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….

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.

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…

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

On Aug. 24, it was revealed that the Justice Department’s ethics office, the Office of Personal Responsibility, had  recommended reversing the Bush administration and reopening nearly a dozen prisoner-abuse cases, potentially exposing C.I.A. employees and contractors to prosecution for brutal treatment of terrorism suspects.

The response to the report has been varied and loud.  The mere suggestion that our government had done some wrong-doing in the attempt to keep us safe is appalling and sad.  The fear that comes with the suggestion has led many to shake their heads in disbelief and denial of any possibility that the suggestion might be true.  Along with that, those who could be under investigation or have some part in the wrong doing have pointed their finger to the effectiveness in detaining terrorism suspects.

The most prominent figure to deny any wrong doing is former Vice President Dick Cheney.  Here’s an interview with Chris Matthews about the matter:

Here’s the “This Week” that had Liz Cheney, Orrin Hatch, and Sam Donaldson (to name a few).  The first video is the round table and the second video is the backroom discussion not aired on TV.

They use the term “fundamental issues” over and over.  They discuss these issues in a specified manner and look at the situation from one angle. The process by which the Bush Administration had strengthened the Executive Branch had been through legal memos written by John Yoo and then affirmed by Judge Jay Bybee.  Again, after Holder’s conclusion, Bybee came out defending his decisions (source).

The fundamental issues that are talked about here are those of a semantic nature.  The points of the Liz and Dick Cheney are easily identifiable as they define the idea of torture as a necessity.  Those who stood for the left or the Democratic Party are overtly pointing to the injustice that has been carried and allowed under the Bush Administration.  Both sides are missing the point, though.  The real fundamental issue is one that our country has gone over since its beginning: the level of power of the federal government.

Do we as citizens allow our government to make decisions in secret for the betterment of our society or country? Do we allow our country, from time to time (which has been in the past MANY times), make these judgments on their own?

In all actuality, the suspension of the acknowledgment of government roles and the bypassing of “rule of law”, IS, in fact, the real issue.  These other tidbits of information that these leaders and pundits have decided to focus on (finger pointing) do not change the effects of the previous administration’s actions.  This acceptance of this horrific act is just as disappointing and reprehensible as the act of terrorism itself.

The praise of the Bush Administration has yet to be countered with any real challenge to the policies and precedents set by Cheney or Bush.  The allowance of poor judgment, selfish desires, and the push for absolute executive power should bring the average American citizen to their knees in shame.   But these real fundamental issues have been tossed to the side in attempt to please critics among the right.  Obama’s weak stance on the prosecution of those who sought to torture possible terrorists, has limited his support on the left and stopped a real push for real justice.  The political capital that Obama has to spend, will be worthless, unless there is an understanding that there it is an acceptable reason to charge our leaders (past or present) with crimes, if there is enough evidence to do so.

If we look at other parts of the world, we can see that other countries do not have any issue with accomplishing this daunting task.  The latest victim of their own power struggles is Ehud Olmert, former Isaeli prime minister.  Olmert has been brought up on ethics and campaign finance charges. He asserts his innocence and suggests that the prosecution is on a witch hunt.  Regardless of the differences between the “innocent” and “not guilty” verdict of Olmert’s case, the real fundamental issue of this example is that the Israeli government and the people of Israel do not and will not accept corruption and lying that comes from their leaders.

Why is it that the American people and their representatives do not/refuse to do this?  The answer is simpler than thought; politics.  The step that must be taken next is the follow-through of prosecution of those who have contributed to torture.  The allowance of the powers exercised by government workers, based on political and fearful motives, is denounced in our Constitution and in a majority of the public forum.

As time goes on, the memory of failures among the last administration could possibly echo in the future with the lack of oversight in a number of areas that lack transparency.  Will we remember these problems? Or will we keep the fear of others’ contentious problems with our nation and allow ourselves to be afraid?

In remembrance of what has been done in the name of protection, here is a compilation of the events (via Keith Olberman) that had led our nation to possible torture by our own immunized (by justice) leadership.

This has been followed up by violence and death threats to liberal politicians.  I spoke to a friend about a month ago about the protests when they started and I predicted the violence would follow.  Health care is shaping up to be a something that the Right is willing to become violent over.  The lack of education on the current health care situation and the bill at hand only adds fuel to the poor lit fire.

This problem isn’t limited to the health care debate, as you may see in some of the footage below, but the issue of Obama’s birth certificate is emerging again.  This may not be as controversial, but nevertheless, those who buy into this waist of time.  These people have created faux birth certificates and out of this world facts (I’m almost thinking out of this universe).

This post is exposing these people and their lack of education and lack of civility and dignity in voicing their opinions.

Footage:

Click here to view the embedded video.

This is from a rally in Brighton, CO.  No violence, but lack of education on the bill is apparent.

Click here to view the embedded video.

A look at the paranoia in the conservative media.

Click here to view the embedded video.

This is a favorite of mine.  Why would they not want to answer questions about their own bill?

Click here to view the embedded video.

An NBC reporter exposes fake town hall protesters.

Debunking health care reform myths:

A quote by Gandhi, to keep things in perspective.

“I object to violence because when it appears to do good,
the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.”
-Gandhi

Keeping that in mind, we proudly congratulate our new friends at Transparent CCU.

Transparent CCU is a site with the intention of keeping a critical and theological eye on my alma mater, Colorado Christian University.  Like myself, the administrators of Transparent CCU are alumni and have taken to heart the changes in the last five years on campus.  I can only speak for my own experience when I say that during my attendance, CCU churned out well rounded graduates, no matter their major.  As a youth ministry major, I went into CCU excited to be given the education from both the left and right, religiously and politically.

The problem started with the firing of a prominent, liberal Biblical Studies professor.  The university claimed it was due to the local Christian community’s outcry of the liberal Christianity that students were being taught.  After this, the long-time president of the school stepped down.  The major turning point for me was the hiring of an extremely unqualified retired U.S. Senator, Bill Armstrong.  Mr. Armstrong came to CCU without a degree.  Just a high school diploma and a career as a vet, business man, and politician.  No experience in education.

With this new president, so came new objectives for the school. These Strategic Objectives have pointed the school into a doctrinal Bible college with little evidence of the education that alumni had experienced.  This new shift has been made clear with the creation of the “Centennial Institute“, a Evangelical, right-winged think-tank.

Along with that, John Andrews, the lead writer at the Centennial Institute, has his own think-tank called “Backbone America“.  Named after his hometown, Andrews’ site claims to be non-partisan, but his writings tell me and others different.  In fact, his bio on the site explicitly says that they support Colorado’s Marriage Act (an anti-gay act), free-market enterprise, and the support of tax limits; it’s a Republican think-tank.  

Transparent CCU is, for lack of a better term, a CCU watchdog.  I congratulate them for their valor and focus on the lack of integrity and the illegitimate education that the CCU administration is pushing on its students.  The changes at CCU are disappointing for many of their alumni.  I look forward to their progress keeping the school accountable.

Meat consumption in the U.S. is out of control. The modern balanced diet is hardly balanced at all. According to the author of The Case for Vegetarianism, John Lawrence Hill, the average American will consume 11 cattle, 1 calf, 3 lambs and sheep, 23 hogs, 45 turkeys, 1,100 chicken and 862 pounds of fish, for a total of about two hundred pounds of meat per year and over seven tons of meat in a lifetime. This, obviously, can create problems, given that the population of the U.S. is around 307 million people.

Unfortunately, such an incredible demand for meat has had a disastrous effect on the earth and it is paying the price for our desire to consume animals. According to Henning Steinfeld, Chief of FAO Livestock and Information and Policy Branch, ”Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems. Urgent action is required to remedy this situation.”  Raising livestock adds to greenhouse gases, destroys land, and consumes resources. A United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization report found that livestock contribute to greenhouse gases even more than automobiles. It also found that livestock now use more than 30 percent of the earth’s entire land surface. This includes 70 percent of previous forests in the Amazon that have been converted into land for cattle to graze. Hill writes that 80 percent of Costa Rica’s tropical rain forest has been removed over the last twenty years and in Mexico 37 million acres are now used to raise cattle. Along with the problem of deforestation come soil erosion, overgrazing, and the relocation of both indigenous people and animals. Sadly, the future looks bleak. The world consumes far more animal products than it did 40 years ago and consumption is estimated to more than double by 2050 to 465 million tons a year.

As mentioned earlier livestock, especially cattle exhaust a tremendous amount of resources, with water topping the list. In his book, Hill writes that 2,500 gallons of water are required to produce a single pound of beef and that livestock production uses eighty percent of our nation’s water supply. This does not include the amount of water polluted as a result of pesticides, herbicides, hormones, antibiotics, and other harmful chemicals.

Yet another issue stemming from an increasingly high demand for meat production is that of world hunger. Hill writes that, “In the United States, over 70 percent of the grain produced is fed to cattle and various other livestock. Worldwide about a third of all grain is similarly disposed of.” Ultimately, everything goes back to land. Land is needed to raise the crops that feed the livestock that occupy more land. According to Jeremy Rifkin, “a third of the world’s grain harvest is now being fed to cattle and other livestock while nearly a billion human beings go to bed malnourished.” As land continues to become more scarce, it truly makes sense to use available land to grow food for people, not animals.

Some say that a vegetarian diet is unnatural and unhealthy, but evidence suggests otherwise. Numerous links have been made between eating meat and an increased risk of heart disease and cancer. Studies show that a diet that is free of meat not only reduces the risk of many diseases but, in some cases, actually restore a person’s health by strengthening the immune system, lowering cholesterol and increasing blood circulation. Putting twenty-eight patients with heart disease on a vegetarian diet, Dr. Dean Ornish found that the coronary disease was reversed in 82 percent of the patients. These results aren’t to be taken lightly considering that heart disease is the #1 killer in the U.S. Rashmi Sinha, who led a study recently published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, said,” The bottom line is we found an association between red meat and processed meat and an increased risk of mortality.” Not only does meat itself pose a serious health risk but so do the chemicals found within it. The FDA has reported that as many as six hundred chemicals may be in the nation’s meat supply. These chemicals range from antibiotics and sulfa drugs to pesticides and drugs that are known to cause cancer.

A common misconception is that most vegetarians suffer from a lack of protein. According to Hill the opposite is actually true. A vegetarian will actually receive the proper amount of protein, while meat-eating Americans generally consume two and a half times the protein their bodies require. This excess protein would not be an issue if the body simply expelled it. Unfortunately, a link has been found between excess protein and osteoporosis.

Why should anyone blindly accept any tradition? Especially when that tradition affects their own wellbeing and the wellbeing of others? It does not make sense to do something purely because it’s what past generations have done. The repetition can only bring destruction. It is far more important to seek out the truth, however hidden it may be and follow the convictions that truth creates with us.