"Us Against Them" should immediately prompt the question, “Which us, and which them?”

And that, my friends, is the point.

I just read an article by Byron York writing in the Washington Examiner that prompted my thoughts on the subject.

This article was titled, “The black-white divide in Obama’s popularity,” and he quotes a number of results from a survey conducted by the New York Times. The first two paragraphs set the tone:

“On his 100th day in office, Barack Obama enjoys high job approval ratings, no matter what poll you consult. But if a new survey by the New York Times is accurate, the president and some of his policies are significantly less popular with white Americans than with black Americans, and his sky-high ratings among African-Americans make some of his positions appear a bit more popular overall than they actually are.”

“Asked whether their opinion of the president is favorable or unfavorable, 49 percent of whites in the Times poll say they have a favorable opinion of Obama. Among blacks the number is 80 percent. Twenty-one percent of whites say their view of the president is unfavorable, while the number of blacks with unfavorable opinions of Obama is too small to measure.”

These results mimic a problem that many big city urban areas find in the black perception of law enforcement. It’s “us against them.”

In a number of high-visibility cases, a portion of the black population jumps immediately to the defense of the black person(s) involved – before facts are in, before any objective investigation has been completed. It’s a “knee-jerk” response based on the belief that the black person will be treated unfairly.

Remember Tawana Brawley? A hoax, pure and simple; with the NYT and Al Sharpton feeding the politically-correct charge of racism.

Finally, when the truth came out, the The New York Times was forced to report on its front page on June 18, 1988, that, “A former aide to the Rev. Al Sharpton testified yesterday before the grand jury investigating the case of Tawana Brawley, a day after the aide publicly charged that Mr. Sharpton and two other advisers to Miss Brawley had fabricated the family's story ''as they went along.''

The story was proven false and a grand jury refused to indict the accused.

And how about the Duke lacrosse players?

The Durham County prosecutor, The Duke University faculty, the NAACP of Durham, and the mavens of political correctness that dominate the staffs of publications like the New York Times, Newsweek, Time, and the various broadcast news outlets, all crucified the lacrosse players long before any real evidence was gathered.

When all the evidence was presented, this episode turned out to be so egregiously wrong that the prosecutor, Mike Nifong was disbarred for what was termed, “"intentional prosecutorial misconduct." The Duke players were exonerated.

Once again, a steamroller of racism automatically “convicted” the lacrosse players because they were white and “poor” Crystal Gail Mangum was black.

It’s becoming apparent to me that the same mindset is prevalent among much of the black population today. They immediately go into a defensive mode when it comes to Obama. They just know that any criticism of him or his policies is based on racism and they’re just trying to offset that inherent racism by a show of approval in their response to a poll or a survey.

It’s a “He’s one of us and we have to protect our own” mindset. That’s a not-so-subtle variation on the “us against them” theme.

But there is a major problem with that blind support for Obama just because he is black. That personal support for a black president completely ignores (or is ignorant of) whether his policies will be good for America.

There are no global affirmative action policies that mitigate Obama’s effect on our economy because he is black. Twelve percent unemployment or rampant inflation won’t be ok because it occurs under a black administration. Our enemies won’t scrap another terrorist attack simply because we have an African-American President. In other words, the macro workings of the nation won’t give us a mulligan just because Obama is black. So, if a black President spends too much, raises taxes too much and reduces our military preparedness, he doesn’t get a pass just ‘cause he’s the first black President. At this level, there are no “do-overs.”

His policies and his actions impact this country and its 300-plus millions no less than a white President and so, an automatic, blind approval given to Obama, without consideration to the impact of his actions, is racist. Would that approval have been forthcoming under a white President? If a policy is wrong for a white President, it will be wrong for Obama. And in fairness, the reverse is also true - a good policy is a good policy, regardless of the skin pigmentation of the chief executive.

It’s easy to understand the pride that the black community has in a black President. It confirms that voters in the U.S. have put aside racist attitudes to the point of large numbers of whites voted for a black candidate. That is undeniable progress.

However, at some point, the black population of the U.S. has to hold Barack Obama to a standard no lower that it would apply to a white President.