Obama Throws Bone to Abortionists

March 2nd, 2009 - by Richard Okelberry - After stating during his campaign that he wouldn’t support late term abortions for women with mere “mental distress,” Obama has appointed someone who is arguable the highest profile, late term abortion advocate in the entire U.S., Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius to Health and Human Services Secretary of all positions.

“I have repeatedly said that I think it’s entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don’t think that “mental distress” qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions.” – Barack Obama

You see Gov. Sebelius, even threw a party for the infamous Tiller the Baby Killer (George Tiller) as a show of support for abortionists and to thank Tiller for his sizable blood money donations to her campaign.  You see, Tiller the Baby Killer isn’t just your run of the mill abortionist.  He is responsible for perhaps thousands of Late and Near Term abortions.  His efforts are so well known that women will travel world  to come see the ‘physician’ that will pluck the dead remains of a fully developed baby at 9 months, simply because the mother complains that she is a little depressed.  Yep, when you read Obama’s quote above about Near Term abortions for ”mental distress,” he is speaking almost directly about Tiller the Baby Killer.

While many can argue over when life begins only the most radical members of the pro-abortion community will step forward and say that what Tiller does isn’t murder.  Yet even Obama, who by his own words has condemned this very practice, has promoted one of its biggest advocates to the highest post in Health and Human Serves.  How appropriate!  

For those of you who are about to defend Obama for this selection, let me put things into perspective for you.  Imagine for a moment how it would be seen by those on the left, if Bush had appointed a person to this position who had just pardoned an admitted abortion clinic bomber and you will have an idea how much of a slap in the face this appointment is. 

It’s so good when we can see how a candidate really stands on an issue.  To bad we had to elect the guy first.  If nothing else the votes to confirm this nomination will certainly give nation a clear picture of which Senators support late term abortion.   I can’t wait to see some of those members have to defend this vote that in support of not just Sebelius by Tiller the baby Killer by proxy, 2 years from now as Democrats are desperate to keep hold of a slim majority in the Senate. 

Fact Checking Obama

February 25th, 2009, by Richard Okelberry - Almost immediately after Obama’s speech last night before Congress, MSNBC of all places put out a rather in depth scrutiny of some of the claims Obama made during his speech.

Fact check: Obama glosses over some realities

In delivering his to-do list, the president’s assertions deserve scrutiny

(abridged)

 

·         “OBAMA: “We have launched a housing plan that will help responsible families facing the threat of foreclosure lower their monthly payments and refinance their mortgages. It’s a plan that won’t help speculators or that neighbor down the street who bought a house he could never hope to afford, but it will help millions of Americans who are struggling with declining home values.”

THE FACTS: If the administration has come up with a way to ensure money does not go to home buyers who used bad judgment, it hasn’t announced it.

·         OBAMA: “We have already identified $2 trillion in savings over the next decade.”

THE FACTS: Although 10-year projections are common in government, they don’t mean much. And at times, they are a way for a president to pass on the most painful steps to his successor, by putting off big tax increases or spending cuts until someone else is in the White House.

·         OBAMA: “Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market. People bought homes they knew they couldn’t afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway. And all the while, critical debates and difficult decisions were put off for some other time on some other day.”

THE FACTS: This may be so, but it isn’t only Republicans who pushed for deregulation of the financial industries. The Clinton administration championed an easing of banking regulations, including legislation that ended the barrier between regular banks and Wall Street banks. That led to a deregulation that kept regular banks under tight federal regulation but extended lax regulation of Wall Street banks. Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, later an economic adviser to candidate Obama, was in the forefront in pushing for this deregulation.

·         OBAMA: “In this budget, we will end education programs that don’t work and end direct payments to large agribusinesses that don’t need them. We’ll eliminate the no-bid contracts that have wasted billions in Iraq, and reform our defense budget so that we’re not paying for Cold War-era weapons systems we don’t use. We will root out the waste, fraud and abuse in our Medicare program that doesn’t make our seniors any healthier, and we will restore a sense of fairness and balance to our tax code by finally ending the tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas.”

THE FACTS: First, his budget does not accomplish any of that. It only proposes those steps. That’s all a president can do, because control over spending rests with Congress. Obama’s proposals here are a wish list and some items, including corporate tax increases and cuts in agricultural aid, will be a tough sale in Congress.

·         OBAMA: “In the last eight years, (health insurance) premiums have grown four times faster than wages. And in each of these years, 1 million more Americans have lost their health insurance”

THE FACTS: The number of uninsured grew by 7 million from 2000 to 2007, the latest year for which Census figures are available, meaning Obama’s claim would be true if had been talking about averages. But it’s not true that the number of uninsured rose each year by 1 million. In 2007, the ranks of the uninsured dropped by 1.3 million from the year before, to 45.7 million.

·         OBAMA: “Thanks to our recovery plan, we will double this nation’s supply of renewable energy in the next three years.”

THE FACTS: While the president’s stimulus package includes billions in aids for renewable energy and conservation, his goal is unlikely to be achieved through the recovery plan alone.

·         OBAMA: “Over the next two years, this plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs.”

THE FACTS: This is a recurrent Obama formulation. But job creation projections are uncertain even in stable times, and some of the economists relied on by Obama in making his forecast acknowledge a great deal of uncertainty in their numbers.

·         OBAMA: “And I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it.”

THE FACTS: According to the Library of Congress, the inventor of the first true automobile was probably Germany’s Karl Benz, who created the first auto powered by an internal combustion gasoline, in 1885 or 1886. Nobody disputes that Henry Ford created the first assembly line that made cars affordable.

It sure is beginning to sound a lot like Bushmas!  It seems that we have another president in the white house that likes to play stretch Armstrong with the truth.

 

Just Nuke It!

By Richard Okelberry, January 29th, 2009 - One of the most exciting proposals put forward by the Obama administration has to do with putting large amounts of money toward building a new electrical infrastructure to help free us from the dirty electricity produced by coal and natural gas.  Unfortunateltly, President Obama has chosen to focus on developing Wind and Solar power across the Midwest raising questions about whether this truly would be the most efficient way of eliminating our reliance on fossil fuels as a primary power source.  Unfortunately, the numbers just don’t seem to add up when compared to nuclear power.-

Let me get straight to the numbers.  The average Nuclear power plant produces 14.3 billion Kilowatt-hours of electricity while the average large Wind Turbine produces only 3 million Kilowatt-hours of electricity.  Do a little math and it quickly is apparent that to equal the output of one nuclear power plant, we have to build 4767 Wind Turbines.  To put this into perspective we would have to erect wind turbines end to end down 587 miles of California’s 650 mile coastline to equal the power generated by a single nuclear power plant.-

Also consider that it would take 93 square miles packed solid with wind turbines to equal the generating capacity of one nuclear station.  While that my not seem like much, Manhattan in New York is 23 square miles in area.  This means that for each nuclear power plant you would consume an area of land equal to 4 Manhattan Islands.  This would be an area, easily seen by the naked eye from space.  To replace our current 3.3 terrawatt (3.3 trillion watt) electric grid with wind power alone, we would have to set up a wind farm covering a solid 21484 square miles or twice the size of Maryland.  Even if viable, this would not allow for the extra production needed to finally convert our automobiles to plug in electric or hydrogen fueled.  Doing so would potentially require a solid belt of wind generators side by side across an area about the size of Texas.-

Now consider that even if we did build such large numbers of wind farms, we would never truly be free of fossil fuels.  You see, wind and solar power is power generated at the whim of nature not at the demand of consumers.  Because there is no efficient way of storing large quantities of power on the grid, electricity must be produced as it is needed.  As such, any power grid reliant on primarily Wind and Solar would need a second grid of fossil fuel plants like natural gas plants to provide nearly 100 percent of the power when it is dark and the wind simply isn’t blowing across the Midwest where these farms have been proposed.-

As someone who grew up in the Midwest, I can tell you for certain that while it can be windy with average wind speeds reaching the needed 13mph the wind across the Great Plains is far from constant with weeks going by without a breeze.  At these times we would be almost completely reliant on old fashioned fossil fuels.-

Nuclear on the other hand is clean, available on demand and already supplying 20 percent of our needs.  In fact, new techniques of recycling nuclear waste developed in France have created systems that thoroughly deplete radioactive by products down to the point where they have a radioactive half life of a mere 20 to 25 years.  This new technology means that rather than having our individual energy foot prints being measure in tons of gasses and toxins a year, each person would only produce on average a marble sized piece of low yield nuclear waste with the entire country producing waste that would easily fit on the surface of a football field.-

Another topic that isn’t being discussed much is the huge power infrastructure that would be needed to pipe power from the Midwest to the coasts.  Such a project would cause such a burden on the copper industry alone that copper could eventually compete with gold in value.  Spikes in copper prices have already climbed to almost unbearable levels for the housing industry which needs copper to build new homes.  Lining a home’s electrical system with what amounts to gold will have a serious effect on the housing industry and ultimately the price of homes.  Causing such a burden on one of the primary staples of our economy is pure suicide.   For you strong environmentalists out there, I want you also to imagine the massive strip mines that will have to be created to extract such large quantities of copper from the earth.-

The idea of freeing ourselves from foreign oil and fossil fuels is something that most everyone can get around.  Even those that reject the man made global warming theory will usually admit readily that they too would like cleaner air for their kids to breath and cheaper energy.  As such we all have the same goal.  All that remains is for us to decide how to accomplish this goal.-

I promise if we follow the direction of President Obama on this issue, our power grid will become the biggest failure of most any administration in history.  It simply won’t work because it can’t work.  I do not blame President Obama for taking this course.  Nuclear energy has long had a stigma about it in this country but the time has come us to finally give our President a viable option and reason to say no to environmentalists that have spent decades demonizing and opposing nuclear energy.  I would invite liberal Democrats to embrace nuclear energy the way that fellow liberal progressives in France have for decades.  Begin writing this administration and tell them that you at least want them to look seriously at nuclear power if they truly want to build the only truly viable, fossil free electric grid.

The WAR is OVER!

November 5th, 2008, by Richard Okelberry - With a sweeping victory yesterday in the nation presidential election one thing should be certain, the troops are coming home.  Of all the promises made by Obama during the campaign, it was his stand against the War in Iraq that ultimately gave him victory over Hillary Clinton and paved the way to defeating a weak Republican candidate.  Now that all the speeches are given and all the votes have been cast, those who have long opposed the War in Iraq can finally claim victory and expect with full confidence that Obama on the day following his inauguration in January will issue an order to his military commanders to bring the troops home.

On the Barack Obama web site and as echoed throughout many of his speeches, President-Elect Barack Obama has state that, “Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq:  successfully ending the war.  The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased.”

While it is certain that troop movements of this scale may take some time, we should all be certain that under his command Obama will no longer risk the life of even one more U.S. serviceman or servicewoman to defend Iraqis or fight insurgents/terrorists in Iraq. While many of the headlines this morning around the country are centered around the fact that Obama is the first Black President, I want to be the first to say, ”THE WAR IS OVER!!!”

originally published at UtahFreePress.com

Renewable Energy Shortfall.

January 16th, 2008 -  by Richard Okelberry - Around the world communities are struggling with the idea of incorporating renewable energy sources into the energy packages that they purchase for their citizens. Pressure to convert to “clean” energy is being applied from both worried citizens and activists. Because many concerned people are now willing to pay a little more for their power, switching to clean wind or solar energy instead of coal or nuke power may seem like a no-brainer. Some states even allow citizens to mark a box on their power bill requesting that only renewable power be bought on their behalf. Unfortunately, these states have neglected the fact that if everyone in that state where to check the “Clean Energy Only” box on their statement the entire state would go black every calm evening.

A farce is being perpetrated on the populous concerning “clean energy” because it fails to address the fact that energy on the scale needed to run even a small town, cannot be stored for any period of time. Most people think that the power company simply stores up electricity in big batteries for later use. On the contrary, power must be produced on-demand. This mean, when Joe Blow environmentalist plugs in his electric car at night, he is sending a signal to the power station to throw some more coal on the fire because, “I want to drive my non-polluting car in the morning.”

The inability to store generated power has always been a problem. Fortunately, there may be a solution to this problem in the near future. Hydrogen has long been touted as the fuel of the future but few have explored the fact that it may be the perfect storage vessel for unused or surplus energy. In essence, we could divert any extra or unused solar or wind power into a hydrogen storage system. While the laws of thermodynamics tell us that there would be some power loss from separating hydrogen and oxygen from water, there would still be a net gain because we would be capturing at least some of the lost or unused power.

This process can best be illustrated by imagining a large wind and solar farm along a coastline (see figure.) As the power is created it is sent to a device that uses the process of Electrolysis. This is essentially the process of sending electricity through water causing the bonds between the Hydrogen and the Oxygen in the water to be broken (2H2O + ENERGY = 2H2 + O2.) Ultimately, the most difficult part of the process would have to do with storing the Hydrogen in a stable fashion. Fortunately, scientists have conquered this problem and regularly store massive amounts of hydrogen for use with the Space Shuttle. Finally, whenever there is a demand for power and renewable resources are not co-operating we simply recombine the Hydrogen and Oxygen in an exothermic reaction, thereby releasing plenty of energy to turn a generator and keep the lights on in your home.

Now for the downsides; at present, this process is terribly inefficient. However, I imagine that with even a fraction of the resources given to the ethanol industry by the government, these systems could be made both safe and efficient. Finally wind and solar power would become a true player in the world’s energy market. Until then, both will be just a pipe dream and a touch feely overpriced, inconsistent alternative to “REAL” power. Also remember that the steam released into the atmosphere is actually considered a greenhouse gas.

Yant Best Choice for Mayor

March 22nd, 2007 - Richard Okelberry - As Lincoln’s Mayoral Primary fast approaches it has become clear that voters this year have only two real choices when choosing a candidate. We can vote for the status quo or cast our ballots for real change. By this, I mean of the three major candidates — Svoboda, Beutler and Yant — only Yant has brought to the table any real option for change. While both the Republican candidate, Ken Svoboda, and the Democrat candidate, Chris Beutler, both talk about affecting change, neither truly has a record to support their statements.

 In fact, both can only claim that they each served during a period of some of the highest increases in taxes and expansion of government that both the state of Nebraska and the city of Lincoln has ever seen. Roger Yant, on the other hand, has committed himself to truly stirring up local government by making deep and necessary cuts. He has recognized that city employee unions, along with political contributors, now run the city of Lincoln. On the other hand, both the Republican and Democrat candidates are so heavily funded by these groups that it is impossible to believe that they will ever be willing to work against them if necessary. Both Svoboda and Beutler also preach that Lincoln needs strong leadership and someone that will be able to cross party lines and work in a bipartisan fashion to make needed changes to city government.

In light of one of the weakest mayors in our city’s history, their statements about needed leadership is obvious. However, their claims that they will somehow be able to break down the walls of partisan politics is ridiculous. At this point, only someone like Roger Yant who is not beholden to either party or funded by rich political activists is truly in a position to force City Council members to a common understanding on key issues. In fact, if either Beutler or Svoboda were truly sincere about putting aside party politics, they would instead be encouraging voters to cast their ballots for Yant. How can we expect non-partisan behavior out of two candidates that are so beholden to their parties for their very existences?

Additionally, both Svoboda and Beutler will likely suffer personal financial setbacks if Yant is elected. If Yant is elected it is obvious that the gravy train hand-outs that both Svoboda and Beutler have received in the form of public contracts and paid positions, respectively, will be gone. While we have heard much about Svoboda failing to fulfill a city contract that required his lawn care business to maintain some city medians, less public is Chris Beutler’s party appointed job as fundraiser for the city parks department. It seems just a little suspicious to me that the city would create a paid position to raise donations for a department run by Chris Beutler’s neighbor, Parks & Recreation Director, Lynn Johnson. If Chris Beutler truly felt that the cause he was paid to raise donations for was legitimate, I would think that he too would donate to that cause by volunteering his service. Instead, it appears that this is just another example of a party in power supporting one of their own by spending our money.

Given the fact that Roger Yant doesn’t have nearly the money raising power that either of the two party appointed candidates have it is unfortunate that he will likely fail to make it past the primary. “Non-partisan” elections have a tendency to support partisan politics because usually only the dedicated political bases of each party are willing to take time out of their day to vote. If by some chance Roger Yant can upset one of the two candidates and move onto the main election we might actually have a chance at electing a truly independent mayor. Good luck Roger…

BCS Failing Again!

November 19th, 2006, by Rich Okelberry - My very first website was a site dedicated to calculating the Bowl Championship Series ranking when the new system was first introduced. The site was widely popular and featured on ESPN during the first year of the BCS. What made the site different was the fact that I calculated a team’s entire strength of schedule by including both past and future opponents. The argument was simple. A team will eventually play another team so if the data is already available and will eventually be calculated in, why not just do it now. Because of this my rankings calculator was far more accurate than many others out there. So where is the site today? I took it down after just the first year after becoming disheartened by the new BCS system.

You see, I was one of those kids that grew up during Nebraska autumns with my sweaters filled with leaves and dirt tossing around a football that was so hardened by the cold that all the neighborhood kids would go home with jammed fingers. The entire time we would yell out our favorite player’s names while making amazing moves down the sideline of the empty lot. Get the picture? We loved fall and we loved fall ball. Being a strong advocate for a Division I-A playoff, I took great interest when the BCS system was developed and implemented. It didn’t take me long to discover that the system was terribly flawed. Nonetheless, I continued to calculate and post not just the top 25 but the entire field of teams and used the opportunity to lay some criticism at the feet of those responsible for the new system.

To tell you the truth, I never expected this flawed system to last so long. We are now into our 3rd four year cycle, that’s 9 years of a system that does nothing but break the hearts of players and fans. Now I could point out the multitude of problems that the BCS has, but can probably make my case by asking just one question. Does anyone think that even #1 ranked Ohio State would stand a snowball’s chance in hell of going to the BCS party if they were playing in the WAC (Western American Conference) instead of the Big 10? Of course they wouldn’t. The strength of schedule alone, regardless of the fact that only maybe 5 rankings voters even watch games, would ensure that they would be relegated to some kind of “Cereal” Bowl or something in post season. Oh sure, they would certainly reach at least novelty status on ESPN as they kicked around the other WAC misfits, but go to the dance against another top team?

That’s pure dream’n my friend. Don’t believe me? Take a look at Boise State and their perfect 11-0 record with only three games where they didn’t score at least 40 points. I mean, these guys are the real deal and deserve a shot. Instead, all the media can talk about is a rematch between Ohio State and Michigan at the end of the season. Here is just another example of how switching to a playoff would make everyone happy. Boise State would get their shot and those that want to see Ohio State and Michigan go at it again would get theirs, if both could survive the gauntlet of the playoff.

Now I’m not saying that we should throw out the BCS completely. Seating in a playoff would work like this. Each conference champion would gain an automatic berth. That gives us 12 teams. We’ll grab the next 4 highest ranked teams from the BCS ranks and give them wild card positions. Now we simply berth the teams according to their rankings in the BCS so that the playoff starts with #1 playing #16, #2 playing #15 and so on. The playoff games would begin with the Bowls that bid the least amount of money and would end with a title bout at the Bowl that is willing to kick up the largest purse. All the money could go into a pot and be divided out to the participating teams. The viewer-ship that a Bowl based playoff would create over the Holiday season would be unmatched in sports today. People would be tuning in to watch a large array of games as future contenders move down the chart towards their own hopefuls. Everybody wins. So why don’t we do this? Because the powers that be are just too afraid of upsetting the corporate gravy train that now owns and runs college football. I tell you, it sure makes me miss the days of picking dirt out of my ears and pulling on jammed swollen fingers at early sunset. Can we just let the kids play and figure out who really is the best on the field and not in the board room?

Mayor Seng gets 8% Reduction In Property Tax!

June 1st, 2006 - By Richard Okelberry - Most Lincolnites are struggling with the fact that each household can expect to pay an addition $200 per year after the City and County spend every cent of extra property tax revenue generated by the recent property reevaluations. Meanwhile, for reasons yet unknown, Lincoln Mayor Coleen Seng will actually see an 8% decrease in her property tax for an apartment building she owns located at 2827 N 53rd Street.

It appears that the Lincoln Lancaster County Assessor who from 2003 through 2005 valued Mayor Seng’s 5 unit apartment building at $154,600 now believes the property to be worth only $141,700.00, an 8% decrease in value. Considering that this apartment building sits only half a block away from Wesleyan University you would think the property would be highly valued simply because of its location. From an investment stand point; this property is a goldmine for anyone interested in acquiring rental properties.

A general way that many such investors use to decide whether a property is worth investment is by the “20% rule.” This means that if you can make 20% more each month in rent than the cost of your mortgage, you will have enough to pay expenses and take home a small profit. Any property that is in good condition while also meeting the 20% condition is generally thought to be a good investment. In the case of Mayor Seng’s apartment building, at the current assessed level an investor would make a whopping 156% profit from their investment.

It works like this; you buy the apartments from the Mayor at the assessed value of $141,700.00 by putting down a 10% or $14,170.00 down payment. You take out a mortgage for the remaining $127,530.00 at 6.75% for 30 years which gives you a monthly mortgage payment of $827.16. The Assessor’s records indicate that the Mayor collects $25,380.00 in rent annually on the units or $2,115.00 per month. After paying the mortgage you are left with $1,287.84 for a profit of 156%. To put this in perspective, an investor prospective land lord would be more than willing to buy the property for $300,000.00 which, using the same math would make the mortgage payment $1,751.21 per month and make the owner a tidy 20.7% in profit.

Even the Lancaster County Assessor gives this property a rating of ‘Excellent’ under “Investment Class” section on the appraisal card. It appears however by what ever means were use to calculate the value of this property with it’s 10 bedrooms, 5 bathrooms, 5 Kitchens, two-story, brick exterior, 3486 finished square feet, prime location and ‘Excellent’ investment rating is worth less than a brick, 1950 square foot, 2 bath, 4 bedroom duplex near Woods Park (assessed value $153,950.00.)

Now I know that you’re hoping I am going to reveal some vast conspiracy or favoritism on the part of the County Assessor towards the Mayor regarding the value of this property. I can’t do that. I can’t even tell you that the Mayor is in any way responsible for this wild devaluation of her property. Unlike most properties on the Assessors web site, no comparisons to other actual properties are listed. I do feel that the Assessor owes us an explanation of their process and will pass that information on when it becomes available.

I also intend on asking the Mayor if she plans to protest the assessment of her property to reflect its true value. I’m sure that in light of the enormous burden that the Mayor is expecting the tax payers to carry due to the massive overspending on the part of city, she will be more than willing to do the right thing and pay her fair share as any honest citizen would be expected to do. As we’ve all heard so many times before, these tax dollars go to educate our children and provide vital services to the community. I can’t imagine anyone who is upstanding and honest being willing to short change our kids and their future. When I hear more, you will hear more.

APPENDED

June 6th, 2006 -

The day after LincolnsBlog.com broke the story about Mayor Seng’s 8% drop in property taxes, the Lincoln Journal Star ran a story called “Locals weigh homes’ new values” by Deena Winter. The story cataloged several individuals and probed their opinions concerning the recent property reevaluation by the Lincoln - Lancaster Assessor. While the article by itself was interesting the most compelling sections included interviews with Mayor Seng and City Budget Director, Don Herz, who both saw a drop in property taxes due to the reevaluation.

Denna Winter quoted the Mayor as saying “That’s quite a hefty jump,” in reference to the $21,000 property value increase for her primary residence. However, in reference to the $13,000 drop in value for what Deena Winter called her “1930’s-era apartment building” the mayor was described as “puzzled” and quoted as saying, “I think I have more questions about that.” So what questions would the Mayor have for the Assessor regarding the drop in value of her apartment building? Is she surprised that the property went down when it was so obviously under valued? Not likely, Deena Winter goes on to explain that the Mayor actually protested the value of the property several years ago, presumably when it was valued at $154,600.

It seems that if she thought the property was overvalued then she might well think the drop in value was a correction. The Mayor has left me very confused. Is it possible that Mayor Seng finally realizes that her rental property is valued at only half of it market value and wants to ask the Assessor to correct the problem so that she can pay her fair share of taxes. I very much doubt it, but anything could happen, I suppose, maybe. I think that it is more likely that the mayor is using a bit of political double speak. Inside she is jumping for joy and rubbing her hand maniacally at the thought of bilking the government out of so much money. On the outside she is putting up the face of the concerned mayor that wants all of us to pay their fair share and do our part for society. You know, make the big sacrifice kind of thing. Well, we may never know.

The Mayor has so far refused my request for a comment on the situation. Maybe, just maybe, she finally realizes that her concept of how much things are really worth is just a little off. It’s kind of like when a little old lady hands a teller a dime for a candy bar and starts out the door before the clerk can say anything. Unfortunately for us, this little old lady holds our city’s purse strings and is running amuck with our checkbook. Finally when Deena Winter asked her about the budgeting process the mayor simply said, “It depends whether we want good service and if we want good service, then we have to pay for it.” Apparently, for the mayor, only the nicest will do.

As for Don Herz, finance director for Lincoln and his drop of $23,000.00 in value to his home, isn’t it ironic that of all the people Deena Winter interviewed for her story, the only two people that saw drops in value for their property are also the only two that are with the city? While I still believe that these are just accidents created by a flawed computer evaluation system, I still believe that somebody needs to start looking into this. Just give me a bit of time. The city has a lot of employees. In the meantime, I will send a few more questions over to the Mayor. I’m sure there is some logic behind all of this. If need be, I’ll take the video crew by her next ribbon cutting ceremony. (The following is a copy of the questions sent most recently by email to Mayor Seng.)

Lincoln, NE, City Mayor, Coleen Seng Responded on June 6th, 2006…

Dear Mr. Okelberry:

I have previously called you when you have written stories that needed either correction or clarifications. I am surprised by your recent one-sided story talking only about a portion of my property taxes. That article is less than fair and balanced. While it is correct that the County Assessor placed a lower value on the apartment building I own, you chose not to mention the nearly 15 percent increase the County Assessor placed on my home. That blatant omission by you in your story appears to be an intentional effort to distort the complete story about my property taxes presumably intended to try to inflame opinion by only telling half the story. That is disappointing. As the Lincoln Journal Star wrote, the value of that apartment building has risen steadily. As the Lincoln Journal Star wrote in their June 2, 2006 story, I have no plans to protest the 15 percent increase on my home or the decrease on the apartment building. For questions about how the County Assessor did his job to determine the assessment, you should ask the County Assessor.

Sincerely, Coleen J. Seng

The Gospel of Judas

April 11th, 2006 by Rich Okelberry

The other night, I saw the National Geographic special, “The Gospel of Judas,” a program where NGS brought a group of scientists together to prove that the Bible being both incomplete and inaccurate has deceived millions of Christians around the world. Oh, and I don’t want to forget that the Weekly World News has declared on its pages that “IT’S TRUE - AUTOPSY PROVES IT! ADOLF HITLER WAS A WOMAN!” and “ALIENS TRAVEL TO EARTH FOR CHINESE TAKEOUT!” I truly believe that all good Christians should constantly strengthen their faith by question it.

 Unfortunately, the National Geographic Society has shown in this case that they are more interested in sensationalize something to ensure getting the broadest viewer ship than trying to put on a considerate, well rounded presentation. Christianity has been assaulted for several thousand years by many unbelievers and has yet to fall apart. In fact the message given to us by Christ is so powerful that it has swept around the world and is now accepted by peoples from every nation.

I believe that watching this program will have little effect on the faithful and will more likely strengthen the faith of many. Especially when you hold this new “gospel” to the very scrutiny that we all should hold the Bible too every time we open it. The “Gospel of Judas” is an accounting of the betrayal of Christ from the point of view of Judas Iscariot. It tells us that Judas didn’t betray Christ but was asked by Christ to turn him over to the authorities. It insists that Judas was the only one faithful enough to perform this task. Unfortunately, the National Geographic special fails in many ways.

It attempts to hold up this gospel as true simply because it is carbon dated to around 300AD. By bringing in a series of scientists to support the documents authenticity, they want the viewer to draw the conclusion that this gospel should be part of the Bible simply because of its age and origin. While it is true that the show does explain that there where many small off shoots or sects of Christianity in the years following the death and resurrection of Christ, it does a terrible job of explaining why this gospel was omitted from the New Testament. The main reason is purely logical. There is no verifiable link between the author and Judas himself. Unlike the four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, whose depictions would have been easily verifiable at the time, the gospel of Judas could have never been authored by Judas himself.

The “lost” gospel its self tells us that Jesus pulled Judas aside from the last supper and spoke to him privately. From that point on, Judas proceed to act on his wishes and abruptly ends as Judas turns Christ over to the authorities. We know from the other Gospels that Judas then proceeds to kill himself. If you follow the logical course you will find that Judas not only had no time to convey what Jesus said to another so that it may be recorded but he also would not have had the motivation to do so. Imagine for a moment that your Lord and God takes you apart from the group to tell you something in confidence, how motivated are you going to be to spill the beans immediately afterward. The only argument that could be made is that this account was delivered as divine inspiration.

The concept that God directly inspired human authors in the creation of the Bible is at the very center of Christian belief. Unfortunately, if this were true of the Gnostic Gospel of Judas, it would have also made it into our current Bible because God would have willed it so. Now I’m not one to suppose God’s will, but it makes absolutely no sense that God would take the trouble to create this Gospel just simply to have it buried in Egypt for 1700 years then stored in a safety deposit box where a full 15% would fall to dust. It is only logical that God would not have allowed us to be deceived for so long without correcting the problem. I know that some will argue that he is correcting it now. Unfortunately, applying an obvious contradiction that destroys the credibility of the four other Gospels does not “correct” anything. By accepting this single, mostly improbable account of Judas as true, also means that we must throw out the four probable truths.

Remember, that Satan is a very crafty creature that seeks to destroy God’s church and message not just from the outside but from within as well. Fortunately, God has given us the tools to see his truth and has maintained it for us through a long lasting series of events. For those of you that want to gleam some unknown mystical truth from the Gnostic gospels, I invite you to try. There were originally over 30 such gospels that never stood the test of time. Each was so mired in the ideas and convictions of the various sects that wrote them, that it is impossible to gleam a consistent message from them. For those of you that would like to learn more about Gnostic beliefs I invite you to do so by reading from several of the links below.

Ultimately, what the producers at National Geographic fail to understand is the fact that Christians form their belief in the Bible by the gift of faith. This is a gift that until now they have rejected throughout their lives. This faith instills in us the belief that the Bible is the true Word of God, written by God and given to us as believers as a guide. This guide is so powerful that it has allowed us to fend off multiple attempts by man and Satan to distort God’s truth. National Geographic may have discovered the basic logical flaws in the argument if they would have taken a few moments to allow a few top Christian theological experts from some of the larger churches, rather than just throwing in a few one liners by a TV evangelist.

To accept the “Gospel of Judas” as true, you must first accept the concept of divine inspiration. If you accept divine inspiration then you believe God also maintains his Word contained in the Bible. Something that God must have failed to do with the “Gospel of Judas.” If he failed there then his Word is not infallible and none of the Bible can be trusted; which is very probably the argument that the NGS is trying to make. These Gnostic Gospels do however provide Christians a look into our early history. They also serve as further anthropological evidence that Christ did and does exist. For that we should be grateful.

Godzilla vs. King Kong: A Rematch!

April 3rd, 2006, by Rich Okelberry - When I was just a child, my older brother and I had quite a few rivalries. We would even flip through the phone book beginning to end seeing who could get their finger on the page fastest at each turn to declare, “Mine!” This meant the object you were pointing at was yours and you moved on to the next page. Of course being a few years older, my brother always got the motorcycle and I was stuck with the delivery van. One of our fiercest rivalries came between King Kong and Godzilla. One again my brother got first pick, which left me with Godzilla. Not that I really minded this time because I thought that in a fight, with his blow torch breath and cascading electrical back, Godzilla would just pummel King Kong. Not so, according to my brother, he would always point out how much bigger Kong’s brain is and therefore, he could outwit Godzilla. He would explain that Godzilla’s brain was only the size of a pea which made him a big dumb lizard. Well, the day came that the 1963 movie, King Kong vs. Godzilla was finally on TV.

This was before the days of cable, movies of this caliber were usually aired on Saturday afternoons or late night. None the less, the battle was terrific, and I must admit I really felt that Godzilla had the upper-hand. Unfortunately the director conspired against me and gave the draw to Kong, who swam home victorious after apparently drowning Godzilla in the ocean. At least that is what the big brained monkey wanted us to think. In reality, Godzilla is perfectly at home under the water and while he certainly swam off in disgrace, he was never dead and certainly not defeated. None the less I was forced to bear years of humiliation over the loss of my champion. All the while I knew that something just wasn’t right. Eventually, the conspiracy became evident. They made Kong way bigger than he is in “real life.” While King Kong is measured in feet, Godzilla in measured in stories (see figure). Thankfully, through the magic of modern CGI effects, we finally have two modern movies that make this difference crystal clear, Godzilla (1998) and King Kong (2005). Both movies have their climactic scenes in NY City, so the comparison is easy to make.

It is obvious that Godzilla would simply crush Kong with his big right toe, or claw or whatever you call it. Now I’m sure that Kong would be at least a bit of a nuisance before the big squish. Kong is pretty quick and climbs like a monkey, especially because he is a monkey. In the end however, as the tag-line from Godzilla says, “Size Does Matter.” Plus, Kong is an emotional mess and is way to easily distracted by the ladies. Godzilla on the other hand, is a machine of destruction, punching holes through buildings and crushing cars in his mouth like crackers. We may never get to see these two titans finally go at it again, but that is only because the movie would only last about 5 minutes and you wouldn’t even get to finish your popcorn. If they did make it however, I would be there with my older brother…