Dec
27
2009
By Richard Okelberry (Note: This essay was written in response to a post made by Cliff Lyon, proprietor www.oneutah.org.)
REF: Republican Jesus
Once again, Cliff Lyon seems all too willing to forgo even the most basic understand of Christianity and replace it with a broad bigoted whitewashing of Christians as nothing more than hypocrites that fail to live up to the tenants of their own faith. In essence, Cliff Lyon by republishing this anti-Christian diatribe seems to believe that the vast majority of Christians are gun totting, NASCAR watching hicks that fail to have even a basic understanding of the teachings of Christ. Of course as usual, in doing so he exposes his own inability to understand Christ’s teachings.
“The biblical Jesus preached at length about renouncing worldly possessions and giving to the poor. Republican Jesus believes that such handouts merely encourage the poor to be lazy, and that Christian charity is better practiced through massive tax breaks for the wealthiest citizens, who could then be expected to let the money “tinkle down” to the poor in the form of honest, if low-paying, jobs at upright Republican institutions like Wal-Mart.”- Cliff Lyon
This statement is a perfect example used by many who regularly attack Christianity. It implies that a faithful Christian should be more than happy to hand over his/her earnings to the government to help the poor. It simultaneously implies that Christians see the poor as undeserving of compassion and charity. Both of the assumptions on the part of Mr. Lyon are completely false.
In reality, the far majority of Christians are very giving when it comes to the poor. In fact the far majority of non-profit efforts to feed and cloth the poor in this country come from Christian efforts. Even when Mr. Lyon criticizes the LDS Church; saying, “If the LDS Church gave away even 10% of its annual income to feed the poor, I would be surprised. It seems to me a really, really true church would give away 100% and its flock would demand it” he fails to recognize that following Katrina, it was primarily Christian organizations and faiths, with the LDS Church chief among them, that were first on the scene providing for the most basic needs of the victims. (This is not to say that non-Christian organizations also helped) In fact the LDS response to the catastrophe ultimately led to FEMA consulting with the LDS Church on ways to better improve the distribution of supplies during such a tragedy.
Ultimately, Cliff Lyon is making the same mistake that so many that have come before him have made when attempting to describe “true” Christian beliefs as supporting “Socialism.”
“Jesus WAS a socialist and his teachings ARE socialism, therefore, if Jesus’ teachings are sacrosanct for you, then you accept, however distasteful, the sacrifices and the generosity required to live his teachings.” – Cliff Lyon
Just as when Obama tried and failed to express biblical teachings when he declared, “I am my brother’s keeper,” Mr. Lyon has failed to understand that there is a major difference between calling on people to be charitable out of their own heart and using the long arm of the government to take from the rich to give to the poor. He has missed the fact that if we as Christians enact laws designed to take an uneven amount from the Rich in taxes for programs that we might benefit from or so that we might not have to give as much, we are essentially stealing money from that person and in violation of God’s commandment and theft. The reality is that Socialism and its eventual result, Communism is fueled by greed and a covetous hearts. It uses slogans of class warfare to convince people that those with wealth are undeserving of it and therefore are deserving of having it taken from them by force if necessary. Does anything about this idea sound Christian at all?
The irony is that the true hypocrite here is Cliff Lyon. I have in the past and will again ask him to put his money where his mouth is and donate ALL of his wealth to the government so that it may provide for the poor. If he truly believes that it is our duty to provide for the poor through the government because, “The cycle of poverty in this country is chronic,” then why is he waiting for everyone else to be forced to do so first? As a Christian, I am asked by God to be charitable and provide as I may for my fellow man as part of my spiritual life. I am told to give unto Caesar’s what is Caesar’s and give to God what is God. As such I will continue to give to God what is his, including my charity.
How strange that a man, Cliff Lyon, who regularly speaks out against those who would even consider crossing the line between church and state would now be advocating that religious tithing and charity be turned over to the government as a “true” expression of faith.
“I’m interested in decapitating people who think their religious opinions belong in government.”- Cliff Lyon
If anyone would like a better understanding of the relationship between Socialism, Communism and Christianity, you can read my essay, “Was Jesus a Communist?” fromr 2006.
Dec
3
2009
By Richard Okelberry (Note: This Post was originally published at KVNU’s, For the People Blog.)
Immediately following the speech by President Obama given at West Point which called for an increase in troop strength in Afghanistan, Arianna Huffington, owner and founder of the online center for liberalism in America, the Huffington Post, has called for Vice President Joe Biden to Resign.
“Joe Biden met with CENTCOM chief Gen. David Petraeus this morning to talk about Afghanistan — an issue that has pushed the vice president into the spotlight, landing him on the cover of the latest Newsweek.
I have an idea for how he can capitalize on all the attention, and do what generations to come will always be grateful for: resign.
The centerpiece of Newsweek’s story is how Biden has become the chief White House skeptic on escalating the war in Afghanistan, specifically arguing against Gen. McChrystal’s request for 40,000 more troops to pursue a counterinsurgency strategy there…” Arianna Huffington, The Huffington Post
Unfortunately, for both Obama and Biden, she didn’t just do this on her web site but then went around to the various cable news networks and repeated her calls for what she calls a “resignation on principal.”
While I personally have long supported giving the requested troops to the commanders on the ground in Afghanistan, I have to give Arianna Huffington props for standing by her principals. In fact, principled liberals seem to be shedding the haze created by the Obama Cult of Personality (OCP) and speaking out against this presidency everywhere.
As expected by many, Obama decided to try and play both sides of this issue by giving in to the troop requests while declaring a specific date for withdrawal from Afghanistan. Apparently this decision didn’t sit well with Biden who apparently wanted, like many other uber-liberals an immediate withdrawal of troops and a stand back lobbing missiles approach to fighting terror. This straddling of the fence on this issue by trying to uphold his campaign commitment to be strong on terror while simultaneously appeasing the peace brigade at the base of his party has created a situation where instead of everyone being happy with the decision, everyone from conservatives to die hard liberals are at odds with the President and saying it loudly.
“How do you on the one hand say, ‘we need to send these troops over there, it’s critical, this is in our national security interest to do this,’ but then say, ‘but we’re only going to keep ‘em there for 18 months.” – Bob Shieffer, CBS NEWS
Of course this decision was probably the safest bet for the President.
First there will always be those Obamatons who will ALWAYS back, defend and justify anything that Obama does; even to the point of excusing it by pointing to the fact that Bush did something similar; as if it’s OK for Obama to do something as long as Bush did it, even though we wined and complained about it under Bush. These are the same people who continue to say that anyone who opposes this president does so because they are racist or simply hate the man. Any attempt to make these individuals understand that there is serious, legitimate and broad spread disagreement with this President over many issues is simply impossible.
Second, even those on the uber-left who have begun to criticize Obama won’t switch parties. They helped elect this President and now they will have to resign themselves to being disgruntled supporters if they have any hope of keeping a Republican out of the White House in 2012. In the end I believe that Obama is rely on a belief that apathy will not overcome his supporters next year during the election and during his on re-election in 2012. Notice that his withdrawal date for Afghanistan falls conveniently just before his the election gets into full swing. Of course he has to hope and pray that things don’t fall apart in Afghanistan after the withdrawal.
I imagine that ultimately, from failing to immediately end the war in Iraq, immediately close GITMO, failing to bring Bush and Cheney to trial for war crimes, failing to push through the first draft of Socialized Health Care and now spending billions on a war and ordering our military to kill more people has to be seriously aggravating those on the radical left that ultimately pushed Obama past Hillary and onto the presidency with the belief that he held similar values regarding war. Wasn’t this supposed to be our President of peace that recalled all the troops and had us singing Kumbaya around the White House in candle-light vigils for our dying earth? Was all their work for not? Are they now left with a weak and inexperienced president who will turn coat against the founding principals of progressive liberalism for his own political gain?
I have to imagine that apathy among the Democrat base has to be growing exponentially as they all begin to realize that they like the rest of the country, they have been suckered by a man who would say and do anything to gain power.
Suckers all around!
Nov
19
2009
By Richard Okelberry (Note: This Post was originally published at KVNU’s, For the People Blog.)
“Hours after ABC’s Jonathan Karl reported on government data showing hundreds of created jobs and millions of dollars spent in congressional districts that don’t exist, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., late Monday issued a blistering statement demanding an immediate fix to “ludicrous mistakes” on the Recovery.gov Website.
“The inaccuracies on recovery.gov that have come to light are outrageous and the Administration owes itself, the Congress, and every American a commitment to work night and day to correct the ludicrous mistakes,” Obey said. “Credibility counts in government and stupid mistakes like this undermine it. We’ve got too many serious problems in this country to let that happen.”
“Whether the numbers are good news or bad news, I want the honest numbers and I want them now,” Obey continued.” – ABC News
Yep that’s right, according to the White House over $6.2 BILLION in Stimulus money has made it’s way into Congressional districts that well… simply don’t exist!
Is this a simple clerical error or is the money being used for kickbacks to union thugs and ACORN? Who knows! The White House has been tight lipped ever since ABC (not FOX) broke the story after reviewing the statistics at Recovery.org causing many like me to wonder again; where is this open government and administration that was supposed to be replacing the super secret Bush, White House?
Even Utah got $1.2 million to create 26 non-existent jobs in its non-existence 4th and 00 districts. Or so the White House says.
Still, Congressman Obey really should be careful. As one commenter smartly exclaimed on the ABC site following this story, “I’ll bet Rahm is busy chopping up fish to send out to those Democrats who dare stumble off the reservation…” That certainly could be a lot of fish coming out of the White House budget if they can’t figure this thing out and quick.
Nov
18
2009
By Richard Okelberry (Note: This Post was originally published at KVNU’s, For the People Blog.)
As almost a slap in the face to liberals who have long contested the validity of Fox News, or as liberals like to say “Faux News,” as a legitimate news organization, President Obama has agreed to an interview that will air tonight with Chris Wallace on Fox News.
Is this a sign of capitulation on the part of the White House? Does it indicate that there is a serious divide among presidential advisors on how to deal with Fox News and the dissemination of their message?
Let’s be honest here, regardless of how “fair and balanced” you believe Fox News is, they reach more viewers than all the other cable news channels combined. Additionally, a full third of their audience is liberal. As such, I believe that the President is finally choosing the right path and taking his critics head on rather than trying to silence them with delegitimizing rhetoric or worse avoid them all together.
Now, if Obama would just pick up the phone that Glenn Beck installed directly to the White House on occasion, we might be getting somewhere. Also, maybe this interview will finally make it OK for the rest of the media to ask questions that are outside of Obama’s comfort zone.
Nov
17
2009
By Richard Okelberry (Note: This essay was originally published at KVNU’s, For the People Blog.)
In the debate over winter parking, I would like to add the following ordinance from Lincoln, Nebraska to the discussion.
Like many municipalities around the country, Lincoln decided to solve the need to remove cars during snow removal by adopting a system that allows the Mayor to alternately ban parking on even and odd sides of the street immediately following a snow event. Also, this ordinance allows for a complete ban on both sides of the street following a major snow event.
Considering how controversial the winter long overnight ban is every year, the Logan City Council might want to consider giving this system a try.
“10.40.050 Prohibition of Parking on Residential Streets.
The Mayor may order a parking prohibition on parts or all of residential streets by declaring an emergency exists on the basis of accumulated snow or other conditions making it necessary that parking on residential streets be prohibited or restricted for snow plowing or other purposes. Streets subject to a total parking prohibition on both sides of the street shall be established only by executive order of the Mayor. For all other streets, the Mayor may order that parking be prohibited on one side of the residential streets, designating either the odd or even address numbered side. In such orders the Mayor shall state the date and time on which such parking prohibitions shall take effect. The parking prohibitions or restrictions shall remain in effect until terminated by the Mayor. It shall be unlawful for any person to park or allow to remain parked any vehicle upon residential streets or parts of residential streets in violation of a declared parking prohibition affecting such streets. (Ord. 15645 §5; July 9, 1990). – ”