The logic of the Supreme Court decision on gun rights is simple and unassailable. Yes, the Second Amendment establishes an individual’s right “to keep and bear arms,” the court decided. And this right means nothing, if it doesn’t guarantee the individual’s ability to possess a firearm in his own home for the purposes of self-defense. The Washington D.C. handgun ban made it impossible for a private citizen to own a hand-gun at home, and regulated the storage of rifles in such a way that they could never help with self-defense. It therefore took away the individual’s right “to keep and bear arms.” Senator Obama’s position—that he supports gun bans like Washington’s, but also believes there’s a constitutional right for private gun ownership – has been praised by the media as “nuanced” but counts as almost laughably contradictory. If there is a Second Amendment right to firearms, but it doesn’t protect a right for law-abiding citizens to keep guns in their own homes for self defense, then what, exactly does it guarantee? Don’t expect Obama to provide a meaningful answer to that question.  

Daniel Dennett, philosophy professor at Tufts University (and an entertaining guest on my radio show), suggested a few years ago that his fellow-atheists should begin calling themselves “Brights”—communicating the idea that they were, very obviously, smarter and more enlightened than religious believers. 

But now, one of the most surprising results of the new U.S. Religious Landscape Survey (an analysis of some 35,000 Americans by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life) suggests that atheists (and agnostics) may not be so bright after all.  

The authors of the report expressed surprise that even those who failed to affiliate with a specific religion maintained a strong belief in God. “Like the overwhelming majority of Americans, 70 percent of the unaffiliated said they believed in God,” noted the Pew Forum analysis. Amazingly, “one out of every five people who identified themselves as atheist and more than half of those who identified as agnostic” also expressed their faith in the Supreme Being. 

If more than 50% of agnostics, and 20% of self-described atheists, say that they are believers after all, it indicates one of two things – 

1-     Either these non-believers and doubters are very badly confused, perhaps even schizophrenic, or, more likely-

2-     They don’t know what they’re saying when they describe themselves. 

Either way, the Pew Survey proves that the common characterization of non-believers as sophisticated, intelligent and well-educated (especially in comparison to those of us who count as purportedly brain-dead and knuckle-dragging people of faith) badly needs revision or rejection.  

The prestigious British weekly The Economist recently ran an editorial commentary speculating on the direction of a potential Obama administration. After pointing out that the Democratic candidate relied more and more on centrist, Clintonite advisers, The Economist still warned about the inflated expectations of “change” surrounding Obama’s campaign.  

“The ambition of Obama’s team is exciting,” the editorial declared, “but in office it could be dangerous…. The lynchpin of his campaign has been a faith, almost messianic, in his personal excellence. If that fades, the whole operation could collapse in frustration and disillusionment.”  

The Obama candidacy, in other words, highlights the risks in building a cause around a charismatic individual, rather than issues or principles. The longer the candidate avoids concrete commitments on issues or declarations of principle, the greater those risks become.

As standard-bearer of the Democratic Party, Barack Obama has ended the white-male monopoly on presidential nominations while extending recent domination by an even smaller, more elite minority — holders of Yale and Harvard degrees.

Among the 12 nominees of the two major parties in the past 20 years, Obama (Harvard Law, '91) becomes the 10th to have graduated from one of the nation's two oldest, most prestigious major universities. All winners since 1988 have held a degree from Yale (George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush) while their opponents featured a mix of more Yalies (Bush Sr., John Kerry) and Harvard Johnnies (Michael Dukakis, Al Gore). In that 20-year span, the only major party nominees without a credential from Yale, Harvard or both (as with George W.), have been war heroes Bob Dole (Washburn Municipal University in Kansas) and John McCain (U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md.). This year, even the principal runners-up in each party bore the requisite credentials: Mitt Romney holds degrees from Harvard's law and business schools, while Hillary Clinton graduated from Yale Law (where she was my classmate).

A front page story in USA TODAY highlighted the alleged collapse of “The American Dream” while revealing the twisted thinking behind contemporary liberalism. While acknowledging that “living standards have improved dramatically” and that “on the stuff front people are doing better than ever,” reporter David Lynch focused on national anger over the disproportionate prosperity of the super rich. He wrote that “from 1993 to 2006, those families captured about half the nation’s overall growth.” His language is revealing – speaking about wealthy people “capturing” their share of growth, or elsewhere, saying they “received” their portion of “total growth.” He seems to suggest that growth is the abstract product of society at large, rather than the result of millions of individuals. Successful Americans didn’t “capture” their share of growth, they created that share of growth –and using government to give the benefits of that wealth creation to others remains the core desire of redistributionist Democrats. It’s destructive to moan about your own success just because someone else is doing even better—especially when that someone else contributes entrepreneurial energy and business building to all participants in the economy at large.

Democrats in Congress display their special knack for corruption with their destructive assault on doctor-owned hospitals. Three times in the last year, the House or Senate passed bills banning referrals of Medicare or Medicaid patients to hospitals in which doctors own significant stock. This would effectively shut-down smaller, specialized alternatives to often overcrowded metropolitan hospitals in a misguided attempt to control costs. But Democrat Senators Herb Kohl and Patty Murray want to make exceptions to the ban for medical facilities in their own states—specifically exempting doctor-owned hospitals in Wisconsin and Washington. In other words, Senators grab new power to crack down on hospitals they say they don’t like – but then inspire gratitude, and probably future contributions, from constituents they’ve specially shielded from the general destruction. This is arrogant manipulation of the most transparent sort.

The Democratic Party has pursued a national goal of securing voting rights for felons and convicts, with the assumption that this population will vote overwhelmingly Democratic. In Rhode Island, this principle has reached a ridiculous extreme, with the enfranchisement of two murderers who killed a total of four people. William Sarmento and John A. Sarro were found “not guilty by reason of insanity” but they’ve been confined for twenty years in a psychiatric center in Cranston. Nevertheless, the Board of Elections restored their vote because the finding of insanity applied only temporarily, even though periodic evaluations have kept the killers in long-term custody. In other words, murderers judged incapable of making basic decisions of normal life or living without supervision were nonetheless entrusted with life-or-death decisions about national leadership. Giving the ballot to homicidal maniacs is, tragically, insane.

The wretched Adam Sandler comedy “You Don’t Mess With the Zohan” hardly deserves its $40 million opening weekend success. The PG-13 rating is an outrage – in view of a dozen cringe-inducing scenes suggesting sex acts between Sandler’s commando-turned-hairdresser character and lonely old ladies. There’s even a scene of the nude backside of obese, 68-year-old Lainie Kazan making love with Sandler – in front of her middle aged on-screen son. It’s also sad that Hollywood either misses or distorts one of the great stories of our time. For sixty years, Israeli counter-terror agents have served with devastating effectiveness to protect their country, but the only Hollywood treatments of these heroes have been “Munich,” showing Israelis as more morally compromised and ruthless than Palestinians, and now “Zohan,” with the counter-terror operatives shown as loathsome and ridiculous.

Germany recently unveiled a memorial to what the press called “the Nazis’ long-ignored gay victims.” Across the road from Berlin’s monument to Jewish Holocaust victims, the new shrine features a pavilion-sized concrete slab with a window through which visitors view a video of two men kissing. This commemoration follows a longstanding, misleading attempt to depict homosexuals as prime targets of Hitler. In fact, even historical material released with the memorial noted only “an estimated 10,000 to 15,000 gay men deported to concentration camps” –and by no means all of them were killed. While homosexuals surely outnumbered the less-than-one-percent of the German population that was Jewish, Jewish victims of Nazi death camps outnumbered estimated gay victims by more than 500 to 1. Persecution of any group deserves condemnation and remembrance, but it’s wrong to exaggerate the extent of victimization for politically correct P.R. purposes. 

Leading media outlooks love to portray military personnel as victims, including a recent news item with the alarming headline: “Army Suicides Increased in 2007.” Sixteen paragraphs highlighted the fact that 115 members of the armed forces took their own lives last year, compared to 52 in 2001. While the Associated Press sought to connect these grim statistics to the war on terror, Army records show that 65 percent of suicides stemmed from broken relationships, not battlefield trauma. Moreover, the end of the news story noted that the civilian suicide rate – when adjusted for similar age and gender mixes–was actually higher than the rate in the military: 19.5—as opposed to the troops’ 18.5—per 100,000. In other words, despite alarmist packaging, serving in the armed forces makes you less likely, not more likely, to take your own life.  

Congressman Ron Paul inspires fanatical devotion from his supporters, and abuses that enthusiasm to pay big money to his family.  

Three grandchildren, four children, and a brother received a total of $169,000 in campaign funds, according to public disclosures.  The fianc? of one granddaughter took $54,000. The presidential campaign spends nearly $500,000 monthly, though the candidate already acknowledged he won’t be president and plans to concentrate on winning reelection to Congress. Meanwhile, the millions raised and spent by the Paul campaign helped publicize his book, “Revolution,” making it a national bestseller, and earning hundreds of thousands- perhaps millions—for the candidate.  

While some of the “Paulestinians” treat the campaign as a selfless cause, the Paul family itself has profited handsomely by a fringe effort that netted barely 1 percent of GOP convention delegates.

Former President Jimmy Carter continues to disgrace himself with radical statements highlighting his detachment from reality. Having previously described his meeting with Hamas terrorists as “fun” Carter recently told a British press conference: “One of the greatest human rights crimes on earth is the starvation and imprisonment of 1.6 million Palestinians.”  

But the standard of living and starvation rate among Palestinians is better than in neighboring Egypt , and many African countries experience far more casualties.  

The Palestinian population has increased more than 500% since Israel ’s independence—hardly an indication of genocide. Concerning alleged “imprisonment,” Carter seems to claim some Israeli obligation to open its own borders to hordes of mortal enemies pledged to its destruction. If Gaza is a prison, then the prisoners run it entirely themselves—since Israel has no settlements and no troops in that purely Palestinian territory.

In his resignation letter from Trinity United Church of Christ, Barack Obama refers to the controversies surrounding the congregation as an “unfortunate distraction.” My friend Sally Vaci took special aim at this choice of language, noting “the use again of the word ‘distraction’ to dismiss a period of time equaling nearly half of Barack Obama's life. Someone should start a ‘Distraction Eruption’ squad….If the Obamas gave a hoot about true Christianity they'd start an earnest movement to FREE THE CHICAGO 8 THOUSAND -- all the poor Southside dupes at Trinity ‘Church’ who've paid for Wright's $11 million retirement and who have brought to our TV screens images of bobble-headed buffoons which frankly have destroyed any fantasies I had about racial harmony.”

When Obama and his acolytes persist in dismissing any discussion of his religious orientation as a “distraction,” the question becomes a distraction from what, exactly?

A presidential campaign amounts to the world’s most significant job interview for the world’s most significant job. The decision-makers (voters) need to know as much as possible about the various applicants in order to make an informed evaluation. It was Obama himself who told us that his membership in Trinity U.C.C. helped form and reveal his true character. In his first book, “Dreams of My Father,” he wrote rhapsodically about his experience in the church and his second book, “The Audacity of Hope,” proudly took its title from a sermon by Pastor Wright. Early in his campaign Obama described himself as a “devout Christian” and referred reporters to Trinity to learn more about his preferred brand of Christianity. He also cited Father Michael Pfleger as one of his three primary spiritual mentors (along with Jeremiah Wright) and until last week Pfleger played a prominent role in Obamas campaign.

Apologists say that the candidate’s three years in the U.S. Senate say far more about him than his twenty years with Pastor Wright, but he’s actually done nothing as a Senator from Illinois other than launch and conduct a hugely successful presidential campaign. Then, of course, there’s the record of his years in the state senate in Illinois –-- where, as it happens, his proudest accomplishments included securing $200,000 in taxpayer money for Father Pfleger’s parish on the southwest side.

For many if not most Americans, religious commitment and membership in a faith community amount to more than “distractions,” but comprise the very core, the very foundation of our lives.

Even if you see his resignation from Trinity as something other than a craven act of political expediency, the ongoing embarrassments concerning Obama’s former church suggest that in his case that core, that foundation looks appallingly weird, crazed, angry and extreme.

In all his attempts to distance himself from comments by Pastor Wright or Father Pfleger, the Senator merely says they don’t represent “who he is” or what “his campaign is about.” He’s never been specific in explaining what it is about the theological or political outlook of the church that now forces him to sever his ties. It’s clear that it’s more than “snippets” of sermons that requires him to terminate an association of more than two decades. But where, exactly, did the congregation go to far and what, precisely, did they do differently from the long-standing practices that purportedly inspired Obama since he first joined the community?

Maybe that sort of explanation of where he disagrees with the direction and teaching of the church, combined with an explicit repudiation of its crackpot radicalism, would encourage other members of the congregation to turn away from its toxic and angry distortion of Christianity. In any event, a more detailed statement about the basis for his break could also answer questions about the candidate’s true worldview – questions that amount to far more than an “unfortunate distraction.”