Most of us have heard the fairy tale Stone Soup.  This children’s story in its many versions gives an account of a hungry traveler in a time of economic hardship who enters a village with nothing more than a cooking pot and a stone. Through creative manipulation, the villagers are made to believe that a simple stone can produce a wonderful soup. Little by little, the villagers add vegetables and other tasty tidbitsto the stone soup until finally, and almost magically, they have a bountiful, scrumptious pot of soup to eat.

Now, many that tell this story attempt to dig up a positive moral to what transpired around the bubbling pot. Some say that the people came together and shared resources and that this story shows that by ourselves, we may be able to nibble on a single vegetable, but working together, we can enjoy tasty soup. However, the truth is much darker and speaks of manipulation and trickery.

Think about it for a moment. If we are to find a fundamental truth in the story Stone Soup, it is that there is a sucker born every day. Yes, the people of the village were tricked, duped, hoodwinked, bamboozled. Taking this story to its truthful conclusion, the shyster of this story was probably wanted in several counties for soup fraud and conspiracy to market false condiments. The deeper lesson from this story is that deception has almost no limits, or places that itcannot flourish, if it is crafted well.

 Liberal democrats are about to hit some very hard political times. I have a feeling that votes are going to be about as hard to find in many political races as food was in this story. So, as was the case with the trickster that worked to fill a pot with the labors and fruits of others, the American people are going to be offered bowl after bowl of good liberal cooking all the way to the mid-term elections in 2010.

 This dish starts with the rejection of the current reality that democrats will most certainly lose their majority in the House and many seats in the Senate. From USA Today on down the line, liberals are attempting to slice and dice the historic lossof Ted Kennedy’s seat in Massachusetts by saying that Scott Brown has a liberal aroma which mitigates the national implications of the democrats’defeat in one of the bluest of the blue states. This crushing defeat becomes part of a series of losses including elections in New Jersey and Virginia that democrats said were nothing more than local discontent. I can hear the falsehoods clanking at the bottom of the pot, and soon you will be asked to submit your contribution.

 The largest of these salt-covered lies will be that Americans have given the President a mandate to do whatever he wants with this country and will not hold him or supporting members of congress accountable at the polls for the atrocious actions that have been heaped upon this nation from Washington. The President’s State of the Union address in all its arrogance and condescension has more than filled the nostrils of the nation with the truth of the distasteful dishes this president still wishes to place on our plates. Only the “Stone Soupers” fail to smell what the “Barack” is cooking at this stage of the game. The question is whether people are going to order something better for this country or simply lie back and leave it to the cooks that are currently in the kitchen. If voters decide to go with the latter, they had better be prepared to relinquish everything they hold precious into the bottomless bubbling pot of a new American reality. 

Paul A. Ibbetson 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 books Living Under The Patriot Act: Educating A Society and Feeding Lions: Sharing The Conservative Philosophy In A Politically Hostile World. Paul is also the radio host of the Kansas Broadcasting Association’s 2008 and 2009 Entertainment Program of the Year, Conscience of Kansas airing on KSDB Manhattan 91.9 f.m. www.ibbetsonusa.com. For interviews or questions, please contact ibbetson91.9@gmail.com

Joe "The Plumber" Wurzelbacher

*** AND ***

Jim Anderson for U.S. Congress

*** AND ***

Ron and Kay Rivoli of The Rivoli Revue

Click image above to visit their website or below to visit them on: MySpace and YouTube

*** AND ***

Jackie and Dunlap from Red State Update

Talking about the State of the Union Address

What is the meaning of friendship? What makes the bonds that we call a true friendship mean something? We have all heard of the fair-weather friend and most likely we have all had one ortwo of them. The fair-weather friend stays by your side as long as all the conditions of life are optimum. Unfortunately, we often need our friends most when times are bad, and that is when the fair-weather friend often disappears, and in some cases, sides with the forces we are struggling against. “Thanks a lot!” Those may very well be the parting words that passour lips when we come to the painful realization that not all that play “buddy-buddy” are actually in our corner.

 Conversely, a true friend is a powerful force in that it allows for the extension of values and beliefs into places that one might not be able to tread alone. America has had a long history of creating lasting friendships with countries, and those bonds have created economic prosperity and security in many places. For the most part, this country has shown the proper discernment in selecting who will be our business associates in the globaleconomy and who will be allies when the world gets tumultuous. Despite those wholike to denigrate this great country, one of America’s strongest selling points is that within the global community, this country has been known to come through with what it says it is going to do. With that said, we would be wise to remember that while American exceptionalism exists, it does so in conjunction with our ability to make and maintain true friends across the planet.

 America’s true friends (versus casual business associates) and many of our enemies with which we have politically correct states of “ceasefire” are not hard to identify.True friends share our values and beliefs. Unfortunately, and in conflict with Barack Obama’s “olive branch” tactics in many parts of the world, we will never qualify under our belief system as true friends with some on this planet. In fact, because of our beliefs and values, which include our Christian faith, democracy, a belief in freedom and equality, and many others, some will always want to destroy us. Coming back full circle, that is why it is good to have friends.

 At the most practical level of thinking, the defense of our true friends is nothing short of a defense of ourselves. Beyond allowing us the ability to create coalitions to protect American interests when the need arises, protecting our friends preserves a common set of beliefs. What would be the ramifications to this country and the beliefs we hold dear if Great Britain or Australia, to name just two, were to be suddenly torn asunder? I would submit that the loss of mutually embraced values and beliefs would be as impacting as the military firepower they offer. In reality, beliefs and defense are tied together for as the direction of the heart goes, so will the militaries go that arewielded by those hearts. In short, “We need friends like friends need us.”

 Despite the necessity forfriends, America is only worthy of having friends to which we are true. This brings us to the matter of Israel. The tiny State of Israel has flourished despite having enemies that surround its borders. It has defended itself time and time again, often with tepid support from America and other “free” countries of the world. America has on many occasions joined other countries in placing the global stopwatch on Israel when driving its enemies from its borders, and in encouraging its leadersto make deals that are not in its best interest. Often the strongest support America gives Israel, our friend, is neutral statements of the desire for peace and negotiation. Remember the fair-weather friend? If we are to be honest we must say that for Israel, the weather is seldom fair.

 2010 will be a year in whichAmerica’s friendship to Israel will be tested to its limits. The growing threat to Israel from Iran, if not the entire world, will most certainly come to a head. In America’s action or inaction, we will show the world what kind of country we are, and what value can be placed on being a true friend of this country. In return, we will reap what we sow, and America would be wise to remember that defending our true friends in the world is a defense of ourselves and our mutual beliefs.

Paul A. Ibbetson 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 books Living Under The Patriot Act: Educating A Society and Feeding Lions: Sharing The Conservative Philosophy In A Politically Hostile World. Paul is also the radio host of the Kansas Broadcasting Association’s 2008 and 2009 Entertainment Program of the Year, Conscience of Kansas airing on KSDB Manhattan 91.9 f.m. www.ibbetsonusa.com. For interviews or questions, please contact ibbetson91.9@gmail.com

Daniel W. Merrick, Radio Host and Author

Instructions To Money: From Welfare To Millionaire

*** AND ***

Words of Wisdom from Doug Giles of ClashRadio.com

From Doug's bio: Doug Giles is the creator and host of ClashRadio.com (IRN/USA Radio Network), a winner of seven Silver Microphone Awards and two Communicator Awards. In addition, Doug is a popular columnist, minister, artist, campus lecturer  and author. His column is read worldwide each week on the nation’s largest conservative news portal, TownHall.com. His articles have also appeared on several other print and online news sources, including The Washington Times, New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Examiner, NRA News and ABC News, and he has been a guest on both major television news programs and nationally syndicated radio shows across the nation. Doug earned his Bachelor of Fine Arts degree from Texas Tech University and studied for his Master of Arts in Christianity and Culture from Knox Theological Seminary. He’s the author of ten books on Christianity, masculinity and cultural insanity. His latest book, If You’re Going Through Hell, Keep Going is published by Bridge-Logos (Oct. 2009) and yet the little voices inside his head still will not go away. Doug and his wife of 20 plus years have two daughters. Giles’ interests include guns, big game hunting, big game fishing, fine art, cigars and being a big pain in the butt to people who dislike God and the USA.  [source]

It has been said that death is a sweet release from the many struggles of this world. While this is most certainly true for most, it does not release some that have passed from here to the great beyond from being shaken down for their last remaining earthly valuables.

As my desire is to see America survive into the future, I speak at length about the great divide between conservatives and the modern day liberal. I talk about the destructive nature of Barack Obama’s socialism when implemented within a free market capitalist society. People are starting to get that one. The issue of the socialist anti-American stance also becomes of paramount importance when the country must stand and not only rebuke our enemies, but defeat them with unquestionable force. Here again, the divide between how conservatives move forward with action to address those who would kill us versus the modern day liberal are clear, with the fruits of this administration’s game plan to defend the homeland being truly dipped in American blood.

If America is to truly awaken from its apathetic malaise and self-imposed restraints of the national “choker chain” of political correctness, it will most likely take the most egregious of violations of decency to shock the needed numbers into action. With that in mind, let’s look at how liberals pilfer the dead.

Because of the atheistic nature of liberalism, democrats make it common fare to politicize the most sacred events to gain advantage on issues they champion. Funerals have become prime real estate for picking up votes and pushing for socialist agendas and most often, this dirty work is done by asserting that the dead, who should be honored in their passing, are really anxious for one last chance to push a liberal agenda to the public.

We can see a consistent history of these detestable activities from liberal democrats. As if it were yesterday, one can recall from 2002 the untimely death of Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone whose televised memorial turned into a 20,000-plus democrat rally for Walter Mondale to fill the seat by Wellstone’s death. This debacle was filled with partisan booing by members of the political opposition and direct calls for republican politicians to support Wellstone’s seat being filled by another democrat. The worst of the actions during this event was the clear assertion that to honor Paul Wellstone was to keep republicans out of his open seat. In flogging republicans in the name of Wellstone, liberals dishonored his name for personal gain in the same way one would by emptying the pockets of the dead for loose change. In a word, these actions were despicable.

In 2006, the repetitiously offensive Jimmy Carter would take the opportunity during funeral orations for Correta Scott King to viciously attack George W. Bush and the war on terror, making parallels between wiretapping done in the 1960’s when Martin Luther King Jr. was fighting for civil rights and the current-day attempts to keep terrorists at bay by the Bush administration. “Liberals found Carter’s denouncement of Bush (during funeral proceedings for Coretta Scott King) a bit of magical timing” when in fact, it was just another example of the unholy pat-down the left give the dead when they feel they have a bit of clout remaining to capitalize on.

When it comes to the yearly observance of the life of Martin Luther King Jr., Barack Obama is neither the first nor will he be the last liberal to rob for profit the name and beliefs of this fine man. However, the president has made arrogance and hypocrisy into a fine art, and once again seized the chance to pilfer the well-pilfered corpse of the civil rights activist, and to do it with unique Obama flare. In his memorial speech to Dr. King, Barack Obama managed to blame George W. Bush for the nation’s current woes, urge the nation to support both of his socialistic initiatives in government healthcare and cap and trade, and then, as if challenging the rafters of the church to fall in on him, instructed the Christian assembly as well as the nation to promote the gay and lesbian lifestyle. Yep, he did it, but then again, who said grave robbers aren’t bold?  

Since leaving the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Obama has been reported to seldom attend church in Washington, as if after leaving the warm embrace of two decades of Jeremiah Wright, nowhere else just seems like home. Regardless of Obama’s absence from a weekly spot in the church pews, he can more than carry his own weight when it comes to pick-pocketing the dearly departed to advance the agenda of liberalism.

Paul A. Ibbetson 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 books Living Under The Patriot Act: Educating A Society and Feeding Lions: Sharing The Conservative Philosophy In A Politically Hostile World. Paul is also the radio host of the Kansas Broadcasting Association’s 2008 and 2009 Entertainment Program of the Year, Conscience of Kansas airing on KSDB Manhattan 91.9 f.m. www.ibbetsonusa.com. For interviews or questions, please contact ibbetson91.9@gmail.com

Today, when we watch the courageous actions of women who stand for conservative values in this country, we often bring up names like Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, and Michelle Malkin. These women often gallantly rebuke the feminist fallacies and liberal lies of today in ways that make people proud not just to be men or women, but proud to be Americans.

 It is not just their smiles, their wit, their skirts, or their grit that make these women ladies of interest, but the culmination of these tantalizing factors with the all-important center-piece of conservative values that make their thoughts, struggles, and victories interesting to the world and of value to public discourse.

 As is the case with men, the women of today who champion conservative values owe a great deal to the stalwarts that precede them. Those that have not only battled the socialistic minions of their times, but have also forged a historic path that leads to defeating enemies of freedom with superior values. Despite my ever-eager desire to highlight Americans in these positions of distinction, when it comes to a contemporary display of leadership through conservative values, much can be gained by remembering the work of England’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

 Thatcher became the prime minister in the 1980’s during an economic slump and period of national malaise. Her party name, “The Conservative Party,” was a reflection of her values, and she spent her time fighting the trade unions and championing her beliefs in the free market. If you take a stroll among the video archives of the many interviews Thatcher took part in with the liberal mouth pieces of the 1980’s, you see the same classic confrontations as today: apathy vs. innovation, victimization vs. accountability, and pessimism vs. optimism.

 Despite being the first female prime minister in the country’s history, there was never a concern of whether or not she could carry the mantle of power in England, and her strong verbal debates during the rambunctious procedures within the House of Commons contributed to her nickname “Iron Lady.” While some in England floundered on the issue of fighting communism, Margaret Thatcher acted with bold clarity on her belief in the dangers of the Red Menace and stood against the Soviet Union for the betterment of her country. Unlike the flaccid nature found within the U.S. administration today, Thatcher refused to embolden the terrorists of her time by showing fear and apathy. Even after narrowly escaping an assassination attempt by IRA terrorist bombers on October 12, 1984, at the Grand Hotel in Brighton, England, Thatcher never flinched in her stance on strong national security.

There is little wonder that a leader of such quality would find an ally such as Ronald Reagan. Reagan, who was also rejuvenating a nation suffering from recession and liberal dysfunction, together with Thatcher, did more than perpetuate a continual relationship between countries that have shared so much history together; they showed the world the economic and social rewards of flowing conservative values.           

Thatcher spoke at length about the values of personal responsibility and standing up for what you believe in, and she embodied her beliefs for her terms as prime minister of England. It could be argued that beyond the grit of Winston Churchill, the Union Jack has never flown with such bold grace in modern times as it did under the guidance of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, a truly remarkable woman.

Paul A. Ibbetson 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 books Living Under The Patriot Act: Educating A Society and Feeding Lions: Sharing The Conservative Philosophy In A Politically Hostile World. Paul is also the radio host of the Kansas Broadcasting Association’s 2008 and 2009 Entertainment Program of the Year, Conscience of Kansas airing on KSDB Manhattan 91.9 f.m. www.ibbetsonusa.com. For interviews or questions, please contact ibbetson91.9@gmail.com

Dale Robertson, President and Founder of TeaParty.org

*** AND ***

Joel McDurmon, Author of God Versus Socialism

From AmericanVision.com: God owns everything. That is is the biblical view: “The earth is the Lord’s, and all it contains, the world, and those who dwell in it” (Ps. 24:1). God delegated ownership and dominion of property to his Image, man (Gen 1:26–28). God sanctioned the protection of private property in His law—the Ten Commandments—including a prohibition of theft (Ex. 20:15). Jesus (Matt. 19:18) and the Apostles (Acts 5; Eph. 4:28) upheld this law. The biblical witness is clear: God believes in private property, and He not only desires us but commands us to live by that rule as well. Socialism is the belief that private property is a bad idea. Socialists believe that governments should own most or all property and distribute it as government experts, scientists, politicians, or occasionally voters see fit. Under socialism, the State puts itself in the place of God and says, “The earth is the State’s, and all it contains, the world, and those who dwell in it.” Between these two systems—private property and socialism—there exists fundamental confl ict. They are fundamental rival religious systems. Choosing one, you reject the other. Either God commands and judges man, or man commands and judges man. This book illustrates this war of worldviews in the economic and political realm, and argues the necessity and superiority of choosing God over humanism’s false god, socialism, in all its many forms. [source]

...

There is little doubt that my pallet is not as refined as my liberal friends’ and I have always found it hard to watch the gourmet shows where hours are spent meticulously preparing complex dishes that then cover about three inches of the plate. I guess you can say that while the crème de la crème is still waiting for their singlemouthful of Lobster and Prawn Mornay, I will be finishing the last bites of a full plate of steak and potatoes. However, there is one very practical thing that can be learned from the fancy dishes tossed about from those exotic chefs of iron and that is the value of presentation. It is undoubtedly true that we eat first with our eyes. It is this use of presentation to the American people, our enemies, and our allies in the war on terror by the Barack Obama administration that I wish to discuss now.

Barack Obama, since becoming president, has gone on a quest to improve what he states is a negative world image of America. To do this he has ordered the closing of Guantanamo Bay despite not having a plan for where to relocate the prisoners of that facility. The President has also, without qualification, pronounced this country a land of torturers with its use of advanced interrogation techniques and now the administration poises itself to make 9-11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed the most well-known terrorist recruiter in the world by way of a lengthy public show trial. 

While all this is taking place, the Obama administration solidifies a transition back to the pre-9/11 reactive criminal justice style of opposition to terrorism. If we put the actions of Barack Obama in the war on terror on the plate of reality, how is he presenting America to those that want to kill us? Is there any doubt left in this great nation that Obama is inviting terrorists to our doorstep through these actions?

While American soldiers continue to fight abroad, Obama’s months of indecision to send the requested troops to Afghanistan in combination with a public troop withdrawaldate sends a clear message that this administration is not in the fight. The HomelandSecretary’s attempt to change the word “terrorism”into “man-caused disasters” shows our enemies that we have less of a desire to get away from promoting the politics of fear to the world, and more that this administration operates within the politics of the frightened when it comes to facing radical Islamic terrorism. When U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, you know, the guy whose business cards read “soldier of Allah,”killed American soldiers on American soil, Barack Obama’s first words were that we should not be quick to come to judgment. When Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the terrorist who attempted to blow up Northwest Flight253 is caught, instead of screaming the war cry that Americans won’t stand for this, the news is prosaic with statements that the unfortunate happening was an isolated incident in combination with Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano’s mild concern over the event and praise for post-event procedures.

The bottom line is that presentation matters, and Barack Obama would do well to embrace the Reagan philosophy of “Peace through Strength” before it is too late. To those who are put out over the idea of having to hold their bowels one hour before airport landings or being made to parade in front of full-body scanners, projecting their little naked selves at the airport, all I can say is this, “you ain’t seen nothing yet.” As the Obama administration continues to present America as a country unable to hear, speak, or think about bringing the fight to the terrorists, frequent flyers should prepare themselves for future cavity searches with their names on them and much, much more.

The answer is as obvious as a poorly cooked Lobsterand Prawn Mornay, well, more like a poorly cooked T-bone; this administration cannot handle the heat of the kitchen when it comes to fighting radical Islamic terrorists and those that aid them. While Obama twiddles and vacillates on the issue of fighting and destroying an enemy that is not going to stop, we, the American people, will be forced to eat every un-tasty dish in the form of sufferingthe consequences of presenting a weak front in the war on terror.

Paul A. Ibbetson 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 books Living Under The Patriot Act: Educating A Society and Feeding Lions: Sharing The Conservative Philosophy In A Politically Hostile World. Paul is also the radio host of the Kansas Broadcasting Association’s 2008 and 2009 Entertainment Program of the Year, Conscience of Kansas airing on KSDB Manhattan 91.9 f.m. www.ibbetsonusa.com. For interviews or questions, please contact ibbetson91.9@gmail.com

Turn on the television, switch on the radio, or open a magazine, and you are likely to hear a discussion on the continual victimization of one group or another based on race, religion, or gender at the very least. Centered within this narrative are the power-wielders with their thirst for absolute control, and the helpless victims that must continually gasp for air under the boot of domination. The Ibbetson WrightRoad Victimization Index offers an easy-to-understand guide to what happens when one group interacts with another, as well as a no-nonsense evaluation of how victimization works in the modern society.

The victimization index owes its conception to the work of Houston radio talk show hosts Damon Rexroad and James Wright (www.conservativefunhouse.com.) Pondering the ramifications of interracial violence, they came up with a numerical system of understanding whether society would react with praise or punishment to an act of violence based on factorssuch as race, gender, religious/political affiliation, etc. I have been graciously allowed to extend and develop the theoretical foundations of this unique concept.  Before we observe and apply the victimization index, it is important to understand how victimization has come to be applied in this country.

 America is a very compassionate country. The United States has traditionally been marked by the unique spirit that includes a tendency to root for the underdog, naturally supporting the victims of oppression, against those who would look to dominate a lesser group or individual for their own self-seeking purposes. After all, the story of the throwing off of oppression is truly an American tale in itself. However, the American perspective on victimization versus the modern liberal highlights vast differences in perception. The founders of this country would have seen their position as victims of England’s oppression as a short-lived situation they would resolve, and not a life-long label to gain power through manipulation.  

 Unfortunately, the term victim today has been hijacked, and its true meaning altered from a descriptor of the oppressed to a label often used by counter culture, anti-biblical, special interest, and anti-American groups. The word itself—victim—now carries less of a connotation of helplessness and need for assistance, and is more often used to describe a position of power through entitlement. In this liberal scheme, the majority progressively becomes ruled by the minority. In short, to be labeled a member of a victimized group is to gain massive formal and informal power. The victimization index allows both for both positive and negative consequences. Formal consequences include the presence (or lack) of fines and prison sentences, and informal consequences can come from news articles, television stories, reactions from family and friends, etc.

 The victimization index is a numerical reflection of the modern liberal narrative of the most oppressed to the least oppressed and goes as follows:

1.      1. Muslim Male

2.      2, Gay/Lesbian

3.      3. Black Male

4.      4. Black Female

5.      5. Hispanic Male

6.      6. White Female

7.      7. Hispanic Female

8.      8. Muslim Female

9.      9. White Male

10. 10. Conservative

From the index it is simple to determine the potential outcomes (formal and informal consequences) “based on individual-on-individual, (or group-on-group) interaction”by simply subtracting the index scores of the person who initiates an action with the person who receives the action. After subtracting the index scores, if the ending result is a positive score (+), the more positive the score, the more likely negative (formal and informal) consequences will take place. If the end result comes out to be a negative score, the more negative the score (-) the more likely positive (formal and informal) consequences will occur. The scoring is as easy as it is accurate. Let’s try a few examples and then readers can apply the victimization index as many times as needed to demonstrate its validity. How about when looking at border security, Jim Gilchrist, white male (9), calls for securing the border and creates the Minutemen Project that affects, among others, Hispanic males (5). Well, that’s 9-5=+4 which brings about negative informal consequences for Gilchrist such as being called a racist and being ambushed by radical liberals while giving university speeches.

Let’s go the other way, Barack Obama, black male (3), disparages a Cambridge police officer, white male (9) with abusing his authority against a minority professor at a university. Here the math is 3-9=-6. Note we are over half way up the positive consequences scale. So, Obama does not receive the Nobel Peace Prize for falsely injecting racial conflict, but instead is allowed to have a beer-summit with all parties involved at the White House and is later described as a grand peacemaker. Conversely, Joe “the plumber,” white male (9), asks then candidate Barack Obama, black male (3), on the campaign trail a question about business taxes and a much different situation occurs. Sorry Joe, but 9-3=+6 and it’s time to turn your life upside down. When liberal activist Jeanine Garofalo accuses Rush Limbaugh of being the spiritual leader of a racist tea-bagger movement, no matter how you do the math (white female to conservative 6-10=-4 or lesbian to conservative 2-10=-8), Garofalo is guaranteed book deals and TV show appearance invitations. As a person begins to fully comprehend the victimization index, it becomes easier to answer questions of how an identified radical Muslin, like U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, could continue to operate despite sending red flags to so many people in the military. It is not that Hasan adeptly fooled onlookers, it’s that few were in a rush to face the consequences of testing the index’s outer limits of being a white male or conservative to point the finger at today’s victim “king” in the Muslim male (10-1=+9 or 9-1=+8).    

The simple truth, is you can do this all day with the same outcome; the numbers just don’t lie. The lowest rung on the index is the conservative (10), and it is important to note that all identity, (race, sex, religion, etc.) is taken away from this person. To be a conservative in the modern world of liberal victimization is to be all but faceless. The Ibbetson WrightRoad Victimization Index is not meant to provoke, rather to describe the world as it currently exists. As important as this current reality is the evidence that this index is in continual flux. If society has the capability to alter our conception of victimization then it must be possible, it must be within our ability to lift triumph over victimization, and success over failure. I not only believe Americans can do this, but I also see it as in our true nature to do so. These are the numbers I would prefer to add up in our country’s future.   

Paul A. Ibbetson 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 books Living Under The Patriot Act: Educating A Society and Feeding Lions: Sharing The Conservative Philosophy In A Politically Hostile World. Paul is also the radio host of the Kansas Broadcasting Association’s 2008 and 2009 Entertainment Program of the Year, Conscience of Kansas airing on KSDB Manhattan 91.9 f.m. www.ibbetsonusa.com. For interviews or questions, please contact ibbetson91.9@gmail.com

If it has been a while since you were a child waiting for Christmas morning, or whatever time of day the parental green light was given for the opening of presents, you may be a little out of touch with the true magnitude of this event. For most kids, Christmas is a magical time of both gift giving and gift receiving. This holiday event has its own magic that supersedes every other day of the year. While children perceive much more than they are given credit for, they have the tendency to have a somewhat flawed reality of their parents’ economic “Santa” capabilities. That is, despite what “wish list” limitations are handed down from the parent(s), when it comes to a perusal of the gifts in view, children have a way of accessing through “blurry early morning eyes” that maybe, just maybe, every one of their special requests reside beneath the colorful wrappings of the items under the tree. Adult concerns like poorly wrapped presents don’t even register on the kid scale of importance as the wrapping paper quickly turns to confetti in the child’s rush to unearth the next gift. Ah, to be young at Christmas time.

            Eventually, subtle understandings of the limitations of Christmas begin to shatter the youth’s reality as they know it. These realities come slowly and sometimes painfully at first with hard truths, such as an understanding that no pony- not even a Shetland- will be in the last two- foot-by-two-foot box with your name on it. Eventually, the magic of Christmas from the present perspective all but fades when we become privy to the insider knowledge that Santa is sometimes constrained to a twenty-dollar limit no matter how good we have been. This is the inevitable transition we all make upon entering adulthood. It is not a bad thing, since the holiday of Christmas often takes on a higher, religious value that I believe is of much greater importance. Despite the positive nature of the transition from child to adult when it comes to Christmas, every once in a while the grown-ups should be allowed to feel that excited, childlike shiver of present expectation. To meet that need, I have come bearing gifts.

            As is the case every year the goodies from the sack are political and should be just as equally expected, some will find my treats bittersweet. I want to say up front that I would like to give most in Congress a lump of coal this year as that is the most deserved gift this season. However, I am fully aware that the coal-deserving rhinos would simply toss their presents back my way with words of righteous indignation while the Liberals would accuse me of contributing to manmade global warming. Instead, I have decided to give my gift to you, the reader, in the telling of the political form of “The Night Before Christmas.” 

‘Twas the night before Christmas, and for me and my spouse, not a creature was stirring, we both work in this house. The stocks were all hung by the chimney with care, in hopes that someday our taxes would be fair. The children were nestled all snug in their bed, blissfully ignorant of the dangers of the Fed. And mamma in her ‘kerchief settled in for a snooze, while I sharpened my knowledge, with an hour of FOX news. When out on the lawn there arose such a roar, I sprang from my bed to see if it was those hippies next door. With both stealth and quickness to the window I ran, to see in my front yard, a big ACORN van. The moon on the breast of the new-fallen snow illuminated an army of community organizers below. They were unloading their picket signs and having great fun; I smiled to my wife and said, “bring out my gun.” When, what to my wondering eyes should appear, but a “Hope and Change” sleigh, and eight big-city reindeer. With a smart and clean driver, so full of drama, I thought to myself, “could that be Barack Obama?” More rapid than vultures his minions they came, and he whistled and shouted, and called them by name. “Now Pelosi! Now Reid! Now Hillary, you vixen! On, Biden! On Grayson, On Snowe, The rhino in the mixin’. To the top of the porch! To the top of the wall! Tax away! Tax away! Tax away all! The guy in the suit whoever he be, had an eloquent voice; it was something to see. With his charismatic tone even I felt somewhat somber, until I noticed on his sleigh a big teleprompter. A plan was unfolding that fit like a glove: ACORN distracts from below, while this dirty bunch works from above. Knowing this crew was less than legit, we called the cops, grabbed our guns, but these folks wouldn’t quit. Until the moment the police arrived with a crash, a scripted voice from above told us all the good they would do with our cash.

Now my yard was in frenzy, a police/ACORN mess; tomorrow the protestors would probably sue me for their own personal stress. Within less than a moment the “Hope and Change” bunch had fled, with only a smoke trail left from their sled. I thought to myself as they flew out of site, “never trust a dirty Santa, even on Christmas Eve night.” Like a poorly wrapped present, it’s always what’s inside that matters. Just accept it with a smile. Have a very Merry Christmas.

Paul A. Ibbetson 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 books Living Under The Patriot Act: Educating A Society and Feeding Lions: Sharing The Conservative Philosophy In A Politically Hostile World. Paul is also the radio host of the Kansas Broadcasting Association’s 2008 and 2009 Entertainment Program of the Year, Conscience of Kansas airing on KSDB Manhattan 91.9 FM. For interviews or questions, please contact Ibbetson91.9@gmail.com or go to www.IbbetsonUSA.com.

“I hate Sarah Palin, I… I just hate her!” That is not an uncommon outburst from some when it comes to feelings about one of the most polarizing figures (in “liberal” minds) in the political arena. As I write about the political happenings of the former governor of Alaska, I am continually amazed at both reader responses and callers to my radio program, Conscience of Kansas, when it comes to the level of hatred that Palin generates from some in the public. So, who are the real Palin-haters? Is there a common factor that binds people who find their blood boiling when this woman’s name is mentioned? Is their argument for Palin-hate justified? I hope to create a discussion that may illuminate why some politicians just appear to be “hate-magnets.”

First, we need to separate the broad strokes many often use to answer such questions. The quick and easy answer some might give on why they hate Palin is that she is a Republican – so Democrats will oppose her when it is prudent for their political survival. This is true to an extent, but can we say that people hate the opposing party with equal ferocity? To say that is true is to say that Gerald Ford garnered the same level of hate from his haters as Ronald Reagan did, or that George H.W. Bush made the hate meter go to the same level as his son George W. Bush. Yes, that’s right, the differences are huge. Simply put, there is opposition, there is hate, and then there is a surreal, supercharged, bionic loathing that appears to go on forever – as if powered by the static energy of the dark energizer bunny. I call it “Palin-hate.”

If we look at the 2008 presidential race we see a large disparity in the way many people treated the McCain/Palin ticket. Shortly after Sarah Palin joined the ticket, John McCain became all but forgotten by his adversaries who were drawn to Sarah Palin like hordes of angry moths to the flame. It would be accurate to say that from those that wished the McCain/Palin ticket to fail, John McCain drew at best opposition, while Sarah Palin drew pure hatred.

Many run to the argument that since Palin is a woman, the foundation for the hatred of her must be a product of male chauvinism. This is laughable, as the ironic cruelty of the matter happens to be that Palin is attacked more by feminists than by men. Cathy Young’s 2008 Wall Street Journal article, Why Feminists Hate Sarah Palin, touches upon the topic of Palin’s violation of feministic principles in her failure to terminate her special needs child, along with her adoration for her husband and her recognition of his importance to the family unit. So, it can be said that Sarah Palin is attacked as a woman, but neither for the reasons nor by the people one would traditionally think to be leveling such attacks. Even with the feminists out for Palin blood, they are only a small piece in a large puzzle. Further examples help to show that Palin-hate goes well beyond being only a “woman thing.” 

  Compare for a moment the 1984 presidential ticket of Mondale/Ferraro. Here we see another female vice presidential candidate attempting to break what is reported to be “the glass ceiling” holding women back from the highest levels of achievement. However, despite over two decades of “liberal-progressivism,” Ferraro was treated with much greater respect and professionalism in 1984 than Palin would be in 2008. Ferraro’s biggest scandals were based on personal tax issues and the business ties of her husband John Zaccaro. As unfortunate as it is, these problems are seen in American politics are all too commonly, and certainly should not be written off as a “woman thing.” The media’s feeding frenzy over how many skirts the McCain/Palin team would pay for the vice presidential candidate to wear during the campaign alone exceed the worst female-based attacks Geraldine Ferraro had to face. Even liberal Democrats Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, hate-magnets in their own right, are not hated in the same way as Palin. That is, they receive more mainstream alpha critiques of being power-hungry and overbearing. Not so for Palin.

Joel Sheppard of NewsBusters reports a more common example of Palin-hate in a documented interview with Hollywood star Martha Stewart as she spoke to HLN's "Showbiz Tonight" producer Jenny D'Attoma. Stewart asserted that Palin was “dangerous” as a person in politics, while also being “boring” and “confused.” Note that the minimizing personal characteristics of being confused and boring still qualify Palin, in the eyes of Stewart, as having qualities of a “dangerous” person. Even President Barack Obama, who sits in the highest position of power in U.S. politics, receives a different level of scrutiny. Those on both sides of the fence that have extreme critiques of the Presidentaccuse him of being either the Son of God or the Antichrist himself. Either way, Obama gets top billing as a being with abilities and powers above the average person’s, while Palin, deemed just as dangerous, manages to be with the not-so-super powers of boringness and confusion.

I have come to the conclusion that Palin-hate is more complex than originally thought. Even if it originated predominately with liberals, it appears to be comprised of multiple layers of negative narratives. For instance, those who say they hate Palin because they think she does not have enough experience to govern most likely have additional negative narratives influencing their level of anger over such issues as her conservative values, non-feminist qualities, anti-global warming views, and the list goes on and on. It is the layering of negative narratives constructed by Palin detractors that create the extreme emotions that we see from many today. While I know there are still many questions to be answered on this topic, I hope that this analysis will open the door for future discussions on the phenomenon known as “Palin-hate.”

Paul A. Ibbetson 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 books Living Under The Patriot Act: Educating A Society and Feeding Lions: Sharing The Conservative Philosophy In A Politically Hostile World. Paul is also the radio host of the Kansas Broadcasting Association’s 2008 and 2009 Entertainment Program of the Year, Conscience of Kansas airing on KSDB Manhattan 91.9 FM. For interviews or questions, please contact Ibbetson91.9@gmail.com or go to www.IbbetsonUSA.com.