A broad majority of Americans are convinced the United States is in decline. The first years of the early twenty first century provide a stunning contrast to the optimistic, can-do attitude of the postwar years in which the Baby Boomer generation was raised.

- 62% of Americans believe the United States is in decline.

- 76% of Republicans, 64% of Independents, and 43% of Democrats believe this despite the "hope and change" promised by the Obama administration. 

- 58% of the young and 57% of the old believe America is on a downward slide.

- 73% of Americans believe Washington has too much power.

These numbers reflect a total repudiation of the progressive worldview.

Americans don't have confidence in the federal government to improve their lives. They don't believe Washington technocrats and bureaucrats should be empowered to solve our national problems. They don't believe Congress is doing its job. They don't even believe Congress is willing to listen to them anymore.

Who can blame them?

Consider the following recent news items:

1.) The Obama administration is searching for a way to pass a stealth amnesty without the authorization of Congress. Having failed to pass "comprehensive immigration reform," the federal government has decided to impose its will on the public anyway.

Who cares about annoying federal statutes or antiquated notions like consent of the governed? The Obama administration picks and chooses which laws to enforce on the basis of the political advantage it accrues to the Democratic Party.

In the absence of a clear legal mandate, the Obama administration simply exercises its royal prerogative and dictates public policy on the basis of its own authority, flagrantly violating the separation of powers inherent in the Constitution.

2.) The twisted logic of Judge Bolton's decision has now been exposed to public view. The inconveniences imposed on "legal aliens" are laughable. The Obama administration doesn't want the law enforced and persuaded a Clinton appointed Democratic political hack to neuter it.

3.) 72% of Americans (with good reason) do not believe the federal government is willing to enforce our immigration laws.

4.) Eric Holder's Justice Department issued a recent statement that essentially said "sanctuary cities" are fine. A city can defy federal law if doing so works to the political advantage of the Obama administration. On the other hand, a state can be sued in federal court for enforcing federal law.

The federal government doesn't want Arizona to enforce this particular federal law, which it dislikes, but requires Arizona on other states to enforce all the other federal laws. This makes a mockery out the rule of law.

5.) The Obama administration recently signed the Trial Law and Order act. This laws allows tribal police officers to enforce federal law on Indian reservations. Indian tribes are given the power to enforce federal law, but not state officers.

Indian reservations even have the power to enforce federal law "whether or not the offender is an Indian." In this case, the Obama administration has completely dropped its faux opposition to racial profiling.

6.) You're probably thinking it couldn't possibly get worse. 

The sympathies of the Obama administration are wholly with illegal aliens over native citizens, with tax consumers over taxpayers, with the "protected classes" of citizens over the unprotected, and with lawbreakers over the law abiding.

Now the Obama administration is pushing to neuter the drug laws and appoint leftwing activists to the Supreme Court for it can stuff the voting rolls with as many felons and criminals as possible. This also works to the advantage of the Democratic Party.

A common thread runs through all these stories: the American people are no longer governed by the Constitution or laws, but by an entrenched political class that will flaunt, ignore, pick and chose, and make up laws that suit its political and material interests.

Nancy Pelosi promised to create "the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history," a Congress which turned out to be riddled with corruption, which doesn't even bother to pretend to represent the American people anymore.

Americans are unlikely to put up with being arrogantly treated like subjects for long. George W. Bush received a "thumping" in 2006, but Democrats are inviting a reckoning in 2010.

Next time you hear Barack Hussein Obama sing the praises of American democracy to foreigners, consider the following facts about our great society:

- 68% of Americans want to complete the Mexican border fence. 21% of Americans oppose its construction. In March, the Obama administration halted construction of the fence.

- 76% of mainstream voters think the border fence should be completed. 67% of the political class are opposed to it.

Like Louis XVI at Versailles, Barack Obama and the political class thumb their noses at the will of the people, and sue a state for protecting itself from invasion.

- 11% of Americans have a "great deal" or "a lot" of confidence in Congress. 76% of Americans have a "great deal" or "a lot" of confidence in the military.

American democracy has declined to the point where a dictator - an American Pinochet - would be more popular than the House of Representatives under Nancy Pelosi.

- 56% of Americans oppose the Justice Department lawsuit against Arizona. 61% of Americans want Arizona's law in their own state. 54% of Americans think the federal government should crack down on "sanctuary cities."

The Obama administration supports the "sanctuary cities" and sues Arizona for enforcing federal law.

- 56% of Americans believe it is possible to stop illegal immigration. 58% of the political class think it is impossible.

- 68% of Americans believe the political class doesn't care what Americans think anyway.

What's the use of the political class? Many Americans are beginning to ask that question.

The Obama administration got its way this afternoon: a federal judge in Phoenix blocked key portions of Arizona's SB 1070. The law has been gutted. 

The federal government has sent a message to the American people. Washington refuses to secure the Mexican border and will fight all attempts on the state level to do so.

Americans no longer have the right to make their own laws. Laws will now be made by federal judges and progressive bureaucrats. Illegal aliens will be coddled. Taxpayers will be demonized as "racists" and "bigots" and fleeced to promote diversity and subsidize criminals.

Arizona is sued for enforcing federal law. "Sanctuary cities" can ignore federal law without having to deal with lawsuits.

It shouldn't come as a surprise that 11% of Americans have "a great deal" or "a lot" of trust in Congress. 50% have no trust in Congress at all. 76% of Americans trust the military.

The legal fight over SB 1070 won't end today. Instead, there will be a protracted, bloody legal struggle that will eventually work its way up to the Supreme Court where the conservative majority will reverse the decision.

This is the best of all possible scenarios. 

The Obama administration will now get a "conversation about race" and illegal immigration - one that it will lose, one that will alienate even more independent voters - that will last into the midterm elections and far beyond.

In drinking from the divisive cup of racial politics, Barack Obama discredited his own message of a "post-racial" and "post-partisan" America. Having sold Americans on a bill of goods, the Democrats can now sit back and wait for the electoral avalanche in November.

The Virginia NAACP vehemently disagrees with Jim Webb's article on "Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege." 

What a shocker: the NAACP believes that Asian, Hispanic, and African immigrants (read: their political allies) whose ancestors were never enslaved or experienced discrimination in the United States should benefit from affirmative action over native born White Americans. The NAACP clearly believes that racial discrimination against Whites is justified to promote "diversity" and fight "white privilege."

We've clearly come a long way from JFK's "Address on Civil Rights" on June 11, 1963:

In the speech above, JFK justified civil rights reform on the basis of equality and colorblindness. He said that new laws were needed. He said all Americans should have equal rights and equal opportunities. He said that we should treat other Americans as we would want to be treated.

Couldn't we all just forget about race, abolish discriminatory laws, and identify solely with our nation? Eventually, the vast majority of White Americans came around to that point of view, and those who disagreed were marginalized on the fringes of society.

This is the consensus that prevails in the Tea Party and the conservative movement. If you fall afoul of that consensus, you are treated as an outcast. The NAACP and the Far Left have departed from that consensus. They don't believe in equality and colorblindness anymore.

Like the segregationists of the Jim Crow South, the NAACP believes in promoting black racial consciousness, blacks voting as a racial bloc, defending black institutions, a black national anthem, black empowerment, racial discrimination in government, housing, and employment that works to the advantage of blacks.

The NAACP even supports racial discrimination against Whites when there is no historical injustice to remedy. Out of racial spite, these "civil rights icons" like Charles Sherrod (see below) do it purely to stick to the White man.

When attention is drawn to their outrageous hypocrisy, the NAACP (a race-based organization) accuses conservatives, and now even some Democrats, of pandering to the divisive elements in our society.

The NAACP and National Council of La Raza (read: "the race") accusing others of divisiveness. The so-called "One Nation" these groups stand for is the one where they rule and everyone else submits and pays tribute.

What would happen to America if everyone started to think along the same tribal lines?

Contrary to the claims of the pro-amnesty forces that “you can’t deport 12 million people” (or however many illegal aliens there are), Arizona is already proving that ‘attrition through enforcement’ is working.  ‘Attrition through enforcement’ is based on the concept that the harder you make it for people to break the law, the fewer people will break the law.  The harder you make it for foreign nationals to illegally work, reside, and collect welfare for themselves and their families in this country, the less likely they will do so.

The success of Arizona’s SB 1070 law is coming even before the law is put into place, as illegal aliens flee the state.  Some are returning home to Mexico, others are going to neighboring states; others are traveling across the country to more liberal states in the northeastern part of the country.  One illegal alien from Mexico who was willing to give her name to a newspaper (try that for any other legal violation), Wendi Villasenor, said "Everyone is selling up the little they have and leaving, we have no alternative. They have us cornered.”  She’s headed for Pennsylvania, which has a 9.2% unemployment rate as soon as she finishes her yard sale and packs up.

Two other families consisting of a mix of illegal and legal aliens were headed to New Mexico, which has an 8.5% unemployment rate.  One illegal alien from Mexico, Gabriela Jaquez, complained that the SB 1070 law now makes it a state crime to transport illegal aliens.  A person claiming to be a legal alien from Mexico, Lunaly Bustillos, said that the law made her “sad and angry,” complaining “I feel I have the right to be here."  However, anyone with a legal right to be in the country has nothing to fear from the SB 1070 law, as it only targets illegal aliens.

A previous law passed three years ago requiring employers to use the ‘e-verify’ system established by Congress to verify the legality of workers hired by companies resulted in about 100,000 illegal aliens leaving the state.  Polls continue show the law is backed by a large majority of Americans, including 2/3 of Arizonans.  Attrition through enforcement may become more attractive to states like Pennsylvania and New Mexico in the near future as more illegal aliens relocate there.

The tactics of Students for a Democratic Society that resulted in the shutdown of Tom Tanredo's speech at UNC Chapel Hill caused shockwaves all across the political spectrum. Critics from the Right and Left decried the actions of the ragtag gang of would-be brownshirts who thought it proper not only to unfurl a banner in front of Tancredo while he was speaking, but also to break windows and pull the fire alarm all in the name of stopping "hate." The North Carolina executive director of the ACLU called the video of the shutdown "chilling" and said the protestors' actions amounted to "de facto censorship."

In all the debate and chatter that followed, two irreconcilable lines of argument emerged. The first came from sensible proponents of free speech who believe that any speech should be permitted, save the usual caveats about yelling "fire" in a movie theater and the rest. The critiques of the student protestors which came from the Right and from principled liberals were made from this angle. The ACLU director above qualified her statement by saying: "Censorship is not the answer to hate speech. Hate speech is protected by the Constitution." Though this is clearly a not-so-subtle smear against Congressman Tancredo and YWC, the underlying logic is clear: no matter the substance of the speech, the First Amendment grants it protection.

The second, more cultivated (bankrupt?) argument came from those on the hard philosophical Left whose egalitarian inclinations extend much further than those who believe everyone should have equal rights under the law. According to this second line of argument, for free speech to exist in the truest sense, designated "hate speech" must not be tolerated. In an open letter to UNC Chancellor Holden Thorpe, Billie Murray, a graduate student at UNC, wrote on behalf of Students for a Democratic Society (the main group responsible for shutting down the event):

It has been argued in the past couple of days that supporters of free speech should be tolerant of all speech. While I am of the view that as a democratic society we must be tolerant of dissenting views, in no way does this mean that all speech promotes democratic ends or should be tolerated. Put simply, some stories are better than others. The litmus test for these "better stories" include those that promote tolerance, acceptance, social justice, equality, and yes, free speech. The rhetoric espoused by YWC and Mr. Tancredo does not promote tolerance of difference and silences those who are "different." Why then should we be tolerant of a rhetoric [sic] that in no way promotes the goals of a democracy and that creates a culture of fear and hate? Hate speech silences free speech.

According to Mr. Murray, the right of free speech should not be neutral to content. It should be denied to those who he believes create "a culture of fear and hate" and do not promote what he feels are "democratic ends."

Bryan McCann, a writer for SocialistWorker.org, echoed this sentiment in his piece on the UNC fiasco, concluding that "activists have a compelling interest in abandoning romantic notions of dialogue with those that hate, choosing instead to confront speakers like… Tancredo precisely because we long for a more just society in which free expression is not only a lofty ideal, but a reality."

In other words, in order to have true free expression, we must stifle free expression. How do these Leftists get away with such bastardized logic? What is the intellectual backing for such nonsense? Like much of the philosophical drivel hardcore Leftists espouse today, the source can be found in the self-identified Marxist and socialist philosopher Herbert Marcuse.

For those not aware, Marcuse was a part of what began as the Institute for Social Research at Frankfurt University in Germany. Later, the Institute would come to be known simply as the Frankfurt School. The Frankfurt School was established in 1923 in the aftermath of the First World War. Marxist economic theory had predicted that if a great war were to break out in Europe, the working classes would rise up against the hated bourgeoisie and Communism would reign. Of course, this never happened, and when it came time to raise arms, Europeans rallied to their national flags rather than their respective classes. As a result, the founders of the Frankfurt School determined that it was Western, Christian culture which blinded the proletariat to their true class interests. And so these intellectuals made it their mission to undermine this culture. Thus, "cultural Marxism" was born.

When Hitler rose to power in 1933, the predominately Jewish intellectuals of the Frankfurt School fled to New York City where they continued their work at Columbia University. After WWII, many of the intellectuals returned to Germany, but Marcuse opted to stay in the United States where he eventually became a pop icon for the New Left and the 60's hippie generation. Of particular interest to us is Marcuse's 1965 essay "Repressive Tolerance" which is, I argue, the basis for the second line of argument presented above.

In the essay, Marcuse argues that tolerance of free thought and expression should not be viewed as valuable in itself, but should be considered in the context of the society in which it is upheld. For him, "the function and value of tolerance depend on the equality prevalent in the society in which tolerance is practiced." He writes that, in a society such as ours, "the conditions of tolerance are 'loaded': they are determined and defined by the institutionalized inequality (which is certainly compatible with constitutional equality), i.e., by the class structure of society." He goes on to explain that, in a society marked by inequality, access to the means of communication, and hence the instruments of interpretation, is dominated by the forces of the status quo. The media, who Marcuse characterizes as "themselves the mere instruments of economic and political power" are exemplary in this respect.

For Marcuse, free speech is not problematic in itself, if it takes place among rational and autonomous actors, but in a society marked by inequality and what he characterizes as "indoctrination," free speech, in the aggregate, serves the interests and furtherance of those in power at the expense of the "oppressed." To counter this effect, Marcuse proposes we shed the content-neutral "repressive tolerance" and adopt a discriminatory "liberating tolerance." In order to adopt liberating tolerance in a society marked by indoctrination, Marcuse states that "apparently undemocratic means" must be employed, including "the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc." In other words, Marcuse asserts that "liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left."

While Marcuse admits that this marks an "extreme suspension of the right of free speech and free assembly," he feels that it "is indeed justified only if the whole of society is in extreme danger. [And] I maintain that our society is in such an emergency situation, and that it has become the normal state of affairs."

While this essay was written in 1965, one can only assume that, if Marcuse were around today, he would still consider his plea for the adoption of liberating tolerance just as applicable. But even if this is not the case, it is clear that his line of argument is readily adopted and employed by those seeking to stifle the expression of conservative ideals. If it existed solely in the minds of those on the marginal Left, it would not be dangerous in itself. However, this thinking, which is anathema to the First Amendment's protection of free speech, is widely held and put into practice by university administrators throughout our country in the form of "hate speech" codes.

A 2010 report by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) which examined the speech policies at 375 of America's largest and prestigious colleges and universities revealed that, of those schools surveyed, 71% of the public schools and 70% of the private schools unconstitutionally restricted student speech.

In the aftermath of the UNC debacle last year, one of the many unsuccessful attempts by Leftists on campus to flip the script and declare themselves victims was to push for the adoption of such a "hate speech" code on campus which would effectively censor groups like YWC who support the enforcement of our nation's immigration laws and the priority of American citizens over foreign nationals (Congressman Tancredo's speech was to be against the "DREAM Act" which would provide in-state tuition rates for illegal immigrants, but not American citizens who aren't residents of the given state).

Clearly, ideas do not exist in a vacuum, and given the state of today's universities, the petition of a radical, Marxist intellectual to openly violate our nation's First Amendment rights has become entrenched policy. The good news is there is some precedent for such codes being overturned and civil liberties groups like FIRE have led the charge in defense of free speech. Any students interested in combating their university's Marcusian logic should contact FIRE and consider starting a YWC chapter to turn up the heat on the corrupt administrators who revel as they shove "liberating tolerance" down our throats.

Marcuse claimed that his “liberating tolerance” was necessary in order to protect the oppressed and confront the powerful. As the tenured radicals, left-wing administrations, and pampered student groups like SDS all try to censor commonsense conservative speech, Marcuse’s ideas now serve the establishment itself. The only real rebels fighting against oppression on a college campus wear the black shirt and the war hammer.

Here's Charles Sherrod, the husband of Shirley Sherrod, speaking in January 2010. The Left has assured us that Shirley Sherrod is an innocent woman who overcame her racial prejudice against White people long ago.

"Firmly, we must stop the White man and his Uncle Toms from stealing our elections. We must not be afraid to vote black. We must not be afraid to turn a black out who votes against our interests. . . . And tell white folk, all over, wherever we are running somebody for an office ... that blacks are going to TAKE that office over. And thousands are coming to the polls. And you gotta get it."

If you want to know where the Sherrods stand on race, consider the fact that they named their children "Russia" and "Kenyatta." Russia, of course, is a reference to the Soviet Union. "Kenyatta" refers to Jomo Kenyatta, a black nationalist, and the first president of Kenya.

In this video, Charles Sherrod bemoans that the money of blacks ends up in the pockets of the White man, and asks when shall we trust our own.

In a recent interview, Charles Sherrod claimed that "racists" still "control our economy" and "much of the cultural development in our country." Keep in mind that Shirley Sherrod has accused FOX News of "racism" and Andrew Breitbart of wanting to restore slavery.

Charles Sherrod is considered a "civil rights icon": a man who advocates voting on the basis of the race and telling "white folk" that blacks are going to "take over."

But no, the real story, you see, is that the Tea Party is racist and that Shirley Sherrod is an innocent black woman who was persecuted by evil White racists like Andrew Breitbart.

Contrary to Obama’s claim to be "surprised, disappointed and angry" to learn of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the Obama regime sent a secret letter from deputy head of the embassy in London stating that “the US position is that conditional release on compassionate grounds would be a far preferable alternative to prisoner transfer, which we strongly oppose."  The letter was revealed in British newspapers this weekend, despite the Obama regime’s attempts to suppress the information, claiming the release would impede "frank and open communications" with foreign governments in the future.

Al-Megrahi was convicted in the terrorist attack that killed 270 people on December 21, 1988, when a bomb planted on Pan Am Flight 103 blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland.  Although the Scottish government which released Al-Megrahi claimed he had only 3 months left to live, recent reports from Libya indicate he is expected to live for at least another ten years.

Discussing recent news events that have brought anti-white racism to the foreground, Senator James Webb (D-VA) has penned an article debunking the myth of "white privilege."  Webb points out that although the original rationale for so-called affirmative action is not applicable at all to many of the current beneficiaries:

Forty years ago, as the United States experienced the civil rights movement, the supposed monolith of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant dominance served as the whipping post for almost every debate about power and status in America. After a full generation of such debate, WASP elites have fallen by the wayside and a plethora of government-enforced diversity policies have marginalized many white workers. The time has come to cease the false arguments and allow every American the benefit of a fair chance at the future.

I have dedicated my political career to bringing fairness to America's economic system and to our work force, regardless of what people look like or where they may worship. Unfortunately, present-day diversity programs work against that notion, having expanded so far beyond their original purpose that they now favor anyone who does not happen to be white.

In an odd historical twist that all Americans see but few can understand, many programs allow recently arrived immigrants to move ahead of similarly situated whites whose families have been in the country for generations. These programs have damaged racial harmony.

The injustices endured by black Americans at the hands of their own government have no parallel in our history, not only during the period of slavery but also in the Jim Crow era that followed. But the extrapolation of this logic to all "people of color"—especially since 1965, when new immigration laws dramatically altered the demographic makeup of the U.S.—moved affirmative action away from remediation and toward discrimination, this time against whites. It has also lessened the focus on assisting African-Americans, who despite a veneer of successful people at the very top still experience high rates of poverty, drug abuse, incarceration and family breakup.

Those who came to this country in recent decades from Asia, Latin America and Africa did not suffer discrimination from our government, and in fact have frequently been the beneficiaries of special government programs. The same cannot be said of many hard-working white Americans, including those whose roots in America go back more than 200 years.

Webb also points out that such blanket categorizations as "white" and "nonwhite" are not useful in determining who is "historically disadvantaged."

Contrary to assumptions in the law, white America is hardly a monolith. And the journey of white American cultures is so diverse (yes) that one strains to find the logic that could lump them together for the purpose of public policy.

A recent NORC Social Survey of white adults born after World War II showed that in the years 1980-2000, only 18.4% of white Baptists and 21.8% of Irish Protestants—the principal ethnic group that settled the South—had obtained college degrees, compared to a national average of 30.1%, a Jewish average of 73.3%, and an average among those of Chinese and Indian descent of 61.9%.

Policy makers ignored such disparities within America's white cultures when, in advancing minority diversity programs, they treated whites as a fungible monolith. Also lost on these policy makers were the differences in economic and educational attainment among nonwhite cultures. Thus nonwhite groups received special consideration in a wide variety of areas including business startups, academic admissions, job promotions and lucrative government contracts.

Not only that, but as was discussed a couple days ago on this site, many "elite" universities discriminate against low income and rural whites, as well as those engaged in activities such as 4-H (a farming program) and JROTC (a program run by the military).

Attempting to navigate the varied and diverse histories of the ethnic groups which make up America in order to parcel out special advantages and penalties, is nigh impossible, even if it were desirable, not to mention the each person's unique family history. This statement by Senator Webb sums up my thoughts:

Our government should be in the business of enabling opportunity for all, not in picking winners.

A new Gallup poll released today has found that only 11% of Americans are willing to say they have a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in Congress. Half of Americans now say they have "little" or "no confidence" in the institution.

The core institutions of representative government in America have been effectively discredited in the eyes of the American people. The Presidency and Supreme Court fare a little better with the confidence of 36% of Americans.

In contrast, 76% of Americans have a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in the military. That's a chilling fact.

In their wildest dreams, the Founding Fathers could never have imagined the day would come when a standing army would be more popular with the American people than the House of Representatives.

To put this in perspective, King George III had more support and legitimacy among the colonists during the American Revolution than Congress does today among the American people.

Unlike King George III, who only demanded a few taxes on tea and stamps, the American federal government has tried to usurp every function of adulthood (healthcare, caring for the elderly, raising children, teaching morality, etc.), make every important decision, and regulate every aspect of our lives, all in the name of progress. It demands loyalty and subservience in exchange for incompetence and contempt of taxpayers.

If a military coup swept out the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress tomorrow, along with the New York Times and Washington Post, a significant number of the American people would probably welcome the change.

Progressives should back off from their utopian schemes (i.e., rule by technocrats) before undermine confidence in representative government to the point where it collapses altogether.