In the summer of 2007, I constructed a profile and analysis on Michael Moore that illuminated the sociopathic tendencies that encompass the actions of one of the most infamous documentarycreators of modern times. Within the article, Michael Moore: A Criminal Profile, which was first released in the New Media Journal and then later around the world, I took careful pains to make sure that readers understood that Moore carries the tendencies of the sociopath while not accusing him of the crimes that some sociopaths actually commit. The thrust of the article was to introduce people to the moral wasteland in which the sociopath lives and operates. Oh course, this caused somewhat of a ruckus among Moore lackeys and those who enjoy the anti-American sales pitch he throws out with each new theatrical falsehood he creates. Unfortunately, for those who wish to defend Moore, for whatever their motivation, there is one factor they will never be able to overcome; That is, the mouth of Michael Moore.

On Aug 29, 2008, on MSNBC with Keith Olbermann, Michael Moore would make one of his most inflammatory statements to date; that is, he would thank God that Hurricane Gustavmight hit New Orleans and the Gulf Coast region. Moore’s joy was centered on the notion that the life threatening hurricane would be politically damaging to the 2008 Republican National Convention. Let’s get real for a moment about what’s really happening with a statement like this from Moore. Some would say in defense of Moore that he may have been unduly bolstered into making a statement as outlandish as this due to the fact that he was in the presence of the well known Bush attack dog Keith Olbermann. I would warn against selling Michael Moore short in this manner. As I did in 2007, I would again say that Michael Moore is not a dupe or a follower. On the contrary, as a sociopath, Moore is cool and calculated and does not require the validation of anyone to have self fulfillment, including cohorts in similar Bush bashing causes such as Olbermann. As with the sociopath, Moore understands that Olbermann, as well as potential natural disasters like Hurricane Gustav can be of benefit to the only real concern that a sociopath has; that is, him or herself. Does Moore want dead bodies and billons in property damage as was seen in Hurricane Katrina? Perhaps not. However, the bottom line and it’s just as dirty, is that Moore, like the sociopath, just doesn’t really care what happens if he benefits in the end.

If we observe the macabre conversation between Moore and Olbermann on the desires of the day for Hurricane Gustav, we notice that after having a hearty laugh over New Orleans taking the brunt of another hurricane following the devastating Katrina, Moore, after the fact, states that he is not looking for human casualties in the mix of his deadly desires. This is avery late form of quality control in his conversation with Olbermann, and looking at the totality of the conversation, it appears to be stated only half heartedly. To give an equivalent of Moore’s Gustav statement to readers from the heartland of this country, it is like saying, “I pray to God a tornado falls on your house, because it would be really good for me if it did…but I hope it does not cause you any major problems.” Yep, it doesn’t take an over abundance of brain power to come to the conclusion that people don’t rate very high in comparison to Moore’s own desires and wishes. The point of Moore’s Gustav statement goes beyond showing that he is simply a jerk, what it does is tie this newest public statement into an intricate web of Moore’s activities of many years that shows specific psychological components of the mind set of “me first”, “me at any cost” mentality. This is a unique characteristic of the sociopath that cares nothing about the people around him or her, and in the case of Moore, the country in which he lives. 

Moore has gone to great expense to frame himself as the kindly rotund truth talker of American inadequacies. Many still buy into this fairytale, and those people will be surely angry at my words. I feel no joy in angering them as I felt no joy in documenting Moore’s sociopathic profile in 2007. That is, sometimes being right does not bring adulation, smiles and applause. What it does is forward the truth and brings it to the light of day, and in the end, possibly, givespeople a new perspective in which to evaluate an operator like Michael Moore.      

Paul A. Ibbetson is a published author and lecturer on the Patriot Act. He is a former Chief of Police of Cherryvale, Kansas, and member of the Montgomery County Drug Task Force. Paul received his Bachelor’s and Master’s degree in Criminal Justice at Wichita State University, and is currently completing his PhD. in sociology at Kansas State University. Paul is the author of the book “Living Under The Patriot Act: Educating A Society”. Paul is also the radio host of the 2008 entertainment program of the year the, “Conscience of Kansas” 91.9 f.m. www.ibbetsonusa.com

Recently, I had the unique opportunity to interview the man the media calls the “Toughest Sheriff in America,” Sheriff Joe Arpaio, on my radio show the Conscience of Kansas. It was an extremely dynamic interview, and I invite people to listen to both part one and part two of the showin its entirety. My goal going into the interview was to acquire some insights into one of the nation’s most interesting law enforcement officers to pin on the badge. I also had a secondary question of my own to satisfy, and that was, can the Arpaio system of law enforcement be duplicated across this country?

            In my quest to satisfy these questions, I believe that I discovered a few interesting characteristics about the man from Arizona who designs pink underwear for his prisoners. The creator of Tent City, where prisoners live an austere life of no-frill labor on the once abandoned chain gangs, Arpaio projects the image of the no-nonsense dispenser of justice. However, if one looks at the inner scheme of Arpaio’s operation, it becomes apparent that what appears to be simply “tough justice” is, in fact, a very psychologically constructed design for the purpose of deterring future offenders. Simply put, Arpaio’s programs of deterrents, such as the hotel “vacancy” signs at Tent City, are products of a carefully considered plan and should not be sold short as simply brute fear mongering.

            If we are to address the issue of hype versus reality when it comes to Arpaio, we should settle the matter of the difference between newshound and showman. Sherrif Joe Arpaio is without a doubt one of the best showmen to wear a badge. This upsets some within both the public and media, for more reasons than one. Some people believe that law enforcement leaders should be silent, stoic figures who work in the shadows in a quiet, efficient robotic fashion. Arpaio flies in the face of such thinking with his multi-media presentation that has gotten the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office on the lips, if not the minds, of people around the globe. Some people fear backlash effects of police programs made public, and to be honest, some folks just hate law enforcement.

            Somewhere along the line Sheriff Joe Arpaio has learned what less maligned figures in history have grasped, and that is, an innovation without marketing is an innovation wasted. In complete contradiction to the newshounds that flash empty programs with false promises, Arpaio uses his creative showmanship to market the bottom line of his programs in low recidivism rates and millions of dollars saved for the citizens of Arizona.

            Of course, there are always some downsides to the assessments of individuals, and Sheriff Joe Arpaio is no exception. Through the course of our conversation, it was made clear to me the negative impacts of enforcing the law in a growing world of moral relativism. Arpaio, who has struggled against open border groups, the ACLU, rogue mayors, and others, to enforce the law of the land, will tell those who would ask that he is undaunted and undeterred by the resistance that he faces routinely. While I do not question Arpaio’s resolve about the issues in which he has strong conviction, I do believe that he is impacted more than he lets on by the daily onslaught of opposition to enforcing the law and securing the border.

            Despite the human tendency to tire in the face of constant governmental and special interest opposition, Arpaio perseveres every day accomplishing the job he was elected to do: the feat of which is nothing short of extraordinary. After almost 16 years in the trenches as the “Toughest Sheriff in America,” it is unknown how long he can keep up this pace. Any question about transplanting the Arpaio system throughout the country was answered at the end of our interview: I’m afraid it’s not going to happen.

            Having lived and worked within the law enforcement community for years, I have met many motivated and capable people who have inspired me with their abilities. However, with that said, I think the mold has been broken with Sheriff Joe Arpaio. I am skeptical that there will soon be another individual who wears the badge that also embodies the characteristics of the thinker, philosopher, writer, and showman, encased within a backbone of steel who has the will to face opposition day in and day out.

            I have come to the conclusion that the best outcome for which we can hope in the future is that the work of Arpiao can be repeated to some degree, although never to the same extent. This may seem a little sad, but it is here that I found the silver lining believed lost after the conclusion of my interview with the “Toughest Sheriff in America.” Specifically, even if no complete replication of the Arpaio system is ever to be found again, if portions live on and are effective in other areas, then the old system itself has been improved. If this be the case, then future agencies will owe a debt to the often misunderstood Sheriff from Arizona who brings pink underwear clad inmates under the Big Top of justice, once again defeating the naysayers who said it could not be done.

Paul A. Ibbetson is a published author and lecturer on the Patriot Act. He is a former Chief of Police of Cherryvale, Kansas, and member of the Montgomery County Drug Task Force. Paul received his Bachelor’s and Master’s degree in Criminal Justice at Wichita State University, and is currently completing his PhD. in sociology at Kansas State University. Paul is the author of the book “Living Under The Patriot Act: Educating A Society” and is the host of the award winning radio show the “Conscience of Kansas” on the wildcat 91.9 f.m www.wildcat919.com www.ibbetsonusa.com .   

   When I think of my home state of Kansas, I think of a place where people are friendly, work hard, and moreover believe in the Christian values that this great nation was founded upon. I have always thought that the Kansas designation as part of the Bible belt was a badge of honor that many of the blue states just don’t often understand. However, there has been for some time a pestilence walking the flatlands of Kansas, a scourge that brings only pain and sorrow to all that find themselves within its path. I am talking about the members of the Westboro Baptist Church. The Westboro Baptist Church which comprises the immediate family of Fred Phelps and is based out of Topeka Kansas has made it their mission to spread a twisted religious philosophy of God’s damnation on the world one protest at a time.

            I ran across the Phelps clan a few years ago when they were protesting a church I was attending in Wichita Kansas. I had never heard of the group before and I suddenly found myself within swinging distance without any context of who I was dealing with. I assumed from their colorful “GOD HATES FAGS” signs that they were a pro-homosexual advocacy group possibly angry about a bible lesson on Sodom and Gomorrah that they might have heard at the church that did not fit their lifestyle. I later found that the Westboro Baptist Church was a small, crazy, dysfunctional family group turned cult that liked to travel to the funerals of dead soldiers to tell their families that their child was in hell due to the evils of homosexuality. These acts of lunacy and open displays of pure hate earned the Westboro Baptist Church the designation as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a designation that these folks have worked hard to earn.

 
      Some might ask the question, why give this group any recognition? Is it not recognition that they seek? Is this not why this group will protest any event that brings more than three people together? I have thought hard about this because there are some valid truths to these questions.  However, I think silence can also be construed as a validation. Silence can also be seen as a weakness. It seems to me that many in Kansas have been using silence as the weapon of choice against Fred Phelps and family for far too long. Like disregarding a cancerous tumor in the hopes that it will die off by itself, the death of the entire body is the most likely result. The reality is that the tumor must be removed and this is always bloody work. Listening to the boastful exclamations of Fred Phelps when he says that his cult group has performed 30,000 protests in the last seventeen years with no signs of slowing down brings me to a reality that this group has to be dealt with.

     What do I mean by that? Aren’t the Phelps group afforded the same free speech rights that I have to disseminate this article? The ACLU who always jumps to the aid of those who would undermine this country says so. In reality, the ACLU’s aid to the Phelps clan, which is part of the selective aid the organization gives those that they wish to assist, reflects only the anti-American agenda of the ACLU, not the championing of free speech. The reasons the Phelps congregation has no legal right to vomit their hatred of America upon military families in mourning is that hate speech has no protection under the constitution. The October 31, 2007 civil ruling against the group which amounted to the original sum of $11 million in damages is an example of the courts ability to distinguish free speech from the willful intention to inflict emotional distress on the families of fallen American soldiers. Now that was a happy day.

      For Kansas, the Phelps cult makes our progressive state appear mindless, backward, and racist. Those who would like to continue the stereo types often identified with small rural states simply need to inject the Phelps cult into the debate. For Christians in general, The Westboro Baptist Church is a blight on the name of true religion. When Christians tackle the true social issues that face this country they must not only battle the secular liberal opposition that is always prevalent but also the damage to the credibility of Christian values itself brought forth by the evil labors of the Westboro Baptist Church. Lastly, the war effort itself is undermined by the treasonous acts of protests by this group. While legislation has been adopted to raise the penalties for funereal protests, this is only a mild rebuke compared to past war time legislation toward treasonous acts. It is in this arena that I believe that further action should be explored.

      Over the long haul, Kansas will survive having these folks in their state, the good will win over the bad. Over the long haul, judgment will be handed down by a higher power for all of us including the Phelps clan. I could lament about the special place in hell I believe the members of the Westboro Baptist Church will be given but it would add nothing new from what so many others in this country have already thought of before me. Over the long haul, the United States will continue to champion freedom and protect this country by way of the proud men and women who serve and sometimes make the ultimate sacrifice to keep us safe. What do we the American people, who are protected every minute of the day by men and women of the military, owe to them as they are being heckled and verbally damned as they are laid to rest. You see, it’s not that legal action should be taken against the Westboro Baptist Church to simply restore the greatness of Kansas, or the true nature of Christianity, or even for the protection of the families of fallen soldiers to have peaceful, respectful funerals. I would submit that is because of the culmination of all three of these factors that the time is now for the collective effort of all Americans to call for the end of the mission of hate brought forth by the Westboro Baptist Church.   

Don’t kill the messenger! You’ve heard that saying before and it has as much relevance today as in the past. Ages ago before the wondrous technologies for long distance communication were available; the means of sending messages between individuals over great distances fell to the responsibility of the humble messenger. The messenger, whether on foot or horseback would battle all assorted dangers, be it inclement weather, sickness, wolves, or rogue bandits to see his message delivered safely to its recipient. Unfortunately, surviving the successful delivery of a message was often the hardest part of the job. You see, sometimes people would become angry with a message that they did not wish to receive and the messenger was an easy outlet for this misguided anger.

            Recently, I was an observer of a death of sorts of a fellow carrier of the conservative message of truth. A fellow radio associate and conservative columnist Chuck Armstrong, found himself at the end of the proverbial sword from his college newspaper publisher when his weekly opinion column contained comments about the violent aspects of the religion if Islam. Armstrong penned the column after researching the topic which included personal communications from well known scholar Robert Spencer. Not only was Armstrong’s column rejected but insinuations of racism were put forward. When Armstrong questioned the validity of rejecting an opinion piece on this topic, he was fired as a contributing columnist for the college newspaper.

            Now you may be thinking that Chuck Armstrong was attending a liberal college where the conservative ideas and opinions are squelched as a matter of college policy, maybe at Berkley or the liberal breeding grounds of Columbia University, right? If you thought that was the case you would be way off. Would you be surprised if I said it was at Kansas State University? Yes that’s right, here in the heartland, the Bible belt, the place I like to call common sense central from the growing scourge of liberalism. Yes even here, to bring forth a message that asks people to think hard about a religion so relevant to current events in the nation doesn’t get you a debate, it gets you fired. I would leave it in the capable hands of the American people to read Armstrong’s article and make up their own minds if his message pains them because it’s off base, or if it only hurts because it’s painfully accurate?  

            Unfortunately, I believe that Armstrong was forced to taste the steal of the Kansas State University Collegian because he violated the laws of political correctness. Yes, political correctness, the mental neutering of this country that not only day by day clouds the division between right and wrong, but breaks the will to question anything for fear that some group or organization may be offended. Most often these groups are liberals. Options were all this college newspaper had in this case. They could have collected an opposing opinion piece to Armstrong’s and ran them on the same page. They could have printed any disclaimer of their choosing before the article. Now here is a novel idea, they could have ran the article and let the readers decide and hold the author accountable through the usage of (letters to the editor) which the newspaper has every week. In the end, the Kansas State University Collegian decided to pass on all these options and to liquidate Armstrong for delivering a message that does not meet the liberal standard of political correctness. That message has been heard loud and clear.

Every great movement and accomplishment that has taken place in America, even those supported by thousands of people, was at its most basic inception born of a single individual who said, “I can.” Those who stood up first when others remained seated and said, “I can make a difference, I can fight for what’s right, I can help those in need,” and the list goes on and on. As surely as birds of a feather flock together, the “I cans” of this country find each other when their services are needed and, like magic, the “I can” philosophy is transformed into the “we can” philosophy and grand innovations are conceived, wonders of construction are built, epic battles are won, and heroes are born.

I was perplexed to read the August 3, 2007 article, “Heroism and the Language of Fascism” by Rosa Brooks, in the Los Angeles Times, as her inaccuracies of what makes a hero simply demean a populace least likely to call her to task. I’m talking about real heroes. Brooks alludes that former NFL star Pat Tillman does not meet her criteria of a hero, at least in part, because the bullet that took his life was a product of friendly fire. This line of thinking goes beyond petty and straight to pathetic. Think about it for a moment. Tillman left the lavish life and monetary rewards of the NFL to go to a place where people want to kill you, where death walks with you all day, every day. No Rosa, Tillman was not shot by Osama bin Laden while wrestling a rhino to save a hospital full of babies, but he did go to Iraq when his NFL compatriots stayed safely behind, and despite the dangers, he gave the ultimate sacrifice on the battlefield for his country. Why? Because Tillman was an “I can” man, the fundamental building block of what heroes are made of and the clear delineation between conservative and liberal thought today. Of course, if you exclude service, sacrifice, and suffering on the battlefield as a pre-requisite for heroism, as Brooks requires, you can probably exclude everyone.

Brooks attempts to cloud the issue by saying that the few true heroes of today are not heralded while legions of the unworthy are given all the glory. After generally disparaging the military, along with all the emergency services, she insults everyone’s intelligence by telling readers that she really has respect for the groups she has proclaimed unfit to be called heroes. In doing so, Brooks assumes that readers have the mental capacity of an acorn which simply adds insult to injury when reading her article.

Knowing that people will most likely see her analysis as liberal tripe, Brooks prepares to be rejected, if not ran out of town, by those who hold the military and emergency services dear. I would admit that this was the knee jerk reaction that came to my mind as well. However, as a former law enforcement officer, I learned a long time ago that simply running out of town those who would undermine, if not hurt society, simply passes the problem on to another city. It is always better to expose and deal with folks like Brooks directly, despite the human nature to simply reject them and move on. You might call it going above and beyond the call of duty.

What we see with the Brooks analysis is simply another version of the same old liberal defeat policy. Yes, these are the “I can’ts” of the Democratic party. Those who scream by their actions and statements, “I can’t support America, I can’t seek victory,” and, of course, Brooks’ I can’t handle too many heroes in a time of war.

While conservatives fight to ensure the future of this nation, the “I can’ts” have consistently been sowing the seeds of pessimism and defeat. Some shout defeatist rhetoric from the activist picket lines while others, fancying themselves more clever, attempt to sell the idea that an over abundance of heroes in a time of war is the equivalent of the beginnings of a communist nation. Are you buying it? This is the big question, because as I stated earlier, the victims of Brooks’ hero stripping philosophy will not be the ones most likely to challenge her. The police officers, fire fighters, and military men and women are trained to routinize even the most heroic acts as part of their jobs. While those on the outside of this work sometimes find it strange, in reality it is a very practical policy as it helps to rationalize what is often extremely stressful work and stabilize normal men and women to have careers that most can’t begin to fathom. Rosa Brooks has more than proven she is part of that latter group.

Unfortunately, simply exposing the liberal defeat policy of Brooks is not enough. It is the responsibility of all conservatives who do not wear the uniform to avoid being led astray on this issue, and to champion those who have stepped forward and are fighting and dying for our freedom. This is most certainly a time for “extraordinary courage, fortitude and greatness of soul,” and a most necessary time for the gathering of those embracing the conservative philosophy of “I can…”