, increased by another three percent in the election of 2004, and rose again in 2008. In short, as racial conspiracies go, the plan to suppress the black vote, if true, must be seen as an unmitigated failure.

But for those adept at time travel, facts are unimportant—it’s still 1968. For them the continued existence of racism–real or perceived–is proof of American illegitimacy! According to their world view, an illegitimate and immoral power-structure intent on black oppression will stop at nothing to prevent the election of a black man.

So, the Panthers, caught in a time-warp and awash in an unwarranted sense of their own power and importance, showed up at the Fairmount Avenue polling place in Philadelphia not to prevent citizens from voting, but to protect black voters from white racist police officers bent on preventing black people from voting. What remains unclear is exactly how these two men, armed only with one club, were going to fight off car loads of racist police officers determined to turn black voters away at the door.

Oddly enough, this view of police officers as violent racist is similar to that of the Obama justice department. It was this same justice department that announced the Arizona immigration law racist before reading it and expressed a fear that, unlike every other law on the books, SB1070 might lead to racial profiling. But, I digress.

Clarity will not come through the repeated playing of video featuring Panther members screaming about killing white people. Nor is clarity achieved by treating Panther chairman Malik Shabaz as if he is Martin Luther King Jr. or even Al Sharpton.

With clarity comes the realization that what motivates the New Black Panthers is the same thing that animates the New Left. They believe the United States of America is bad and that they must “fundamentally transform” this nation in order to make it good. You can be sure that they intend to rebuild it in their own twisted image. Conversely, the Right believes that America is good. That is not to say that America is perfect, but that America is inherently good, that the ideals upon which the nation was founded are good, that those ideals are worthy of our respect and ought to be the object of our national aspiration.

by J.C. Phillips

I am willing to wager my house that not one of my son’s seventh-grade classmates could identify John Locke in a photo. I am then willing to let that wager ride on another gamble that less than one percent of the seventh or eighth-graders in the Los Angeles Unified School District would be able to identify Locke in a photo array of historical figures. Double or nothing that not only would they not know who he is, but they would also have no idea of why he is important. I would then bet my entire stack of chips that a substantially higher number of middle-school students could identify Karl Marx. I anticipate being a very wealthy man.

This venture came to my mind following an end of the year visit to my son’s middle-school.

My wife and I attended a parents’ night at our son’s school. As we entered his English classroom, I noticed that the walls of the classroom were covered with photos of Karl Marx, Joseph Stalin, and Vladimir Lenin. The eighth-grade students had been studying George Orwell’s “Animal Farm.” On every wall was a hand-made poster featuring a photo of Karl Marx, some biographical information, along with some pithy bit of wisdom attributed to him. As we left the room, I whispered to my son, “Tell your teacher that your father wants to know when she will teach the work of John Locke.” My son responded, “Who is John Locke?”

Written by George Orwell in 1945, “Animal Farm” is the allegorical tale of the wickedness and terror of Stalinist Russia. Significantly, the book is not a condemnation of Marxism. Rather it is a cautionary tale about Stalinism. “Animal Farm” is really a commentary on how Russian apathy and political corruption derailed the Marxist utopia. It’s also a rather cynical tale of the inevitability of totalitarianism.

Orwell’s novel also happens to be a fine piece of literature and one that I believe has a proper place in our children’s literary curriculum.

But was the problem with Stalinism only that it corrupted the Marxist ideal? Is totalitarianism the natural end of all forms of government, or are men capable of ruling themselves? Without the foundation of Locke, do American children have the philosophical foundation necessary to understand what is truly evil about Stalin and Marx and conversely, what is good and unique about America? I am concerned when young students can’t identify the source of the ideas upon which their nation was founded, but can easily identify men whose political beliefs are in direct opposition to those ideas.

Locke was a 17th century physician and philosopher and is also known as the father of empiricism—the theory that knowledge is gained through evidence acquired through experience. Locke developed his ideas in his “Essay Concerning Human Understanding.” However, it is the publication of two books–“The First Treatise on Government,” and “The Second Treatise on Government,”–that makes Locke important to the study of political philosophy in general and the American founding in particular. In these great works, Locke refutes the divine right of kings and sets forth the nature of legitimate civil government, based on (what was at the time) the radical idea of natural rights and the social compact. It was the revolutionary ideas of natural rights and government limited to the occupation of securing those rights that influenced America’s founding fathers. Locke is quoted and paraphrased throughout much of America’s founding documents.

Over the years, there has been increasing pressure on America’s public schools to increase the level of math and English education. There has also been a corresponding decrease in the emphasis on teaching American history and civics. For instance, here in California, entrance requirements into the public university system call for only two years of history and government, as opposed to four in English and math.

But civic education is at least as important.

According to the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, civic knowledge not only “exerts a broader and more diverse influence on the American mind, but it also “increases a person’s regard for America’s ideals and free institutions.” In other words, the health of our republic depends on a citizenry educated in the history and source of its political ideals and the institutions those ideals produced. Certainly, that is as important as geometry. And if students must study literature, which they certainly should, why not read works that also have the benefit of teaching the source of the ideas of the American Revolution?

Between Karl Marx and John Locke, who is more important to our national political identity? So why are our children hanging posters of Marx on their classroom walls instead of Locke? I am not claiming that there is a Marxist conspiracy to indoctrinate our children. However, I do know that if we continue to neglect educating our children about the men on whose ideas this nation was built, this nation will not stand. The borders may remain the same, but the character of this nation will be lost forever.

by J.C. Phillips

The right to private property was one of the central issues involved in the American Revolution. The colonists’ cries of “taxation without representation” were but protests of what they saw as an unjust taking of private property.

The Declaration of Independence charges the King of England with engaging in 10 acts of abuse, of which half are offenses against private property. Most significantly, the Declaration lists the pursuit of happiness as one of man’s primary inalienable rights. The founders believed that liberty, happiness, and property were inextricably tied together.

Over the years, the American occupation with private property has not receded. Indeed, the question of private property remains a central part of our national political conversation. The political rhetoric may not always reflect it, but if one scratches the surface of arguments surrounding universal healthcare; entitlements; budgetary deficits; business regulation; cap-and-trade, or even abortion, one will find an argument involving the God-given right to private property.

The founders, of course, did not understand property simply to mean one’s possessions. Property was understood to include the fruit of one’s labor; it included a man’s conscience—the things he believed and thought, and the ideals he held dear. James Madison wrote that individuals have a property, “In their opinions and the free exercise of them.” As well as “a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions and in the profession and practice dictated by them.” In short, “as man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.”

The founders were then of the same mind as John Locke, who wrote in his “Second Treatise on Government:” “The great and chief end therefore, of men united into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property.”

Some Americans continue to share the belief that the right to private property is sacrosanct–other Americans, not so much.

In a 2001 radio interview, a young Barack Obama lamented that the Warren Court had not been more radical and had not addressed the redistribution of wealth, which is to say the redistribution of private property. Obama continued to opine that the Constitution was a charter of “negative liberties,” which failed to declare, “What the federal or state government must do on your behalf.” The truth is that when read through the lens of the Declaration, the Constitution lays out the manner in which the government will carry out the commission with which government has principally been charged: protecting each citizen’s private property!

It is truly a tragic sign of the times, that to be in favor of private property is increasingly viewed as being extreme. Witness the manner in which the New Left demonizes the political right, sneering that Republicans view all regulation of business as evil. Like so much of the current political rhetoric, this claim is wanting for lack of truth.

Regulation is not a zero sum question. The choice is not to be made between regulation and lawlessness. Rather, the question is one of the manner and extent of any proposed regulations. Are the regulations prudent and do they preserve the government mandate to protect the lives, liberties, and private property of each individual? Or is it bureaucratic micromanagement–an attempt to redistribute property, and/or choose economic winners and losers? That is the issue, and it is no wonder that the New Left chooses to put up straw-men rather than argue the merits and morality of its specific regulatory propositions.

Like the founders, conservatives believe that the free market must be regulated by the rule of law and by those civil institutions responsible for building and maintaining an individual’s character. In other words, any business must conform to both criminal and civil laws, (which must be enforced), must be held to contractual obligations, and must respect the private property of other citizens. Conservatives also share the conviction of the founders that citizens raised with a sense of Judea/Christian morality and educated in civic virtue–as opposed to moral relativism and secular progressivism–will tend not to need the eyes of Uncle Sam looking over their shoulder.

There are, alas, a great many Americans that tend toward the progressive view that in order to achieve “social justice” the government ought to own, well, everything.

John Adams perhaps put it best when he said: “The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”

by J.C. Phillips

My eldest son has decided that he wants to be a marine. His plan is to enter the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, and then serve his country as an officer in the United States Marine Corps.

My son is still at an age when plans for the future change with the seasons. It may be that time brings about a change of his mind. Even so, when he announced his decision, I couldn’t help but smile. One often hears that this young generation is consumed with narcissism and the accumulation of wealth. When my son informed me that he wished to dedicate his life to serving his country, I felt a real sense of pride.

As we approach the 234th anniversary of this nation’s independence, I have begun to think about what that type of service truly entails. The Marine Corp recruiting billboards state that the Marines do not accept applications–just commitments. What is the depth of that commitment?

The answer became clear to me a few weeks ago as I stood on the grounds of the Los Angeles National Cemetery. I was participating in a Memorial Day program, which gave me an opportunity to speak to veterans, some of whom had been wounded and even disfigured during combat. It is one thing to objectively recognize the dangers inherent in military service, and it is quite another for a father to subjectively realize that one of the headstones in the cemetery might someday bear the name of his son. Suddenly, I began to think that a medical career might not be so bad. “Son,” I said. “Have you thought about attending UCLA?”

Nope. He has his heart set on becoming a leatherneck like his new hero, John Basilone.

“Manila John” Basilone was a platoon sergeant and the first Marine in World War II to receive the Medal of Honor. During the battle for Guadalcanal, Basilone single handedly fought off an entire company of Japanese soldiers. Armed with only a .45-caliber hand gun and a machine gun, which he cradled in his arms, Basilone fought furiously throughout the night until he was reached by reinforcements. The morning light revealed hundreds of dead Japanese soldiers surrounding Basilone’s position. He was, as Isaac Hayes sang, “a bad mutha!” Shut yo mouth!

After receiving his medal, Basilone turned down a promotion to second lieutenant saying he was just “a plain soldier.” He could have remained safe, warm, and fat in the states, but Basilone chose to rejoin his fellow troops in the thick of the fighting. Basilone lost his life on a beach on the island of Iwo Jima at the age of 28. For his heroism, Basilone was posthumously awarded the Navy Cross, the Marine Corps’ second highest decoration for valor.

Basilone was a leader of men. He inspired those around him to dig a little deeper and find courage that they didn’t think they had. The tattoo on Basilone’s forearm read, “Death before Dishonor!” He truly led by example.

There is no part of me that wishes my son to die the hero’s death of John Basilone. However, if my son lives his life with as much courage and integrity as “Manila John” did, he will be quite a man.

On July Fourth we celebrate the idea that all men should live free. Alas, that freedom is purchased at a price and from time to time an invoice will arrive marked, “payable on demand.” The price is steep: Fathers will lose boys with whom they used to play catch; mothers will lose children they suckled at their breast. But what choice is there?

It is the nature of men that some will seek to exploit others; the strong will attempt to enslave the weak, and the evil will seek to infect the good. Freedom requires that some among us man the towers in order to protect the weak, defend the good, and secure the blessings of liberty.

Of course, peace is always preferable to war, but peace is secured through strength not through capitulation. Winston Churchill said: “There is no virtue in a tame acquiescence in evil. To protest against cruelty and wrong, and to strive to end them, is the mark of a man.”

Thank God for men like John Basilone and the thousands of others that have given their lives and bodies fighting for what is right. Thank God as well for the many thousands of parents who looked into the eyes of their children and wished them God’s speed.

Ultimately, my son may choose to follow another path. However, if time does not deter him and he chooses to become a Marine, I will be a proud father. Yes, I will worry and I will pray that no harm comes to him. I will also stick out my chest, confident that he is putting his life on the line in service of something greater than himself.

by J.C. Phillips

Appearing on CNN with Anderson Cooper, film director Spike Lee implored President Obama to infuse his handling of the Gulf oil spill with more emotion. Demonstrating the astute analysis we have come to expect from the director, Lee implored Obama to “one time, go off.”

Perhaps he is of the same mind as Bill Maher, that the authentic black man is one who is always armed and resorts to violence and loud-talking when things do not go his way. (Note to self: On the way home from the liquor store, I must pick up my Glock from the gun shop.)

 Both Lee and Maher seem to share the opinion of a great many progressives that emotion is the same as leadership and that problems are most easily solved by decree. It is no mistake that following criticism by Lee and others, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was declaring to the media that he had “seen rage from him [President Obama].” Apparently, when Obama gets angry, he clinches his jaw.

Soon after the Gibbs press conference, the President showed up in Louisiana, walked the beach in shirt sleeves and then, with clenched jaw, he spoke of growing up in a culture where the water was sacred. The administration meant this to be a demonstration of leadership. However, in some quarters, this is also known as street theatre.

Still seeking to enhance his “street cred,” the president then appeared on morning television, lowered his pants down below his buttocks, flashed his gold teeth, and announced that he was looking for some tail to kick.

In the meantime, the oil continues to gush from the well and the resulting slick is now the size of a small state.

As it turns out, sending the attorney general to Louisiana and ordering BP to “plug the damn hole” and then “going off” on national television didn’t solve the problem.

If the poll numbers are to be believed, it would also appear that Americans are not impressed with how much booty a president can kick, especially if it is not accompanied by decisive action that actually addresses the problem. Over the course of the last two months, the president has had several opportunities to take bold and determined action–to be a leader. He has dithered instead.

A few of the missed opportunities:

Fire-booms that were supposed to be a part of any oil-spill response were missing in action. When they were finally located there were too few to do much good.

In the event of a major spill, federal responders had pre-approval to begin burning oil. They waited more than a week before doing a test-burn and then stopped. Experts have suggested that had the burning begun right away, 90% of the oil could have been burned away before it spread.

Thirteen countries have offered the United States the advantage of their technical skills. To date, the Obama administration has declined to take advantage of all of this experience and expertise.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers delayed the building of protective sand-berms until they could study the issue. The administration finally approved six berms, but only agreed to pay for one of them. Government officials say they want to first see if they work. Of course, by that time building more berms won’t do any good.

Two months into the crisis, Admiral Thad Allen, the U.S. official in charge of the Gulf of Mexico crisis, (or is he?), is still talking about asking Congress for a waiver of the Jones Act, which would allow foreign vessels involved in the crisis to operate in American waters. However, that may not do much good. Louisiana boat owners who have volunteered to aid in clean-up efforts are complaining that bureaucratic red-tape is keeping them out of the water.

On a positive note, the president did create another government commission.

Leadership of the statesman variety–as opposed to the shirtsleeves and furrowed-brow-look-of-concern variety–would have the president with a large pair of scissors cutting through the red tape. A leader scours the private sector for the most knowledgeable folks he can find and asks for their help. He gets on the phone with our allies and says, “Yes! Please send me your experts!” He says to the governors of the Gulf States, “Tell me what you need.” Leadership is putting aside political agendas and mobilizing the power of the executive office in order to solve an immediate crisis.

Leadership doesn’t always need big speeches or street corner bravado. Leadership can be quiet; it can be cool and determined. But if it isn’t focused and it isn’t active, it ain’t worth the price of admission to a “Spike Lee Joint.”

by J.C. Phillips

I am an assistant coach on my middle son’s youth football team. Football practice begins in August and I have spent the last two weeks reading up on defensive alignments, surfing coaching websites, and sending e-mail to some of the high school coaches in the area begging for coaching tips. If I watch one more video of conditioning exercises for defensive linemen my head is going to explode. I have begun dreaming in “X’s” and “O’s.”

Of course, that is what I say today. Tomorrow, I will get up and begin the routine all over again. Why? Well, I guess it’s because I have grown to love coaching. Unless one loves it, there is really no other reason to be a youth coach.

A person certainly won’t get rich coaching youth sports. In fact, often a youth coach will lose money over the course of a season. Every coach I know spends his own money to pay for extra equipment and materials. Most of the coaches I know spend additional money on books and clinics in order to expand their knowledge. More than one coach I know has paid the registration fee for a boy whose parents were having financial difficulties. These coaches didn’t open their wallets because the boy was a superstar, (although I have also witnessed performance purchasing). Rather, the coach paid the fee because the boy wanted to play.

The truth is that coaching can often seem like one big headache after another. A coach must contend with equipment shortages, limited practice time, and bizarre and negative interactions with parents. Buy a youth coach a beer and let him regale you with tales of parents gone wild. Every coach has at least one such story. And success doesn’t guarantee that parents will behave as if they have some sense. In some instances winning actually makes them behave worse. I had two parents threaten me with violence because during a game I told their son to hustle. Our team was undefeated!

According to The Center for Kids First, each year 40-50 million children participate in youth sports. The vast majority of those children–85%–are coached by a father of one of the children on the team. Youth coaches spend an average of 11 hours per week with their young charges. That’s a lot of children, and a lot of fathers who volunteer a lot of time.

Put another way, millions of parents place the physical and emotional well-being of their children into the hands of a small number of men, most of whom are married and have children of their own.

And much is expected from these mostly untrained volunteers. Youth coaches are asked to be teachers, strategists, babysitters, nurses, and social workers.

Parents enroll their children in youth sports in hope that their children will learn physical skills that will allow them to stay active throughout their lives, that they will develop a sense of belonging, and that it will promote their moral development. In other words: Sports build character. But this vaunted character that comes from participation in organized sports does not happen by magic; picking up a ball does not automatically strengthen a child’s moral fiber. Character must be taught. And to whom does the duty fall? The youth coach.

And when there is dysfunction in a child’s home the problems tend to follow the players onto the field. When the parents are experiencing marital difficulties, when there is alcoholism or abuse, or when the family dog dies, these volunteers are still expected to persevere. With no professional training–and even less warning–youth coaches must navigate the emotional waters, continue to teach, and win on Saturday!

But, I do love it. I love seeing the eagerness in the boys’ eyes; I love hearing their young laughter; I enjoy watching the passion with which they play. I love witnessing their growth and maturation over the course of a season. And I love knowing that in some small way the work I do may contribute to their life-long love of the game of football.

So, I am going to put down my study for today. However, tomorrow I will begin watching a series of DVDs on how to teach the 44-Stack defense to 11-year old boys.

It may be selfish, but this Father’s Day I am also going to lift a glass of whatever-I-happen-to-be-drinking and salute the dads that volunteer, the fathers that take the time to learn a sport they have never played, or to re-educate themselves in a sport they have not played in years. We parents put our sons and daughters into their hands and ask that they teach our precious ones the value of hard work, the necessity of discipline, and most important, the joy of competitive sports.

God bless them, and cheers!

by J.C. Phillips

If the Obama White House believes the controversy surrounding the administrations engagement with Congressman Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) will “go gently into that goodnight,” they are sorely mistaken. The more we Americans learn of the affair, the more questions we have.

In February of this year, cable talk-show host Larry Kane asked Sestak if the Obama administration had offered him a job if he would abandon his primary campaign against Senator Arlen Specter. The story had apparently been floating around the Washington press corps for many months, yet no one had bothered to ask Sestak if it were true. Sestak responded, “Yes.” Kane followed up by asking if the job was “big.” To this question, Sestak also responded, “Yes.”

 Fifteen hours later White House officials responded that the story was untrue. According to the administration, Sestak was a liar! The administration continued its denial throughout the primary election, which Sestak won.

 Alas, the rather vociferous denial by the administration spokespersons is contradicted by their most recent response. A long three months after the initial allegations were made the administration released a memo outlining an alleged conversation that Sestak had with former President Bill Clinton. According to the memo, Clinton was to determine if Sestak was serious about making a run for the Senate and talked to him about taking a non-paying position on a presidential commission instead. This most recent response begs the question: Was the administration lying then? Or is it lying now?

 Politicians are notorious for the size of their egos. Frankly, the idea that Sestak would forgo the chance to become a senator in order to sit on some ambiguous commission stretches the limits of credulity. Moreover, it doesn’t jibe with Sestak’s description of an offer of a “high ranking,” “big,” “job.”

 Apologists for the administration excuse the shenanigans as political business-as-usual. “Everyone does it,” they say. But Barak Obama was the president that was going to “fix the broken machinery of government.” This presidency was going to be the harbinger of a new era of ethical and transparent government. For an administration that was going to calm the oceans and heal the sick, behaving ethically should be a snap. At the very least, such an administration ought to be able to get its story straight.

 There is also something troubling about Sestak’s rather sparse response. Following release of the White House memo, Sestak released a memo of his own. Sestak stated that he had indeed been contacted by the former president and that the subject of a possible appointment to a presidential board was broached. Sestak continued that he responded, “No.” That’s it. No more details. The entire episode was rather benign and, in Sestak’s words, “nothing unusual.”

Cynics are indeed wondering what quid pro quo Sestak now accepted that he seems to be playing ball with the administration.

 The congressman can’t have it both ways; he is either a man alone–a cowboy staring unflinchingly into the eyes of the powers that be–or he is a lying opportunist in the same mold as the senator whose seat he aspires to take.

 If there was nothing untoward in the former president’s offer, why–when queried by Kane and the rest of the press–didn’t Sestak simply say: “A surrogate from the White House inquired about my commitment to running for the Senate. The president’s surrogate also suggested that I might be a good fit for this hokey commission that meets in the basement of the East Wing from time to time.” The answer can only be that in order to separate himself from the two-faced Arlen Specter, it was to his advantage to appear to be a valiant man of the people, whose honor, (to say nothing of his ambition), could not be purchased at any price.

 But once the “powers that be” begin campaigning for Sestak, won’t that give the lie to his maverick persona? Once it becomes clear that Sestak was role playing, why would anyone except the most partisan vote for him?

 Additionally, the administration clearly lied for three months and may be lying still. If Sestak proves to be the individualist he claimed to be, then someone in the administration broke the law. Shouldn’t we find out who that someone is? And shouldn’t that person then be prosecuted?

 The answers are not good for this administration, which suggests, of course, that they are good for Americans.

by J.C. Phillips

In politics, the crisis game works like this: pet issues are turned into national concerns, which then become the object of study for social scientists. The media then substantiate the concerns by publishing the opinions of social scientists, and thus elevate the issue to the level of a crisis. Once concerns become crises, there are demands that something be done. These demands are quickly followed by legislative action that invariably leads to higher taxes, increased government regulation, a loss of liberty, and if the past is any indication, a remarkable increase in whatever was originally identified as a problem. Repeat the cycle.

First lady Michelle Obama has made childhood obesity her pet project. The media is full of reports on the dangers of childhood obesity, and the federal government is in full crisis mode.

 There really is no secret to obesity. Obesity is the result of a poor diet and lack of exercise. The people most responsible for the diet and exercise habits of children are the children’s parents. Why should this concern the federal government? The answer is that obesity is a leading driver of healthcare costs. A study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that the direct costs of obesity is $147 billion annually or 10% of medical costs. Those costs are expected to more than double over the next decade. As the federal government begins to pick up the tab for more and more of those costs they will also begin to demand a greater influence in what we eat and how much we exercise. Certainly, the fiscal health of the nation demands that government do something.

 Worry not.

 There is a bill currently making its way through the House of Representatives, ironically entitled, “The Healthy Choices Act,” which would establish regulations and fund programs aimed at reducing obesity rates by such means as putting nutritional labels on the front of food products, subsidizing businesses that provide fresh fruits and vegetables, and collecting Body Mass Index, (BMI), measurements of patients, and counseling those that are overweight or obese.

Body Mass Index, or BMI, is a 200 year-old scientific relic that is used to determine a person’s body fat. The BMI is calculated by taking a measurement of a person’s weight in pounds and height in inches, multiplying that number by the person’s height in inches, and then multiplying that number by 703. Any number over 24 is considered overweight.

 States receiving federal grants through the bill would be required to mandate that all health care providers in the state “determine the BMI of all their patients in the 2-to-18 year-old age bracket and then report that information to the state government. The state government, in turn, would be required to report the information to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for analysis.”

 No good can come from the government becoming the fat police, especially given that the BMI is an unreliable measure of body fat and thus a poor determinate of future health risks.

 For instance, the BMI makes no allowance for the density of bones or the weight of muscle. Athletes and those with strong bones, good muscle tone, and low body fat tend to have high BMIs.

Just for fun, I went to the website for the National Institute of Health and entered the height and weight for Tim Tebow into the institute’s BMI computer. Tebow is a former Heisman Trophy winner, All-American football quarterback for the University of Florida Gators, and widely considered one of the best collegiate athletes of all-time. Coaches and sports writers have often commented on what an amazing physical specimen he is. According to Tebow’s BMI, he is obese.

I couldn’t find the necessary statistics on the first lady; so instead, I coaxed my wife into entering her information. According to the BMI computer my wife is of a “normal’ weight. There is no question that my wife is in terrific condition. I am a lucky man! However, she is in such terrific physical condition because she runs eight miles a day, lifts weights like a maniac, and eats nothing but lettuce. When she is really feeling daring she will even add dressing to her salad. And here is the point: The height and weight ratios associated with the BMI are unrealistic. More significantly, by itself the BMI offers very little information on the actual health and condition of the patient.

So why is the government determined to use the BMI? Because the government nannies are more interested in power than they are concerned with the health of individuals and the BMI will offer them the statistics they need to prove the crisis.

The bill also requires “HHS to share with Congress and other government officials, including the secretaries of education and agriculture, its analysis of the BMI data…”

The data would be analyzed in order to determine “obesity trends in regions of the United States and how those trends vary according to gender, and economic status.”

Can you see it yet? The disparate impact folks will have a field day. Black people are fatter than white people; women are fatter than men, and the poor are fatter than the wealthy. Clearly, the food industry responsible for making America obese is also racist, exploits the poor, and is at war with women’s health. We are in the midst of a crisis! Why isn’t the government doing something?

Fear not. The cavalry is speeding to our rescue.

by J.C. Phillips

Last week, Americans of all nationalities celebrated Cinco de Mayo; some, like me, acknowledged the day by partaking of margaritas and carne asada.

Others, like the Mexican students at Live Oak high school in Northern California, observe the day by wearing the Mexican colors of red, white, and green. In a gesture meant to display American pride, five Live Oak students–Daniel Galli, Austin Carvalho, Matt Dariano, Dominic Maciel, and Clayton Howard–decided to wear American flag t-shirts and bandannas. After receiving complaints from some Mexican students, Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez asked the boys to turn their shirts inside out. The boys refused, were threatened with suspension, and were asked to leave the campus.

 I am old enough to recall a time when wearing the American flag on a piece of clothing was seen as disrespectful to Americans. Even images of the flag worn as fashion were viewed as a vulgar desecration of a cherished symbol. But times have changed.

 Over the years, attitudes have not only relaxed, but they have completed a 180 degree turn. The flag has become an oft-used element in fashion design, and wearing the flag is now considered a display of patriotism. An image burned into my memory is one of the actress Halle Berry wearing a form-fitting gown comprised of small American flags. Disrespectful or not, if that image doesn’t make you stand up and salute, nothing will.

 Yes, times have certainly changed. I doubt that anyone ever imagined a time in this country when American children would be criticized for wearing the American flag not because it offended traditional American sensitivities, but because it was seen as disrespectful to Mexicans.

 Principal Rodriguez said that the request was made in an effort to prevent fights from breaking out. What remains unclear is why wearing an American flag on one’s shirt would provoke violence–even amongst testosterone-filled teen boys. Daniel Galli and his buddies were minding their own business. If it is the opinion of the principal that just the sight of an American flag on Cinco de Mayo will produce conniption fits among Mexican children, it seems clear to me that he does not have a very high opinion of the Latino students that attend the school.

If it is an educator’s job to promote critical thinking among his students then the administrators at Live Oak failed miserably. Here was a “teaching moment;” here was a real opportunity for Rodriguez and Principal Nick Boden to provide a lesson in patience, priorities, and the true meaning of tolerance. But multi-culturalism has turned people into thin skinned grievance junkies—babies that cry at every cross-look or unkind word and must be coddled lest they toss themselves on the floor and begin kicking and screaming. So, rather than suggest to the aggrieved students that they ignore the red, white, and blue t-shirts, enjoy their day, and get back to class, Rodriguez and Boden indulged the multi-cultural temper tantrum, which ironically, played into the worst stereotypes of Mexican people. “You had better take those shirts off. You know these Mexicans; they will pull their knives at the drop of a hat!”

The following day some 200 Mexican students walked out of class in protest. As they marched down the street waving the Mexican flag they demanded the boys’ suspension. And once again, rather than demand maturity from the Mexican students, the protest was greeted by the district superintendent with promises to hold a rap-session, where the students would be encouraged to express their feelings. I would like to suggest that rather than encouraging cross-cultural understanding, the school district should instead encourage a cross-cultural Algebra tutoring session. Given that Live Oak is underperforming the state average on both the California Standards test and the California High School Exit Exam, such an endeavor seems far more necessary and certainly more practical.

Responding to the ongoing drama at Live Oak, a young Latina declared that wearing the American flag on Cinco de Mayo was akin to Mexicans wearing the Mexican flag on the Fourth of July. The essential point that this young woman misses is that should she be strolling the streets of Mexico City on July Fourth her donning of the Mexican flag would indeed not raise many eyebrows. We are, as it happens, not in the country of Mexico; rather we reside in the United States of America.

The sight of the American flag in America—even on Cinco de Mayo—should not be a source of offense to Americans of Mexican descent, but pride, providing of course that one sees him or herself as an American first. And here is the point that this young woman, the school administrators and a handful of sympathizers seem forever not to grasp. Americans do not want to be an extension of Mexico! Indeed many of us have had a peek south of the border and do not like what we see. The political culture and the values that support it hold little interest for those proud of our flag and “the republic for which it stands.”

Among many Americans, there is a growing sense that immigrants to this country have no interest in becoming Americans. Illegal immigrants are largely seen as people who disrespect our laws, our language, and our traditions. More significantly, they are viewed as taking advantage of everything this nation has to offer and yet refusing to assimilate into our American culture. The political class says that these fears are unfounded, and the elite label such thoughts as bigoted. And yet we are treated to stories like this one, wherein American children are sent home from school for wearing an image of the American flag. Should we believe the political elites? Or our lying eyes?

by J.C. Phillips

Some voters in Arkansas’ 1st Congressional District will believe Princella Smith is just too young to be a congresswoman. Doing business on Capital Hill requires wisdom and life experience; at 26-years-old, Smith is a baby. Of course, age was not an issue for Edward Rutledge, who at 26 signed the Declaration of Independence. Nor was age an issue for Amelia Earhart, who at 25 set an altitude record for female aviators.

 Besides, according to Article 1, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution the only qualifications required to serve in the House of Representatives are that a person “have attained the age of 25 years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.” Princella Smith certainly passes constitutional muster. It is, however, her vast experience that makes her not only more than qualified, but perhaps the best choice to represent the people of the 1st District.

 Princella Smith has clerked at the U.S. Department of Labor, was e-campaign director for then Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele’s Senate campaign, national spokesperson for “American Solutions,” the issues advocacy group begun by former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich; she was even a prime-time speaker at the Republican National Convention in New York.

 However, the road to Washington is both long and is scattered with more obstacles than just age.

Princella is a conservative Republican running for office in a district that hasn’t elected a Republican since 1872, which, no doubt, explains why the district is filled with crumbling schools, high unemployment, and deep-seated racial tensions. Smith is also black and the district she seeks to represent resides in a Southern state that has never elected a black person to a congressional or state-wide office.

The good news is that Arkansas is still a place where values matter. What Princella has going for her is that while she may not share party affiliation with many of the voters of the 1st, she shares their values; she is one of them.

The 1st is a large district extending from the Mississippi River to northern Arkansas near the Missouri border and encompassing 26 counties. Miss Smith was born and raised in Wynne, Arkansas, a rural farming county in the Delta and one of the poorest regions in the country. Her father is a pastor and former school board member. Her mother is a vice-principal at one of the local high schools. The people of Wynne know the Smiths and more importantly they know Princella. People from all over the district watched her grow-up; some of them coached her to a college basketball scholarship, others watched her clean toilets to make spending money; some cheered her academic success, and many proudly tuned in to their televisions when she began appearing on the cable news as a political commentator. Smith is home grown, which presents a challenge to local Democrats.

For generations the Democratic Party machine has controlled elections in the 1st District by using the black churches to turn out large numbers of black voters. We will now see what happens when these black church going voters have a choice between a young, dynamic, black candidate from good, home-grown stock and a candidate from the party machine that makes, (and breaks), the same promises that Democrats.

 We will also see if the Republican Party agrees with Smith that, “the Republican Party must become a party of energy, of ideas, of passion and citizen participation.”

The “Grand Old Party” is increasingly seen as precisely that: old! This is, after all, the party that saw fit to dust off a tired 73-year-old John McCain to run against a young, energetic, and charismatic Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election. Besides Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Republicans are hard pressed to point to very many young, smart, and charismatic voices; Princella Smith is all three.

She also possesses common sense, a trait displayed in Washington far too infrequently. For instance, she recognizes that increased entitlements must be paid for through higher taxes. Increased entitlements, coupled with tax cuts lead to increased debt. Talking about tax cuts without talking about spending cuts is a failure of Congress to exercise its fiduciary responsibility.

Smith is also a proponent of the flat tax. “I would like to replace the monstrous tax code with a single sheet of paper that every American can fill out,” She says. “One flat tax-rate that everyone—corporations included—will pay.”

Yes, Princella Smith is only 26. However, given the propensity of our older and wiser representatives to spend money the country doesn’t have–running up trillion dollar deficits for as far as the eye can see—I find a bit of comfort in Smith’s youthful enthusiasm. “I am fighting on behalf of my generation,” she says. “It’s my generation that is going to have to pay this debt!”

Run, Princella, run!

by J.C. Phillips

The people of Mississippi have not been angels. The history of the Magnolia State and segregation invites the kind of scrutiny and criticism that has recently been visited upon the state. Media reports that the Walthall County School District has been ordered to stop segregating its schools raised the ire of most Americans because it was a reminder of a particularly ugly moment in this nation’s history–-a history that Americans have no desire to repeat.

Still it stretches the limits of credulity when a school that is 66% white and 35% black is labeled a “racially identifiable ‘white’” school and the county supporting the school is depicted as filled with a bunch of ugly racists just itching to don the bed sheets and ride through the night terrorizing the countryside. Yet, that is exactly the case in Walthall County, Mississippi.

Walthall County is a rural community of about 15,000 people – 54% of whom are white, 45% of whom are black. The school district serves a total of 2,500 students. At issue are Tylertown, which sits in a predominately black community and has a black enrollment of 75%, and Salem Attendance Academy the “racially identifiable white school.”

Over the years the school district has allowed hundreds of white students to transfer out of Tylertown and into Salem, resulting in race ratios the U.S. Justice Department finds unacceptable. In a written statement, Thomas Perez, assistant attorney general in charge of the civil rights division, said, “It is unacceptable for school districts to act in a way that encourages or tolerates the resegregation of public schools…” (It should be noted that the school district also allowed many black students to transfer from Tylertown to Salem and, while the media accounts do not say, the numbers seem to suggest that a large number of black students also transferred from Salem to Tylertown.)

Mr. Perez is legitimately concerned that if left unchecked the schools in Mississippi may slide back into separate and unequal institutions; kind of like schools in Detroit, New York, Washington D.C., Los Angeles, (and other places).

In our haste to announce ourselves morally superior to those “rednecks” in Mississippi we have rushed past a few facts, which also conveniently allows us to skirt some uncomfortable questions.

The Walthall School District is not preventing any student – black or white – from attending either school. The district is not segregating the students; rather they are allowing parents to choose where they would like to educate their children and the people are making decisions that they deem to be in their best interests. To the extent that there is segregation it is a result of choices made freely. No doubt this is why the Supreme Court held in Green v County School Board that freedom of choice is not an effective method to desegregate schools. People tend not to willingly follow a bureaucrat’s carefully crafted race ratios.

Here in southern California I have been afforded the right to send my children to any number of schools within Los Angeles, no matter that they fall out of my residential district. I am concerned when other parents are denied that same right regardless of whether or not I agree with their rationale. “Never send to know for whom the bell tolls…”

If all children in the district are free to attend whatever school they want, providing there is room, what is the state’s compelling interest in usurping the freedom of parents to choose where to educate their children? The reason is the stigma attached to black schools. Salem is not really the problem. There are schools all over the country that can’t claim as diverse a student body as Salem. The real concern is the increasing number of black students at Tylertown and the subsequent death of the school once it becomes known as a black school.

Black schools are generally viewed as bastions of dysfunction, violence, and academic mediocrity. In addition, much of the research being produced by social scientists regarding the racial achievement gap purports to show that academic deficiency among black students is exacerbated by racial segregation. Columbia University researchers Douglas Ready and Megan Silander have determined that attendance at a minority segregated school contributes to the racial achievement gap for elementary school students. The study concludes that these gaps “may result in the loss of more than a year’s worth of cognitive development for black students attending a high minority school.”

I remain unconvinced that sitting next to white children is necessary in order for black students to be academically competitive. However, if in fact the research is true, why would any parent want to send his/her child to a black school? The answer is that a whole lot of American parents do not.

Americans living in glass houses throw stones at Mississippi parents for transferring their children to a “white school.” Yet the decisions of these southern parents put them in the good company of parents –- both black and white — from San Francisco to Stamford. Cynics among us would point out that the current occupant of the White House is one of those parents. While residents of Chicago, the Obama’s enrolled their children in a school with only a 12% black enrollment and a 70% white enrollment. The Obamas found a black church; no doubt if they had wanted to they could have found an all black school for their children to attend.

Finally, (file this under the heading of “misplaced priorities”), according to “the Children First Annual Report” of the five schools in the district one of them is failing and four are in danger of failing. I would submit that race is the least of the problems in Walthall County.

by J.C. Phillips

Such was our founder’s belief in the preeminence of God that when the First Continental Congress convened in 1774, Massachusetts delegate Thomas Cushing suggested to the assembly that together they pray for divine guidance and protection. The historical events that would forever change the world were preparing to unfold: war loomed on the horizon; the Declaration of Independence would be signed, and a nation “conceived in liberty” would be born. In this moment, men of varied religious beliefs — Presbyterians, Episcopalians, some Quakers, others Baptists or Congregationalists – were led in prayer by an Episcopal priest in an appeal to the almighty that was described as “extraordinary…filling the bosom of every man present.”

 It would not be the last time the founders appealed to the Almighty God.

 James Madison acknowledged God’s favor in our founding in Federalist 37 referring to “a finger of that almighty hand, which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution.” I dare say that men like Madison and Cushing would not recognize the America of today, filled with politicians afraid to confess their faith or educators fearful of offending the sensibilities of their students with any mention of God.

 Math teacher Brad Johnson of Westview High School of the Poway School District in San Diego, California, is a case in point.

 In 2007, Westview Principal Dawn Kastner ordered Johnson to remove banners hanging in his classroom because they contained the words “God” and “Creator.” According to media reports the banners, which had hung in his classroom for 25 years, measured approximately 7 feet long by 2 feet wide and carried the phrases: “In God We Trust,” “One Nation Under God,” “God Bless America,” “God Shed His Grace on Thee” and “All Men Are Created Equal, They are Endowed by Their Creator.”

 Kastner objected to the banners, claiming that they promoted a Judeo-Christian viewpoint and might make some students feel uncomfortable. The school district agreed. Oddly enough neither Kastner nor school district officials were concerned with posters hanging in other classrooms containing Buddhist, Islamic, and Tibetan prayers or those containing anti-religious messages that might make Christians uncomfortable. What remains unclear is why those that preach diversity and tolerance seem incapable of practicing those same virtues when it comes to Christians and the role of Christian faith in our American history.

 Kastner and Poway district officials might argue that they are simply enforcing the Constitution’s wall of separation between church and state. The U.S. Constitution, of course, recognizes no such wall. There are roughly 4,500 words in the original unamended document and not one of them was written to imply that God – specifically the God of Abraham – should be hidden from school children.

 The Bible – Old and New Testament – was the most common piece of household literature of the time; it was the primary textbook from which children and adults learned reading, writing, and morality. The first American dictionary contains biblical references on just about every page.

 Moreover, the founders believed religion and religious teaching to be essential to the maintenance of a free society. The great patriot Benjamin Rush of Pennsylvania wrote, “All its [Christian revelation] doctrines and precepts are calculated to promote the happiness of society, and the safety and well being of civil government.” Therefore, reasoned Rush, “the only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.” In short the founders recognized not only the nexus between virtue and happiness, but also virtue and liberty.

 We should not be surprised when those that endeavor to erase God from our history also seek to shackle us to the administrative state. Man will “either be governed by a power from within or controlled by a power from without.”

 In his farewell address, George Washington said, “Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

 The founders would find the mushy multi-cultural political correctness of the 21st century to be outrageous.

 The first round of the legal battle was won by Johnson. U.S. District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez delivered a scathing rebuke to the Poway School District, correctly reasoning that “recognizing that God places prominently in our nation’s history does not create an Establishment Clause violation requiring curettage and disinfectant for Johnson’s public high school classroom walls. It is a matter of historical fact that our institutions and government actors have in past and present times given place to a supreme God.”

 Not content to leave well-enough alone, the Poway School District has appealed the decision, which will be heard by the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Heaven help us!

by J.C. Phillips

I received my census form, dutifully filled it out and mailed it off. In the blank reserved for racial classification I wrote in capital letters, “HUMAN.” It was widely reported that for racial classification President Obama checked the box marked “African-American” as opposed to writing in “mixed race,” which would have been more factually correct, but wouldn’t have played well with black voters (or so he supposed). It is my considered opinion that if the President can make a political statement when filling out his census form I can as well. Obama chose to shore up his street cred; I chose to give voice to the conviction that this country will never move beyond race so long as the federal government continues to be in the business of race.

Yet we remain consumed even if we can no longer actually define what race is. What we lose in our attempts is any sense of ourselves as individuals created with unique gifts to offer an expectant world.

Is race in America a matter of pigmentation? DNA? Given the fact that most of us are “mutts,” how dark or light must one be and which ethnic distinction predominates? Our President is bi-racial and was raised by his white mother and grandmother, yet he describes his race as African-American. His choice seems to suggest that race is a matter of opinion; a man is whatever he believes himself to be. How then does one determine the authentic from the merely delusional? My friend Amy is married to a black man; she has black children and lives in a black neighborhood. She earnestly asks why she is precluded from becoming a member of the sisterhood. And what of all the blond, blue eyed “Native Americans” and their cousins in the black community that “have a little Cherokee on their grandmothers side of the family.” Are their opinions not as valid as our President’s? Are we prepared to give moral credence to the “one drop” rule of days gone by? Have we now determined that absent the idea of racial supremacy the one drop rule is in fact not racist and is civilly acceptable?

Perhaps race in America is now defined by ones political attitudes(I was recently referred to as a “Republicoon.” Members of the tolerant and non-racist left tend toward a particularly odious form of invective. But I digress.) This was overheard at a dinner following the 2008 presidential election: “You know I’m black. And I can prove it!” Thus she opened her sweater revealing her Barack Obama t-shirt.

In 1790 the only reason for counting race was the continued presence of the evil institution, slavery.

Article 1: section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the clause directing the taking of the census, contains the infamous 3/5ths compromise. It reads in part, “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned…by adding the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons.” That ratio was eliminated following the abolition of slavery and the ratification of the 14th amendment.

 So why does racial counting continue?

 According to the Census Bureau’s website the race data on the census form is needed in order to “determine congressional, local and state voting districts…to access fairness of employment practices, to monitor racial disparities in characteristics such as health and education and to plan and obtain funds for public services.”

 As the Queen of soul was heard to say, “Who’s zoomin’ who?”

 The census does not ask for a job description. The racial data in the census is useless in determining if I, as an individual, have not been treated fairly by my employer. However, it is essential in determining statistical representation. We must also ask ourselves if nurturing a racial spoils system where public dollars are handed out based not on need or merit but race will move us forward in our efforts to become post racial or hold us back. And if we can’t even be certain of how to define race are our measures accurate anyway?

 The primary purpose of the census is in apportioning congressional districts. The importance of race in these calculations continues to be used to gerrymander those districts and concentrate political power. At a certain time in our history the idea that black and brown people needed representation that looked like them was not outrageous. Are such ideas still relevant in 2010? Only if you continue to believe that black interests are best served by black and democratic representation. 75% of black Americans live under 7 layers of democratic representation: school board, county board, city council, mayor, state representative, state senate and congressional representative. Toss in police chief, school superintendant and in many instances Governor and it becomes crystal clear why so many black people are angry with Republicans.

 It may be that race is a kind of merging of what we believe about ourselves and what the world believes about us. But realistically — in a post racial America– how does one fit such a large and complex idea into a small box on a federal census form?

by J.C. Phillips

“Distinctions by race are so evil, so arbitrary and invidious that a state, bound to defend the equal protection of the laws must not invoke them in any public sphere.” — Thurgood Marshall

Perhaps it was unfair to expect that the election of Barack Obama would “bend the curve” on hundreds of years of racial attitudes and the politics that developed around those attitudes. Then again, for a man that entered office with a promise to calm the seas and heal the sick doing “post racial” should have been a piece of cake. Moreover, with all the talk of “hope and change” it was not outrageous to imagine that there might be some positive change in the tone surrounding discussions of race. Certainly it was not unreasonable to imagine that at the very least this President- who was going to win back the world’s respect — would not stoke the fires of racial enmity here at home. Well, as my mother used to say: “If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.” Instead of bringing Americans together, this President is proving to be the most divisive and racially polarizing president in recent memory. And France still isn’t all that crazy about us.

 The press of course has been filled with reports of the racism rampant on the political right. There is no doubt in my mind that there are American citizens that dislike President Obama because he is black, who are threatened with the increase in the population of “brown” people and resent the idea of a black man with as much smarts, power and charisma as Barack Obama. I am also absolutely certain that there are Americans that continue to believe O.J. Simpson did not murder Nicole, believe men from space have landed and infiltrated our citizen ranks or believe the recent healthcare bill passed by congressional democrats and signed by the President will actually reduce the deficit.

Particular invective has been directed at members of the various Tea Parties, who are depicted as violent racists come together to protest a brother with power and prone to chant the N-word at members of the congressional black caucus. Of course this yarn is spun with an absolute disregard for the truth and absolutely no evidence. The Tea Parties were formed in response to profligate spending by a white Republican President. And in this day and age – with every cell phone equipped with a video camera – it is difficult to imagine that not one frame has materialized showing dozens of tea partiers chanting the N-word and spitting on black congressmen as has been reported over and over again. The charges, however, fit so neatly with the New Left’s narrative that facts just get in the way. As does any notion that playing the race card every time someone disagrees with this President hinders political debate and stirs the pot of racial animus.

Now comes news that the Obama Justice department has filed an amicus brief supporting a return to the use of racial preferences at the University of Texas at Austin.

Following the 1996 decision in Hopwood v Texas the University of Texas was forced to find race-neutral means to increase the enrollment of minority students on its campus. The school began granting automatic admissions for students graduating in the top 10% of their high school senior class.

In 2003 the Supreme Court in Grutter v Bollinger held that some use of race is permissible only if race neutral methods fail and then they must be narrowly tailored. The University of Texas chose to hold onto the top 10% program and return to the use of race preferences for students falling outside that percentage.

In 2008 Abigail Fisher, the lead plaintiff in Fisher v University of Texas, graduated in the top 12% of her high school class and was denied admission to the university. Her lawyers argue that the race-neutral 10% plan has been successful and therefore any use of race preferences oversteps the dictates prescribed by the Supreme Court and is unlawful.

What is of particular interest is that the administration has gone beyond simply filing a brief in support of existing law. The President has extended the argument beyond what The University of Texas applies and the Supreme Court envisioned in Grutter and endorses the use of racial preferences in all “educational institutions”—K-12, undergraduate, and graduate. As Roger Clegg, president and general counsel at the Center for Equal Opportunity points out, “The Supreme Court has never found there to be a compelling interest in the former instance—nor, for example, in post-doctorates for chemistry—and it is aggressive and wrong to argue that, because the Court found there to be compelling educational benefits in diversity at the University of Michigan law school, therefore any educational institution can make that claim.”

In the battle against discrimination Obama seeks to take us backward. This administration does not envision an America moving away from preferences, but a nation of increased preferences based on race! Just as unfounded cries of racism lead to an increase in racial enmity, racial preferences create racial hostility.

It was anticipated by many of us that a black man sitting in the oval office would fundamentally change the racial discussion in America. This nation would finally and at long last leave the chains of race on the ground and thus unburdened soar to the heights promised at our founding. This new post racial America would be the defining contribution to the American narrative by the first post racial president, Barack Obama. Or so we hoped.

by J.C. Phillips

There was much laughter following the president’s signing of the health care bill. Democrats were positively giddy over having successfully secured America’s decline. There were fist bumps and back slapping; the champagne flowed.

 Democrats were not alone in their celebration. Republicans too shook hands with constituents and lapped up attention and praise for, let’s face it, having done very little. But, hey, why let that spoil a good time? My fear is that not only will Republicans not “repeal the bill” should they take control of congress after the mid-term elections, but that in the very near future Republican candidates will also be running on promises to nurture it. Such is my confidence in the current GOP.

Inasmuch as we are toasting the expansion of the administrative state (and thus the demise of our American Republic) we should perhaps also raise our glasses to Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain. All these nations are on the verge of economic collapse due to their fiscal promiscuity. They too love their entitlements and are demanding them even as the ship of state sinks. Portugal is currently running a deficit that is 9.3% of GDP with a debt that is 80% of their GDP. Greece has a deficit of 13% and a debt of 113% of GDP. Just for laughs consider that they are appealing to the United States for financial aid. The U.S. currently carries a deficit that is over 12% and debt that is 94% of GDP.

Closer to home we should also raise our flutes in celebration of, or perhaps in memory of, an American icon: the United States Postal Service.

At the same time President Obama was putting his signature on Obamacare, the Postal Service Board of Governors announced its decision to drop Saturday delivery, close some post offices and increase rates for service. Before instituting the changes, the Postal service must first get an official opinion from the postal regulatory commission followed by the approval of Congress. Good luck.

This year the postal service projects a deficit of $7 billion. Without changes that shortfall is expected to increase to $238 billion by 2020.

Postmaster General John E. Potter argues that if the agency were “provided the flexibilities used by businesses in the marketplace to streamline their operations and reduce costs, we would become a more efficient and effective organization.” Word has apparently not trickled down to Potter that the way to save money is to spend goo-gobs of it along with establishing several more layers of federal regulation. As they say in the White House, “You’ve got to spend a trillion to save a billion.” That’s the way they do it in Greece.

How odd. Rather than requesting that the postal service be subject to 100 new government boards and a 3,000 pages of new official directives, and that he be named Postal Czar, Potter demands the freedom to respond to market signals – to run the postal service as a (hide the women and children) profit making enterprise as opposed to a quasi-government enterprise.

This is exactly the opposite of what we have been told as it pertains to healthcare. The left argues that profit is the enemy of reform; that in fact the only way to bring quality healthcare to the most people along with fiscal discipline is through large administrative oversight – that and about 3 trillion dollars.

How is it that the same political considerations that have governed the postal service into billion dollar deficits will elude governance of healthcare? They will not.

I will no doubt be admonished by new liberals: “don’t disturb this groove.” However, clear thinking Americans, which apparently exempts the entire Democratic caucus, understand that the choice was never between Obamacare and doing nothing as was often charged. As Potter articulated in his plea to Congress, it was always a question of the inflexibility and stagnation of government bureaucracy on the one hand and the fluidity and dynamism of the market on the other.

The magic of the present moment may do much to cement Obama’s legacy, but it does little to change this nation’s fiscal reality, to whit: the nation is running huge deficits, has grown the national debt, has unfunded promises it can’t keep and for the first time the majority of this nation’s debt is in foreign hands (alas, not in the hands of Greece, Portugal et al.) Rather than seek market alternatives that would cost nothing, this president and this Congress chose to inflict upon the nation an expensive boondoggle that will, they have explained — in the odd dialect of Congressional-ese and in contradiction of actual historical evidence — actually make us fiscally sound. It will not.

But far be it from me to break up the party.

by J.C. Phillips

A little bit of wisdom that was shared with me not too long ago. “God gave us a Powerful gift – your mind. As you look around at any object, it began as an idea in some one’s mind. Any change of situation begins as a thought.” Indeed there is infinite power in an idea.

Russell Kirk wrote, “Conservatism is not a political system, but a way of looking at the civil order.” Put more plainly, it is a world view. People often confuse being a conservative with being a Republican. However, Republican is a political party not a way of thinking. All republicans are not conservatives. In fact as we have seen over the years there are even some republicans that are not republicans. Being a conservative is really about the embrace of an idea.

There is a film I recommend everyone rent and watch. It is called “Amazing Grace.” It is the story of William Wilberforce and his struggle to end the slave trade in the British Empire.

During an especially poignant moment, the former slave and abolitionist, Olaudah Equiano, opens his shirt displaying the brand burned into his chest when he reached the West Indies from Africa. In his words it was a mark that let him know that he no longer belonged to God, but to men. This moment in the film is striking not because it affirms the cruelty of slavery. Slavery was/is not evil because of its cruelty, but because it violates the natural state of man by reducing the divine to the profane.

For me this moment eloquently illustrates the seed idea of conservatism—that all men belong to God! Thomas Jefferson was equally eloquent when he said that “some men were not born with saddles on their back and others with boots and spurs to ride them by the grace of God.” Jefferson of course codified this idea into the Keystone document of our Republic.

It is the assertion of divine ownership that is the basis upon which we claim our liberty. The natural rights of man emanate from this simple truth: God made man free and independent. As free men, we must own our bodies, our ideas, and the fruits produced by same. No man or no government can morally lay claim to that which God has made ours through his grace and mercy. It is upon this concept that rights are properly defined; upon this rock that America was founded and this idea that is the bedrock of conservatism.

Not too long ago I was in my home town of Denver, Colorado. I was speaking at a luncheon sponsored by the Claremont Institute of which I am a Lincoln fellow. I was on the phone with a very old and dear friend of mine trying to make plans to meet following the event. “The Claremont Institute?” She asked, “What is that?”

I responded, “It’s a think tank devoted to restoring the founding principles to our national life.”

“Oh,” she said. “Ultra right wing…”

“Uhm exactly which of the founding principles do you disagree with?” I responded.

I have made it my habit to never admit to being a conservative unless I am allowed to define what that means. It is routinely and wrongly asserted that the conservative objects to change. Frankly it is a fallacious argument the new left routinely makes and one conservatives far too frequently – and to our detriment – neglect to refute. The fact is that to conserve has never meant simply arguing for the status quo. Conservatives might be more properly understood if we referred to ourselves as conservationists.

Like conservationists conservatives are not content with current conditions. Rather they are both seeking to prevent the depletion of some treasured resource. Both Conservatives and conservationists act to defend and protect; to restore, to supervise and nurture those things essential for the survival of a society or culture. Preservation is achieved through education and prudent management or husbandry.

For many citizens stepping forward and demanding that we conserve trees or some rare species of bird is looked upon as a noble undertaking. It is a pity that some of those same eyes view the act of conserving, defending, restoring and supervising the prudent management of the principles upon which this nation was founded as a whacky or evil endeavor.

Equiano was correct and the power of that small idea – to quote a young Muhammad Ali – “Shook up the world!” I would submit that conserving that idea and the principles which grew from it are as important as conserving our natural resources. Better yet I contend that idea and those principles are our greatest natural resource.

by J.C. Phillips

Speaking on ABC’s “This Week”, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi commented, “I think everybody wants affordable health care for all Americans. They know that this will take courage. It took courage to pass Social Security. It took courage to pass Medicare. And many of the same forces that were at work decades ago are at work again against this bill.”

There is that word again. What exactly does affordable mean? The left tosses the word about but never bothers to define exactly what they mean by affordable. It could mean anything and everything and no doubt it will. Affordable is a political term that is unassociated with actual costs, only addresses price and means, “you pay according to the amount of political capital you have.” For instance if you belong to the SEIU you pay less than if you didn’t. But I digress.

I dare say that the only reason it takes courage to pass Obamacare is because a majority of Americans oppose it. According to a recent CNN poll only 25% of Americans want congress to pass this Healthcare bill. It is particularly telling that the new left continues to depict the 75% of Americans that oppose their efforts to nationalize healthcare (which is the end game) as ignoble, uncompassionate, ignorant racists. More annoying is that they portray themselves as visionary, compassionate champions of good.

I suspect that the truth is that Americans do not like the substance of the healthcare bills – all 4000 pages! Nor are they enamored of the back room deals this administration cut in order to secure the votes of their own party. Frankly, the stench of bribes like the latest appellate-judgeship-for-yes vote is more reminiscent of B.S. than it is of hope and change.

It is also likely true that Americans have weighed the fiscal promises of huge government programs like Social Security against their reality and decided they would like to find other avenues towards reforming healthcare- other than putting it in charge of Washington bureaucrats.

Social Security was passed in 1935 as an insurance program to protect a small segment of workers in their retirements. In 1940 just over 222,000 citizens received monthly social security benefits. The program has since grown to become the single largest item in the federal budget, consuming over 22% of total expenditures. The program was originally funded by a 1% tax on the first $3000 of income, with the tax increasing to 3% over the next 12 years. In 1966 the Medicare tax rate was split from the Old Age, Survivor, and Disability (OASDI) rate. Since the inception of OASDI there have been 20 increases in the tax rate, which now stands at 6.2% for both employer and employee on earnings up to $109,000; the Medicare rate is 1.45% with no cap on earnings. Nearly 80 percent of Americans pay more in Social Security taxes than they do in federal income tax. And still social security faces a fiscal crisis. What’s more, what began as an insurance program is now simply a welfare program. The Supreme Court has ruled that citizens do not have a right to social security benefits.

This year social security will run a cash deficit for the first time in more than 25 years. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) those deficits will continue into 2011. The system rebounds slightly until 2016 when the deficits begin to accelerate at a steady and rapid pace. This in direct contradiction of the rosy picture painted by Budget Director Peter Orzag and Congressional Democrats, who assured us that SS was secure for at least 50 years.

And what of Medicare? Medicare trustee Tom Saving and his colleague Andrew Rettenmaier estimate that Medicare will consume 25 percent of federal income tax revenue by 2020, and 50 percent by 2040.

Both programs are in need of a fiscal “fix.” What are the Democrats recommendations? President Obama, after acknowledging that the system is running out of money, suggests taxing a larger share of income. True to progressive form Obama suggests what would be the largest tax increase in U.S. history, at least $1.3 trillion over the first 10 years. Yet according to the Cato Institute, such an increase would increase Social Security’s cash-flow solvency by just seven years.

Former Enron Advisor Paul Krugman is on record as recommending a combination of tax increases and benefit cuts. In some languages denying benefits in order to save money is called rationing. And it is into these steady and trustworthy hands that we are being asked to entrust another 1/6th of our economy.

Americans have listened ad nausea to the promises of this administration and found them to be fantastic. The mantra that a national healthcare plan will cost less money, will not raise taxes and will not result in a rationing of care is not only unsupported by history, but is patronizing as well.

by J.C. Phillips

A reader recently sent me an email admonishing me for not being more supportive of President Obama. For reasons that were not immediately clear, he also raised the issue of my confessed Christianity. The “aha” moment came when he asked, “Do you pray for your leader like you’re instructed in the good book?” I responded that while I have prayed for the president, I do not do so regularly. That, in his mind, was evidence of my Christian hypocrisy.

This is an elementary school argument, but sadly one that is far too commonly made by the religious left and their secular allies. All Christian stumbling is demonstration of falsity; individual failure to practice principles is ipso facto proof of the bankruptcy of those principles. Sophistry of this sort allows the new left to dismiss ideas they disagree with and evidence they find inconvenient with a simple label: “religious right-wing extremist.” That sure beats actually having to make a substantive argument. What remains unclear is why the regular and unabashed support the religious left offers candidates whose policies are incompatible with or in direct contradiction to Christian principles is not more damning evidence of their Christian hypocrisy.

Aside from the fact that the left takes it as a given that they are both smarter and morally superior– one answer might be that the religious left now preaches moral relativism as opposed to the objective truth of God.

Not long ago I asked a black clergyman about his (and so many others) support for candidates that write and support policy inconsistent with the tenants of Christianity. He responded by asking me, “what are Christian beliefs?” His question was neither rhetorical nor was it an invitation for my definition. Sadly it was his serious contention that the “Bible is not a unitary document but a collection of books. Which one you choose to quote and live by is a result of interpretative choice.” Alas, his explanation seems inconsistent with a Christianity that worships a unified father, son and Holy Spirit; that accepts the bible as the inspired and living word of God; that views the individual books as part of a greater whole with a unity of theme and purpose and that believes the risen Christ is the fulfillment of ALL scripture. To hold that there are no true Christian beliefs just individual opinions–and all of those equally valid—leads me to guess he purchased his diploma cheaply and on-line.

Of course this pastor is only one of many claiming to be independent – choosing their candidates on “the basis of intellect, moral compass, life experiences, sensitivity to ethnic diversity and a commitment to expanding the blessings of liberty” and yet somehow always votes for a Democrat.

The excuse is that the hypocritical religious right – those that pray for his happy retirement and not his political success — are too busy talking about family values and not dealing with the broader moral issues of poverty, injustice and more recently healthcare. Significantly, this has led the religious left away from preaching virtue as the way in which God empowers individuals and towards locking arms with secular leftists that preach the administrative state as the anecdote to man’s falling. For the left, redemption is to be had not through personal sacrifice and struggle, but through the redistribution of resources; not through personal discipline but through mandates for equality. It is not enough to save our neighbor we must work to save the planet.

And yet both spiritual redemption and political liberty are secured through individual virtue. The most important thing Christians can do is influence behavior. To be baptized is to recognize both the truth of the example and the veracity of the instruction book. Whether of the right or left if you are not talking about moral behavior — that is to say behavior that is objectively right or wrong — then you are not going to impact social issues like poverty and injustice.

This is where the religious lefts relativism fails them and those they purport to champion. Issues of personal morality are important not because some of us want to limit others fun, but because some behavior – like some ideas – both undermine those institutions that shelter our liberty, and ultimately (and most importantly) move us further away from the Lord.

And here ultimately is the greatest question the religious left must be prepared to answer. Do we walk by faith in the administrative state? Or do we believe in mans capacity to change his life through the grace and mercy of God?

by J.C. Phillips

Even as a bloodbath looms in the November distance, the Obama administration continues to push healthcare because they know that Americans love their entitlements like winos love wine. They are betting the farm that once that fiery warmth begins running through the National body we will not only love national health care, but will fight to defend it. We will also be too glassy eyed to notice that we have suddenly signed away our liberty, becoming slaves to those that serve us. But I digress.

Like wine, entitlements cost money. Sadly the more addicted we become the less money we have to spend on more important and often essential things. The wino lacks food, housing and clothing; the entitlement addict lacks employment, savings and luxury.

Consider that today our national debt stands at roughly $12 trillion or roughly 70% of our gross domestic product or GDP. But wait. We have promised today’s workers Social Security and Medicare benefits totaling another $41 trillion. Toss in another trillion for miscellaneous expenses, and suddenly our debt skyrockets to $54 trillion. In layman’s terms it means in order to pay our future obligations we would need $54 trillion dollars invested today. How much of that money does this nation have sitting around? Zip! Zero! Zilch!

The next politician that proposes to solve this problem by cutting waste should be laughed out of office. The truth is that the result of our addiction is so severe that we could end ear marks, allow the Bush tax-cuts to expire and end the war in Iraq and still be some distance from solving this nation’s fiscal crisis.

How serious is it? At the rate we are spending entitlement expenditures will represent a full ¾ of our federal budget by the year 2030. A decade later – when today’s college students begin to retire—our debt will have risen to 244% of GDP. This nation will be so broke that we will only be able to service our public debt and pay out some social security and Medicare benefits. All other parts of the government will be shut down.

What does the wino do when he has consumed all his wine? He begs others for theirs. Rather than a world leader– we will be a nation at the behest of others. Rather than a strong and secure people– we will be a nation, to paraphrase the bard, whose hearts will shake at every feeble rumor and whose enemies, with the nodding of their plumes will fan us into despair.

Clearly something must be done. I mean besides immediately instituting government health care.

On Thursday President Obama announced the creation of a deficit commission charged with rooting out ways to restore fiscal discipline to Washington. This announcement came on the heels of the President’s announcement of a $3.8 trillion budget, which anticipates — by their own accounting — a $1.6 trillion deficit. It has been reported that in certain parts of Brooklyn and in a particular household in Los Angeles it was shouted, “I’ve got your deficit commission right here!”

Chairing the bi-partisan commission will be former senate Republican leader Alan Simpson and former Clinton advisor Erskine Bowles. The president betrayed his lack of seriousness when he let slip that he expects the commission to find a way to “pay for ALL FEDERAL PROGRAMS.” (Emphasis mine)

In bringing down the deficit and reducing our national debt there are truly only two choices: either we stop spending or we raise taxes(there is also the option of both raising taxes and increasing spending favored by many on the new left or that favored by the GOP: cutting taxes while raising spending.) Our addiction makes it unlikely that we will do away with federal programs and entitlements; recent attempts to reform Social Security, for example, were met with a stone wall. And because cutting spending often means offending constituents, the solution most favored by politicians on both the left and right is that of raising taxes.

In order to keep up with our addiction we will have to double our federal tax rate across the board. It won’t be as easy as laying the burden at the feet of “the wealthy” or those making over $250 thousand per year. There simply aren’t enough people making that much money to pay for all the spending. The burden will be borne by everyone. On the bright side the increase in taxes will mean that businesses will stop hiring so a lot of folks will not have to pay the higher taxes because they will not have earned any income.

Commissions made up of Democratic fools and Republican lackeys do not automatically make for good policy prescriptions. I dare say it was some brilliant commission that is responsible for creating the mess we currently find ourselves in. The truth is that we do not yet know which congressmen will make up the body of this commission; no doubt they are all grand fellows. However unless they begin their task with a discussion on taming the $54 trillion dollar beast that awaits the next generation– none of them is serious. They are, as Curtis Mayfield sang, simply “your pusher man.”

by J.C. Phillips

The new Audi TDI ad was one of the more provocative commercials shown during the Super Bowl.

The commercial opens with an unsuspecting grocery shopper asking for a plastic shopping bag rather than paper. He is immediately taken into custody by the “Green Police.” As his head is being slammed into the check-out counter the green officer barks, “You picked the wrong day to mess with the eco-system plastic boy!” The spot ends with a long line of cars stopped at an “Eco-check point.” An officer spots the Audi. “TDI here,” he observes. “Clean diesel.” The officer then nods to the driver, “you’re good to go, sir.” The driver smiles and then speeds past the traffic jam. The tag line reads: “Green has never felt so good.”

More fascinating than the commercial is the fact that certain environmental Cassandra’s claim the commercial speaks for them. David Roberts for instance, writing in the Huffington Post, argues that “the ad only makes sense if it is aimed at people that acknowledge the moral authority of the green police.” Indeed the driver never challenges the moral authority of the green police. To the contrary, the Audi driver is actually subordinate to that authority. The driver is only able to by-pass the Eco-check point because his car passes muster. The message of the commercial is that it is possible to be both stylish and eco-friendly.

My question to those “that acknowledge the moral authority of the green police”: from where does that authority come? The question is rarely asked by the likes of Roberts because they don’t like the answer.

There are certain universal, objective and immutable truths to which all men are bound. These truths do not come to us through law, statutes or even science, but are instead the gift of divine revelation. It is in order to protect these truths that societies create institutions. The lengths to which our institutions go in conserving and furthering these truths can only be discovered through a process of rational and prudent deliberation. Science is but one of those processes.

Society generally agrees that it is a good thing to arrest, prosecute and fine (or imprison) those that dump poisons into our waters and public lands (not specifically designated for such dumping). The commercial resonates because we tend to blanch at the idea of green police marching fathers from their homes for using incandescent light bulbs (the disposal of which, by the way, does not require that one open windows and don a hazmat suit). The left argues the moral authority for such “eco tactics” stems from the fact that curbing our production of man-made carbon will save the planet. Unfortunately, while the evidence of the dangers of poisons in our landfills is quite clear, the evidence that man-made carbon is causing the earth to warm – er uhm I mean the climate to change – grows less and less persuasive.

Far from recognizing the moral authority of the green police, as outrageous fantasy creeps ever closer to being a reality — (Note to Audi: it stops being satire when it is true)–the commercial perceives the opposite.

Consider that the British parliament is already considering something called, “Domestic tradable quotas” or personal energy rationing. Here’s how it would work: every resident would receive a carbon credit card containing an identical allocation of carbon units. The number of points would be reduced each year in line with the government’s carbon reduction goals. Each time a resident used carbon based energy he/she would have to swipe his card and have a number of DTQ points deducted from their card. Heavy DTQ users would be able to purchase extra points from low DTQ users and no doubt those unable or unwilling to purchase extra points would be fined and jailed. Because almost every activity we engage in involves some sort of carbon production – writing this column on my computer for instance, washing dirty clothes, eating meat…breathing! –it isn’t difficult to imagine the political shenanigans that will accompany a policy prescription that is gaining traction among environmentalists.

Recall that during the presidential election of 2000 Democratic nominee Al Gore was asked the question: “paper or plastic?” Laughter ensued as the climate guru struggled to correctly answer the very question for which the hapless shopper at the beginning of the commercial was arrested.

Thus what we learn from Audi is that the green police are more concerned with power over peoples lives (for power one appeals to politics; it is the absolute wrong place to go looking for morality), which is why it is politics not science, reason or sadly common sense that has driven the question of anthropogenic global warning.

2+2=4