According to a new poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, “nearly one-in-five Americans (18%) now say Obama is a Muslim.”  The Pew’s poll also found that “only about one-third of adults (34%) say Obama is a Christian, down sharply from 48% in 2009.”

Without getting into a deep debate about the President’s politics – particularly as it relates to the Muslim world and issues like the divisive Mosque planned for the grounds of 9/11 – it is worth noting that perhaps the reason so many American’s question Obama’s faith is because people simply don’t know what his faith is.

Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) recently put pen to paper and authored a rather interesting opinion piece for The Wall Street Journal titled, “Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege.” In the insightful piece, Webb wrote “America still owes a debt to its black citizens, but government programs to help all ‘people of color’ are unfair. They should end.”

Webb: “The time has come to cease the false arguments and allow every American the benefit of a fair chance at the future.”  (Jim Webb, “Diversity And The Myth Of White Privilege,” The Wall Street Journal, 7/22/10)

My real job has been keeping me busy lately, thus I haven’t been able to post much. However, a story appeared from out of nowhere about 30 minutes ago and I feel compelled to make note of it.

In a rare, recent posting, I called into question the Obama Administration’s sincerity regarding its position on the Supremacy Clause and its decision to take Arizona to court over the tough immigration law the Grand Canyon State passed and signed into law. Obama’s Department of Justice (DOJ), in its decision to sue Arizona using the Supremacy argument, seemed to be looking the other way when it came to other issues, such as sanctuary cities and medical marijuana on California.

With regards to sanctuary cities, I asked:

Much has been made of Arizona’s immigration law. From San Francisco all the way to the White House, liberals have panned the state, its governor, its legislators, and its citizens for coming to grips with what the federal government refuses to recognize: the border between the United States and Mexico isn’t really a border at all and something must be done to curtail the drug runners, gang-bangers and human smugglers. As it stands today, there’s virtually no difference between going from South Dakota to North Dakota and going from Mexico to Arizona, California or Texas.

But this isn’t about debating whether or not Arizona took the appropriate steps to deal with illegal immigration or whether the federal government has abdicated its responsibility in controlling the border and properly dealing with illegal immigrants already here. The courts, public opinion and politics will take care of that debate (as for public opinion, “nearly six in 10” support Arizona’s immigration law).

Not that I would ever say Democrats are disingenuous, but when they were looking to wrest control of Congress from Republicans way back in 2006 on a pledge to “drain the swamp,” a reference to political corruption, something just didn’t add up. It’s not as though Democrats have the moral high-ground on ethics in a historical context.

Now we know why there was good reason to be more than skeptical. According to Jonathan Allen and John Bresnahan over at Politico, the Congressional Black Caucus (not a single Republican is a member of the Caucus) is looking to strip power away from the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE). The OCE was “created by House Resolution 895 of the 110th Congress in March 2008” and is governed by “private citizens” to act as a watchdog over Congress.

Yesterday, the “U.N. Security Council imposed a fourth round of sanctions in as many years on a defiant Iran” in hopes of keeping the Islamic Republic from “developing atomic weapons.” President Barack Obama trumpeted the new sanctions as an “unmistakable message about the international community’s commitment to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons.”

Two questions: 1. what exactly is the “unmistakable message” and 2. what good will a “fourth round of sanctions in as many years achieve?”

The answer to the first question is that Iran and other countries seeking nuclear weapons can continue in their quest so long as they can ride out sanctions that do nothing more than hurt the citizens who reside under the boot heels of despotic regimes and military juntas. It's plainly obvious there is no will to truly stop Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon.

President Obama Called New U.N. Sanctions On Iran An “Unmistakable Message.” “The U.N. Security Council’s vote Wednesday ‘will put in place the toughest sanctions ever faced by the Iranian government and it sends an unmistakable message about the international community’s commitment to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons,’ Obama said after the vote.”  (“Obama: Sanctions ‘Send Message’ To Iran,” UPI, 6/9/10)

In February 2009, on a party line vote, Democrats passed that massive boondoggle of a so-called stimulus bill. You know the one I’m talking about? It’s the one that Vice President Joe Biden said would keep unemployment from peaking at higher than 7% with the stimulus and would shoot to 8.8% without it.

“As Figure 1 shows, even with the large prototypical package, the unemployment rate in 2010Q4 is predicted to be approximately 7.0%, which is well below the approximately 8.8% that would result in the absence of a plan.” (Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein, “The Job Impact Of The American Recovery And Reinvestment Plan,” Office of the Vice President Elect Joe Biden, 1/9/09)

There’s an old saying: what you don’t know can’t hurt you. When it comes to the blood sport of politics, nothing could be further from the truth.

Democrats have found that lesson out the hard way twice now in the past five months. First there was the Democrat Primary Election for Lieutenant Governor in Illinois where political neophyte Scott Lee Cohen, a pawnbroker, won the primary. Only after the nomination was secure did accusations of anabolic steroid abuse and domestic violence with a convicted prostitute come to light. Runner-up Art Turner wasn’t doing his homework – neither was the State Party for that matter – and now Cohen’s campaign is defunct. In his wake is an embarrassment for the Democrat Party.

Over the weekend it was reported that President Barack Obama “hasn’t spoken directly to” BP Chief Executive Officer Tony Hayward. Amazingly, two days after it was reported Obama has never spoken to Hayward, Obama said that if Hayward was working for him he’d be fired even though he wasn’t interested in talking to him.

What?

Okay and so days before the story broke about the lack of communication, President Obama said he was “fully engaged,” that the government was “in charge of the response effort” and that “BP is operating” at the “discretion” of his Administration.

So the President is fully engaged in the worst environmental disaster to ever hit the United States, but hasn’t ever talked to the CEO of BP and would fire Hayward if he worked for Obama?