With the advent of the age of political correctness comes a new age of fear.

This fear is born out of a desire to maintain a certain societal harmony that is based on ignoring people's differences rather than celebrating them. The end result is a society that turns a blind eye to the most basic differences in human cultures based on the fear that to call attention to them would be to offend them terribly, or worse -- create social problems for themselves.

This fear even comes with its own language -- a system of code words, if you will -- that provide the foundation and help maintain the status quo. This year, the system is being played out on a national stage as those on the left attempt to use these code words to further their own agenda.

In this week's "Friday's Guest" colum, About.com commentator Jack Kerwick takes a look at the system of code words employed by the left and how it's being used to further Barack Obama's presidential campaign.

From the article:

Yet the left, no less frequently and perhaps to a far greater extent than the “racist” majority of whose motives it is forever suspicious, hesitates not in the least to resort to “code words” to achieve its goals.

With the exception of leftist politicians, like Barack Obama, who seek power that they can secure only by convincing the majority of voters that they share their love of country, leftists seldom sing praises to the United States. Most of their utterances are condemnatory. But whenever leftists condemn America, it is always white America they’re targeting. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that in the context of leftist denunciations of America, “white America” is a redundancy. When they accuse “America” of being “racist,” “sexist,” “patriarchal,” “homophobic,” “classist,” “oppressive,” “imperialist,” “Islamophobic,” and “fascist,” and when, like Michelle Obama, they say that America is suffering from an “empathy deficit,” it is the white majority generally, and “red-state” whites in particular, to whom they refer.

National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Cole is asking any American who'll listen to sign a petition demanding Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi keep Congress in session until a bill can be passed that will address the high costs of oil and fuel.

"When Americans are canceling vacations because gasoline is over $4.00 per gallon, Democrats plan to adjourn work for a month-long vacation the first of August WITHOUT holding a vote to drill for American oil," Cole writes. "This is inexcusable. I know you’ll agree with me that there should be no recess without voting on legislation that can help lower gas prices."

Cole's right. It's time for this nation's leaders to do something to address the fuel crisis that's hitting Americans so hard. It's one thing to consider how the crisis hurts American vacations; it's quite another to consider how the crisis hurts American livelihoods.

Just this week, auto-giant General Motors announced it was cutting its work-force because it's feeling the economic pinch, and no doubt transportation costs are one reason they're hurting so badly. When Americans are losing jobs because Congress won't do its job, something's wrong. I realize the US government typically creates more problems than it solves, but this is one time it can help its citizens in a profound way.

Cole goes on to cite this Gallup Poll, which shows Congress' approval rating hitting a record low of just 14 percent. Part of the problem is that Americans feel legislators ignore their concerns. If the Democrats adjourn without hashing out legislation that will ease the crisis -- even if it simply boils down to letting states decide for themselves what is in their best interests -- they can expect those approval ratings to dip even lower.

While Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is planning to adjourn Congress in two weeks, a group of House Republicans are planning a trip to Alaska this weekend to learn what About.com readers already know: Alaskans want the right to drill for oil in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge.

If you feel like Congress isn't doing enough to address fuel costs and should save their vacation until after they do their job, sign Cole's petition. Maybe it will be your voice that changes Pelosi's mind.

View a transcript of Tom Cole's entire e-mail

The cover of The New Yorker magazine is seen July 14, 2008 in New York City. The satirical illustration on the cover depicting Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama dressed in traditional Arab garb and his wife Michelle Obama dressed in military fatigues and carrying an assault rifle is generating controversy.

Sen. Barack Obama outlined his strategy for handling the War in Iraq today, having last visited the country (for the first and only time) in 2006. Disturbingly, Obama speech indicates that he has clearly forgotten the painful consequences similar plans have visited upon US soil.

History lesson: When the Russians were defeated in Afghanistan, the US withdrew before the country could be stabalized and rebuilt. The consequences of that withdrawal were felt on Sept. 11, 2001. As most Americans now know, terrorists commandeered Afghanistan in the vacuum created by America's departure, and they used the country to plot one of the worst attacks ever carried out on US soil.

There is a lesson to be learned by what happened in Afghanistan. If the next American president takes the same approach to the War in Iraq, he can expect similar consequences down the road. Abandoning Iraq in 16 months, only to leave behind one small "strike force" is to essentially hand the country over to al Queda or other terrorist organizations, thus sentencing members of that strike force to death.

Obama is right in his opinion that Iraq shouldn't have been the focus of the post-9/11 War on Terror. This is stating the obvious, despite the revelations of faulty intelligence that emerged after the "Shock & Awe" campaign in 2003. Nevertheless, the current situation in Iraq is much more than a "dangerous distraction," and, thankfully, McCain understands this.

McCain also understands that observations and assessments should be made before a policy is implemented, rather than establishing a policy, then making observations. It's been two years since Obama visited Iraq, which means his 2008 Iraq policy is based on what he observed in 2006. Obama next visit to Iraq is scheduled for "soon," according to his handlers.

One other disturbing note: In an attempt to tie his entire platform together with one speech, Obama discussed how eliminating America's dependence on foreign oil is a national security issue (not an economic one, apparently). Most striking was his comment about the way his administration would go about achieving an 80 percent reduction in emissions by 2050: "We will develop alternative forms of energy and share these developments with the rest of the world."

This statement shows just what a neophyte Obama is when it comes to the US economy. At a time when America is entering a terrible recession, brought about in part by rising fuel costs, Obama is talking about giving away valuable scientific advances in alternative energy production. If developed first by the US, these alternative forms of energy and the infrastructure necessary to create them, would be a very valuable asset that could be marketed to the rest of the world, thereby putting billions of dollars worth of revenue back into the US economy. Why Obama would want to hand over the keys to the mint is anyone's guess, but this kind of reckless rhetoric should give the American people pause as they attempt to determine who will best lead the country into the next decade.