In the next few months, The Utopian Politico will cease to exist and will be forwarded to the Canary.

More info will be announced weeks to come….

Here’s some of the main players that we’re speaking about:

Michelle Bachmann

Bachmann’s outlandish style leaves on few in her corner.  With ridiculous remarks about the Executive Branch, Bachmann has positioned herself into a spot with little opposition when it comes to being reelected in 2010.  The item that moves her to the front of this list is her dedication to the Tea Party.   She has officially submitted a request to start the Tea Party Caucus.  This not only puts her in a position for a “successful” run in 2010, but also a possible “dark horse” in the 2012 presidential bid.  This, along with the lack of any idea on immigration, will ensure a weak bid for 2012.  I can’t say that much for her constituents in her district for 2010.

Sarah Palin

The life of Sarah Palin is confusing and awaiting a crumbling down.  Between a daughter shopping around for a reality show with her Playgirl fiance and making BOATLOADS of cash for speaking at poor public universities, Palin’s “like-ability” has soared in the conservative circles.  She, too, is a star in the Tea Party circuit and the probability of her running in 2012 is off the charts “YES!”.  This pleases most liberals, as she has little experience… in just about everything…. maybe talking.

Jeb Bush

Jeb is a real possibility for a GOP front-runner.  Even though the 2012 election IS sometime away, I don’t think voters will forget his brother’s economic stance and foreign policy problems.  Jeb isn’t W, but the apple can’t/doesn’t fall from the Bush tree.  The indistinct scent of  totally unregulated business and the proposed hegemony, most likely, won’t be voted back into office. We will see, though.  The 2010 elections will give us a better idea.  The only real way that Jeb Bush has a chance is by voters choosing Republican candidates over Democrats, but most projections suggest that it’s an anti-incumbent year, rather than a political change.

John McCain

John McCain seems to be less and less Mavericky as the days go by.  Wait, he’s actually so Mavericky, he goes Maverick on his traditional Mavericky ways.  With a 180 degree turn on immigration, the loyal GOPer lost the 2008 election on weak/wishy-washy stances on big issues.  His opponent is a Tea Partier who lacks any real sense of… reality and decency. The Democratic primary is between an investigatory journalist and a vice-mayor from Tuscon.  The reality of McCain losing now seems far-fetched and the legacy of flip-flopping will continue.

Today, Gov. Jan Brewer signed a bill that would allow Arizona police to search homes and cars without warrant.

NPR gives the analysis:

An easier question, in his mind, is whether the law will lead to constitutional violations, such as unlawful searches and seizures or discrimination based on protected characteristics such as race or ethnicity… …The law requires noncitizens in Arizona to carry their immigration paperwork with them at all times. That clearly would be an example of the state intruding into exclusively federal domains of enforcement and regulation, Tumlin argues, and will inevitably lead to racial profiling.

Newsweek asks the question, “Now That the Arizona Immigration Bill is Law, What Next“.  They look at the specific effects of the bill on Arizona citizens and economic problems on the state.

One thing overlooked was the political implications set upon the GOP because of this bill.  Jan Brewer is NOT up for reelection, but has definitely solidified her place in the GOP, whether she’s intended to or not.  She’s also solidified even fewer votes from the Hispanic caucus in Arizona. More than 30% of Arizona is Hispanic.  If the Hispanic population wasn’t with the Dem’s, they are now.

Brewer promised the use of racial profiling wouldn’t be used inappropriately, but doubts spew from the left, as they should be.

There’s already reports of challenges and I would expect that the law may not see real daylight.

Here’s the video of Brewer signing the bill:

Sarah Palin, one keynote speaker, fired off a missile at our president in retort to a comment made by the president.

Here is Palin’s (un-educated) response:

No matter how you look at it, a Constitutional Law Scholar is far more qualified than ANY 1/2 term Alaskan governor.

In the mean time, Tea Partiers are having a ball!  They’re going to ballistic… literally!  They’re shooting up congressional offices and spitting on Civil Rights leaders.  Stay classy ignorant sheep.

Here’s a video produced by New Left Media that highlights some of the lowlifes.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The fight isn’t over yet and mud-slinging lies aren’t over yet.  Palin has been awarded the “Lie of the Year” and is standing by it.  The GOP has been calling for the DEATH of Democratic Senator Robert Byrd.

Now the GOP is ready to block the House/Senate negotiations.  The attacks are mind-boggling and ridiculous.

They are un-educated and stupid for not educating themselves.  Let them wallow in their filth and liberal WILL succeed in 2010 & 2012.

Lieberman has consistently turned down “Independent” stance on health care reform and has oppted to take a VERY conservative stance on the issue, as a whole.

His weak decision making and his hand in the front pocket of the health care insurance industry has cornered him into his own lies.

Here’s an example that Stewart gives us:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The D.C.
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

It’s quite apparent that Lieberman has issues.  Stewart brings them to light, very well, but he has to respond.

I’m nearly 100% sure that Lieberman will NOT respond, but I have faith in Stewart that he will continue his “coincidence”, “Bachmann-hunting” tactics until Lieberman’s lies take him out of office.

It’s tough to please the masses when media outlets and astro-tuff sedition groups denounce the president as a fool with his head in the air.  Some of these groups have already declared victory in 2010 for the GOP and a 50/50 split for the 2012 election.

It will be a near impossible victory for Obama if he doesn’t start living up to his promises.  The hope of a 2009 Public Option Health Care Bill is still being decided in the Senate and there’s rumors of a 2010 Immigration Reform Bill.  Only time will tell…

Here’s a great analysis from CNN:

This is a three part series that takes a deep look into this topic of guns and religion and the role that they play in politics. The topic, itself, looks at American history, the Second Amendment, a Christian nation, and gun sales. The continuing parts of this post will be labeled in corresponding posts seen as “Part 2”, “Part 3”, etc., etc.

Click here to view the embedded video.

So, it depends on where you are, but I think it’s fair to say that the places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people feel most cynical about government. The people are mis-appre…I think they’re misunderstanding why the demographics in our, in this contest have broken out as they are. Because everybody just ascribes it to ‘white working-class don’t wanna work — don’t wanna vote for the black guy.’ That’s…there were intimations of that in an article in the Sunday New York Times today – kind of implies that it’s sort of a race thing.

Here’s how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn’t buy it. And when it’s delivered by — it’s true that when it’s delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter).

But — so the questions you’re most likely to get about me, ‘Well, what is this guy going to do for me? What’s the concrete thing?’ What they wanna hear is — so, we’ll give you talking points about what we’re proposing — close tax loopholes, roll back, you know, the tax cuts for the top 1 percent. Obama’s gonna give tax breaks to middle-class folks and we’re gonna provide health care for every American. So we’ll go down a series of talking points.

But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Um, now these are in some communities, you know. I think what you’ll find is, is that people of every background — there are gonna be a mix of people, you can go in the toughest neighborhoods, you know working-class lunch-pail folks, you’ll find Obama enthusiasts. And you can go into places where you think I’d be very strong and people will just be skeptical. The important thing is that you show up and you’re doing what you’re doing.

The portion selected was immediately picked up by Obama’s opposition, both from the right and the left.  Again, this was during the 2008 campaign where EVERYTHING is documented and scrutinized by all.  The response by the conservative media and conservative pundits was the usual disappointment (source).  The usual retaliation of such a blunt statement made deserves the reaction it received.  The statement minimized a great deal of the nation into a static, discriminatory cult of mindless drones and believe what is told to them by religious leaders.  The statement could be compared to a stereotype on every level.  He might as well have said, “Women are bad drivers.”  Brutal and obtuse, hu?

The lack of vision for the statement that is obvious and his apologetic attitude afterwords was warranted and admittedly in poor taste.  Obama is known to be a cooth orator and understand the importance of an effective speech.  The mistake may have been made on many accounts and we must accept the apology as it is, and was.

As a skeptic, I have to ask myself the question that I heard very little about when the media reported this misstep; “Is he correct in saying this?”

I have asked myself this for over a year now and it has put new thoughts into my head about our country.  Has this been a political blunder? Or is there truth to it?

Some history…

It’s been a volley of sort, going back and forth, on whether religion is a weapon of mass destruction or not.  The debate on religion and war, where violence and religion intersect, and why they clash could fill a book.  Why is it that the ethics of religion comes into question when politics that distances itself from any religion takes control?

I think it would have been silly not to predict a Democratic victory in the 2008 Presidential election.  The President is a person who is not above the law, so I think we can all say that anything that the he does, just shy of being a constitutional revisionist, is under the umbrella of the law.  In the past few months, there has been rumors that Barack Obama would go above or around the law to change law(s) to his liking.  To be specific, our Second Amendment is in question, which has protected the right to own guns in our country since its conception in minds of old, bright men.  In 1791, Congress ratified the amendment in which it says, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Part of early colonial life was based around religion, where little violence existed.  Few were hanged for their beliefs and even fewer were burned at the stake for their beliefs.  Many groups and a few colonies were set up on a certain type of Christianity was practiced.  The origins of the religious freedoms were based off the need for a more pure and properly educated Christianity.  At the cusp of The Enlightenment, liberalism seeped into colonial society in a very quiet fashion and soon a liberal Christianity took place with a competing scientific view.

This led to a reaction called “The Great Awakening”.  Johnathan Edwards led this Christian uprising which came to a high in the mid 1740′s.  The Awakening has been said to be the proto-revolutionary event.  It crossed all doctrinal lines and empowered many to take a stand against Europe.  After the American Revolution, John Adams said, “The Revolution was effected before the War commenced.  The Revolution was in the mind and hears of the people: and change in their religious sentiments of the duties and obligations.”  Popular enthusiasm came from The Enlightenment’s elitism and the zeal of Awakening (Paul John – A History of the American People – p.116).  This created the perfect setting for the Revolution.

Our country’s history glorifies the leaders (Deists) and creators that came not only from The Enlightenment, but also from the Great Awakening.  The moderates that they were, the founding fathers of this nation had the opportunity to capitalize on the rigorous hold that Europe had on the colonies.  The religious freedom sought after nearly one hundred earlier translated into political and secular freedom.

Less than twenty years later, the Second Amendment was signed.  The origin of “the right to bear arms” has been traced back to the 12th century in England.  The true popularity of the right came to light during the Protestant overthrow of the Catholic King James II.  At the end of the Glorious Revolution, William and Mary signed the English Bill of Rights that included the right to bear arms with the intent to give (even non-land owning citizens) the people the opportunity to oppose a national army or standing local militia.

In no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:

• deterring undemocratic government;
• repelling invasion;
• suppressing insurrection;
• facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
• participating in law enforcement;
• slave control in slave states.

(source for this list and previous paragraph)

Colonists were resistant to Europe and the King because of the English Bill of Right’s declaration of the right to bear arms.  The contradicting English government had a difficult time containing the colonists and Revolution proceeded from there.

Though the Revolution itself was mildly fought with only 50,000 dead (the American Civil War topped 500,000), those who initiated the schism  had the backing of a religious establishment of nearly one hundred years old.  Puritan, Presbyterian, and conservative Catholicism in the 17th century could quite possibly be the reason that the Revolution took place.  Is it possible then to say that Barack Obama’s statement has truth to it?

-

Other information:

U.S. Gun Laws: A History