“Save the whales, save the snails!” Comedian George Carlin had it right when he talked about the audacity and craziness of some to misplace priorities on where to put a helping hand when it comes to people and the planet. When it comes to organizations that ‘break from the norm’ the most, when balancing the value between people and animals, PETA has to be near the top of the list.

PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, was founded in 1980. On the periphery, the organization seems somewhat benign, if not wholesome, in their stated mission of working to decrease the abuse of animals. If you dig a little deeper, you would find that the organization believes that animals should not only be saved from cruel experiments, but also from being used by man for clothing, or even to be eaten. It doesn’t take very long for a grounded individual to begin looking askew at this radical leftist organization, and why not? In reality, to endorse PETA, one has to take oneself several steps down the food chain.

We can see that humans are not sowelcome in PETA’s view of things, with their continuous onslaught on free market organizations, such as Kentucky Fried Chicken. Despite the organization’s charges of cruelty to chickens by the KFC restaurant chain, their own organization statement that animals should not be consumed by humans brings thinking people to the simple fact that KFC will never be able to throw PETA ‘a bone’ they will accept. Despite this fact, PETA members go straight to the gutter to attempt to save potential chickens in distress. Like a deranged cult group, the young and impressionable (almost exclusively female) are recruited, stripped, and sent all but naked into the streets to decry the fate of a chicken, bird, rabbit, you name it. In what should enrage the feminist groups around the globe, PETA objectifies partially nude women in bondage-like ‘cage’ depictions that reduce women to nothing more than cheap sex objects. In other words, PETA attempts to swap one form of ‘meat’ with another form of the same. This activity is, in a word, shameful.

The depths that this organization will go to are potentially limitless. PETA recently admonished President Barack Obama for killing an annoying fly during a television interview. While this may be the toughest foe that President Obama actually takes on, PETA made it clear that the fly ranks as high as any creature under their protection from the abuse of man. To top off the lunacy, PETA sent the president a “capture and release” device for future fly encounters.

Groups such as PETA warrant more than the simple ‘eye-roll’ we often give radical leftist organizations. In my opinion, PETA’s bizarre equating of human and animal as being equal reflects not so much a love for the creatures of the planet, but an underlying hatred of humans. The fact that they actively denigrate their followers is only further proof of a twisted philosophy in action. Any group or organization that diminishes the worth and value of mankind, be it to certain religions, social groups, race-baiting groups, or even those cute little animals, should be a concern to everyone.

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 recently found myself in the childhood home of Dwight D. Eisenhower in Abilene, Kansas. It was a tremendous experience to hear the creek of the floorboards, to see the handcrafted furniture, and to feel the texture of the wallpaper (even though that is probably against the rules for visitors) in the boyhood home of one of the most important historical figures of the United States. They say that the Eisenhowers lived on the wrong side of the tracks, but you can’t tell that today. What you can tell, is that the Eisenhower family home was not a place of extravagant frills, but of family necessity, with a delicate dash of austere country beauty.

It was from my visit to Abilene, Kansas, that I thought myself bold enough to compare the man they called “Ike” to the newest sensation on the presidential stage, Barack Obama. Some would say that it is not fair to make the comparison of these two presidents and that the list of reasons might possibly reach infinity - and to some degree that’s a valid argument. However, there are some situations in the country now facing Obama that are very similar to those which were faced by Eisenhower that had defined him as a leader. That is, the current threats to the national security of the United States, and the manner in which the President is dealing with them. Let’s throw political parties to the side and talk about what really matters in the crunch from a leader: experience, judgment, and character.

The United States is once again faced with a foe that desires our total destruction. This time the foe is radical Islamic extremists, and it is here that we see a tremendous separation between the experience, judgment, and character, of Barack Obama and that of Dwight D. Eisenhower. Barack Obama seems all too willing to talk to our enemies about America’s wrongdoings, and then appears to be overly restrained when freedom-seeking people challenge those same totalitarian regimes. If the same situation of election violence that has recently taken place in Iran were to have befallen Eisenhower, would we see the same vague and flaccid statements of condemnation that have sprung forth from the lips of Obama? I seriously doubt it. In fact, if we are honest, Eisenhower had probably made more clutch decisions before becoming President than Barack Obama or most people have had to make in their entire life.

This is not to say that Eisenhower was a war hawk, because that would be far from the truth. Eisenhower had the same distaste for war that entails most soldiers, but he had a keen eye for sizing up the enemy. He had celebrated abilities that are entrusted to a special few that bear the burden of momentous decisions that will affect the nation, where failure is not an option. It was this kind of tested judgment, combined with Eisenhower’s internal character, which placed him in the historical position of Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in World War II. With a humble grace, Eisenhower shined in this harsh war environment with its extreme pressures that require not only experience and good judgment, but also the strength of character that comes from knowing the righteousness of freedom, and the rightness of America.

It is in this arena that Eisenhower excelled and that, I believe, Obama will fail us. As Barack Obama spends his precious time talking about the challenges of the day by noting the shortcomings of the past administration, Eisenhower went to work. As Obama rubs shoulders with Hollywood elites and runs the late night talk show circuit, Eisenhower addressed the bottom line needs of the country. As Obama triples the country’s debt and nationalizes the free market system, Eisenhower gave us economic prosperity after the bloodiest of wars.

There is no doubt that Obama would win an oratory flare contest against the thirty-fourth President of the United States, and would most likely come off more flamboyant after an evening of chit chat with Jay Leno or David Letterman; but when it comes to substance, and a leader for troubled times, I still like Ike.

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.

For the people of Europe who faced the Black Death in the middle 1300s, their lives before the plague appeared in many respects the same as for modern people today. People worked in the city shops, or the rural fields, in order to sell their goods to provide for their families and loved ones. People had desires, passions, unfulfilled dreams, and all the disastrously wonderful things that kept the people of those times, as well as folks today, from getting to bed at night or from thinking straight throughout the day. We like to think that we, as a technologically advanced people, are a world away from those Europeans of old. But, in reality, we are very much the same. Trade the modern day car for the horse and cart and, before long, we can find historical equivalents from the past to today for everything, right down to the iPod. In short, when we cut through the glossy coverings of the period, from then to now, people are people, plague is plague, and death is death. The truth is that simple - and that deadly.

I say this because America today faces another “Black Death” that is as elusive and evasive as the plague of Europe. However, this plague does not attack the glands and rot the flesh, as did the Black Death, but instead it clouds the mind and hardens the heart. This plague is none other than the disease of liberalism. As with the stories of the diseased and flea-ridden rats, nestled quietly in trade ships traveling to Europe from the Crimean port of Caffa, we see that terrible things often come in little packages. Liberalism is often portrayed as the small harmless aggression that should be allowed to fester in the corner of the room. After all, if we just spread a few flowers, no one will notice.

As with America today, Europe was ill-prepared to deal with the disease at hand. The Black Death, as with liberalism today, served to build individual distrust and division among the people, which weakened everyone’s ability to find a true cure. In Europe, as panic began to build among the populace, friends and family members broke from one another, as each individual was considered a potential carrier. Blame for the disease was reduced to a vile finger-pointing game and the participation in wild and dangerous miracle cures. In the end, desperation walked hand in hand with apathy, and the Black Death ate its fill of Europe before lurching to parts unknown.

People are people, plague is plague, and death is death. Today, liberalism has spread its foothold in America and has expanded itself to the point where it now literally blows in the wind. It burns the eyes of what few patriots remain, and fills the lungs of the next generation with reckless disregard, as did the Black Death of old. For most of those struck with the Black Death of Europe, death was painful and certain. For those whose minds have been infected with the disease of liberalism, there is no sweet release of death, as liberalism is the gift that keeps on giving.

That is, in part, how the disease has grown to its current epidemic stage. You see, people infected with liberalism become “carriers,” and most often for life. In America, it now has become fashionable to be a “carrier” of liberalism, and we have come to the point where it is all but necessary to test “positive” to gain inclusion into financial, social, and educational circles. I know that is a painful statement, but it’s painfully true. Today’s society is now dangerously close to the brink of disaster. Inevitably, if we do not address our own fleas and rats, the “black death” of our age will knock upon each and every door in this country, and it’s knocking now.

Want to know what is worse than losing a long, grueling race for the White House? Don’t ask John McCain - ask Sarah Palin. Since the moment the Alaskan Governor decided to throw her hat in the ring as the 2008 Republican Vice Presidential candidate, she has re-defined what it means to be the candidate of the extreme. For conservatives, she injected a brief moment of pride, if not hope, in what was a more or less a pre-destined losing bid by John McCain to become the next president of the United States. While Palin brought a spark of enthusiasm to the McCain campaign, she truly unleashed the “Dogs of War” from liberals around the nation, who were driven into an anger-frenzy by her fresh face, conservative ideas, and vision for the future.

Even after John McCain’s defeat to the Obama machine had long been verified, the battle to destroy Sarah Palin continues. On one of these battle fronts has been a continual character assassination that transcends the petty framing of the usage of wardrobe funds which made such grand headlines during the campaign and has now been elevated to accusations that Palin is in fact a plagiaristic word-thief. As recently reported in the June 9, 2009 Associated Press, liberal blogger, Geoffrey Dunn, accused the Alaskan Governor of stealing the words from a 2005 Newt Gingrich speech in a recent introduction the Governor made in Alaska for talk show host Michael Reagan.

Like a typical liberal, Dunn found a friendly venue at the Huffington Post to spew his slanderous statements, and then later edited his post to soften his accusation of Palin as a plagiarist to someone who failed to give complete and proper attribution. In retrospect, Dunn grudgingly reported later that Palin had given verbal accreditation to Newt Gingrich in her speech. Rich Tyler, Newt Gingrich’s spokesman stated that Dunn’s accusation had the validity of a joke.

It would be easy to throw this incident on the growing stack of failed liberal attempts to disparage the integrity of conservative politicians and just move on. However, for the sake of what may be more than just decency, let’s take a moment to look at why Sarah Palin still warrants the target of liberal hatred at this stage of the game. Despite some pretty major problems within the Republican Partythat linger today, Sarah Palin remains a beloved figure among conservatives, despite the defeat of John McCain,that has placed the nation at the hands of Barack Obama. It is the same attributes that naturally draw conservatives toward her that keep angry liberals continually attempting to destroy her. That is, Palin was following (and continues to follow) the conservative values of small government, tax cuts, oil drilling, strong defense, and the list goes on and on. She does all this as a beautiful independent woman, who defies the modern liberal logic of the day and embraces the traditional conservative values of the family and the right of the unborn to live. In short, she makes liberals sick. In truth, she scares the hell out of them. Yes, for liberals like Dunn and other lackeys of the same ilk, people like Sarah Palin bring a fear worse than words to their world. It’s a fear that this country might still possibly take a turn back to its traditional values of the free market, controlled spending, accountability and American pride. For liberals like Dunn, this is a fear I would like to bring to fruition, and yes, you can quote me.      

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

President Barack Obama’s nomination of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a New York Judge of Hispanic decent, has brought about another unique firestorm that may once again define the characteristic make-up of the new Obama administration. While many people have been concerned over Sotomayor’s derogatory statement, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life…” (made on October 26, 2001, at the University of California, Berkeley), others rightfully wonder if her decision to avoid addressing the affirmative action related fireman promotion case in New Haven Connecticut is another example of impaired judgment or, even worse, racial bias. Sotomayor’s court decisions on gun control rights, as well as other issues, make her a highly questionable candidate for the life-long position of Supreme Court Justice. If we wish to see the most relevant point of this debate, then we must stop with the banter that is most expected and encouraged at this time, which includes nothing more than a repetition of Sotomayor “this” and Sotomayor “that,” and many other versions of the same old “blah, blah, blah.”

            This cold reality is not a shock to anyone who is thinking. No matter what level of pleasure or pain it brings you, Barack Obama is the President, and he can nominate whomever he wants to the Supreme Court. The fact that a President, who was previously the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, would bring forth a jurist mirroring his own ideals is not a shock, it’s simply inevitable. With that said, the Sotomayors of the world are a dime a dozen, and a version of this candidate for Supreme Court Justice would have been plucked from the well by this President at one point or another.

            The real issue of concern centers on how we are to evaluate individuals who vie for positions in government that will have great ramifications on our lives in the future. The Sotomayor nomination is currently framed by Democrats forwarding two major points. The first is that, as like Obama, the minority voice of Sotomayor will be a voice of compassion in a place where compassion has been lacking. Similar to the case of Obama, the personal judgments, biases, and work history of Sotomayor, are to be placed far behind the shadow of the historical, ethnic, racial, and gender observances that this promotion can bring.

            The second framing point being brought forth by Democrats in the Sotomayor case is even more sinister. It’s pretty simple: support our candidate or you’re a racist.  Democrat muscle, from theCongressional Hispanic Caucus Chairwoman, Nydia Velázquez, to New York Senator, Chuck Schumer, are making Republicans the “offer they can’t refuse” (without the severed horse head under the linen), in that failing to endorse Obama’s Latina nominee will be the death knell to Republicans when it comes to future Hispanic votes. These are Mafia-style threats that have little substance, and are shameful examples of the warfare being waged by the Obama administration - and its surrogates. Will Republicans simply roll over for this candidate, or will they take advantage of an opportunity to address pertinent issues of relevance? An issue of true relevance, which I sometimes wonder if it is still remembered, is that the ability to fit the job description supersedes the personal characteristics of the individual. The substance of a person’s work history will always be a better measurement of evaluation than the “flash” appeal of making history by promoting people based on characteristics they have no control over, which also have no bearing on their ability to be compassionate, intelligent, productive contributors to the tasks and responsibilities they are charged to fulfill. This is the point of relevance that may be lost within the Sotomayor debate. If we the American people allow the current framing of what is important when evaluating our leaders to continue, we most certainly will see more Sotomayors at higher echelons of power and, therefore, we must accept that will we will also see many more Barack Obama’s.  

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 91.9 f.m,  www.ibbetsonusa.com. For interviews or questions, please contact ibbetson91.9@gmail.com

                                                                                              Barack Obama in a Christ-like pose                   with a crown of thorns    

FeedingLions is a book that comes clean on just why conservatives and liberals can’t get in the same room without a fight breaking out. Using a healthy dose of heartland humor, the author takes readers on a journey of discovery that will anger liberals and awaken the dormant conservative who sleeps in the majority of the nation.

FEEDING LIONS By Paul A. Ibbetson

Click to get your autographed copy here: