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.

For all who have challenged the notion that man is single-handedly destroying the planet with everything from America’s industrial system to your shiny SUV– all the way down to your uncle’s favorite cow “Gertrude” on the farm, take a moment to lower your shields as the opposition is about to be sent on the run. As reported by Jon Lott on FOXNews.com, validated e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England show an extended conspiracy by scientists to hide facts that would challenge man-made global warming and to purposely skew data presented to the public. These e-mails implicate scientists working closely with the IPCC (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—established by the United Nations), which puts the whole mess right in the area of Al Gore-Country.

Will there be a liberal spin placed on the fact that the public has been lied to about one of the biggest issues of our time – human participation in the fate of the planet? As reported by Jon Lott, the answer appears to be that it is already happening as one alleged conspirator, Professor Phil Jones, attempted to explain one of his e-mail communications that included the use of the word “trick” in a sentence, which he says was really meant to mean “solve a problem.” If that makes you laugh, then you’re normal because it is a terrible attempt to hide his culpability, especially when he uses the word “trick” in this sentence: "…trick of adding in the real temps to each series...to hide the decline [in temperature]." Even though I am a former criminal investigator, you don’t have to be one to see that these communications are about deceiving the public to promote a false agenda.

In fact, the evidence of the man-made global warming hoax found in these communications is less of a shocking occurrence than it was an inevitable outcome. A growing number of people, both laymen and those in the fields of science, have been joining the ranks of the man-made global warming skeptics. Why? Because the premise by which the man-made global warming scenario has been laid out from the very beginning has always stunk of manipulation and coercion. When Al Gore came out with his movie An Inconvenient Truth, his official website asked people to sign a pledge to see the film. Think about it – that’s weird. We pledge allegiance to the flag, we pledge to donate to charities, we pledge to be faithful to our partners in marriage, but pledging to watch a movie on man-made global warming? It smacks of coercion. Even those who made the pledge of man-made global warming allegiance should have been struck back to their senses that the fix was in when Al Gore himself, after incessant speeches on the need for the public to curb energy use, was found by the records of the Nashville Electric Service in 2007 to be using more than 20 times the national average of Kilowatt hours for his personal home. Wow, when the pushers themselves don’t believe in their product, it is a red flag you can’t overlook.

For those who were still not swayed that something was really wrong with the global warming climate pitch, let’s take our observations to court. Justice Burton of the High Court of London ruled that Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth had nine significant errors and should be seen as a political movie as opposed to a scientific movie. This is what we call a trend of deception. The next thing that placed me (and many others) on alert was the complete intolerance for questions and debate on the validity ofthe subject.  Following Al Gore’s statement of the existence of scientific consensus supporting man-made global warming and his declaration of the “end of the debate,” those who questioned the new Gore Law were treated as heretics. I knew as I spoke directly on my radio show, the Conscience of Kansas, that many of my guests had braved ridicule within their professions to question the idea that we were destroying the planet. Some of these individuals included: physicist Fred Singer; researchers Christopher Horner, Lawrence Solomon, and E. Calvin Beisner; documentarian Phelim McAleer; and many others. These people had the fortitude to challenge the faulty science and the lack of tolerance for debate. Although I know that the machine of ‘Big Environment’ is not yet defeated and that those invested in “going-green” – be it for wholesome or corrupt reasons – will not easily give up their plans for our future; I think the skeptics deserve to at least take a momentary bow.

What has been gained by the Climate Research Unit e-mail(s) discovery is another valuable exhibit in the growing undeniable evidence that the promotion of man-made global warming is nothing more than an expensive ruse. What has been lost is that over the course of exposing this scam, true environmentalism may be tainted. The opportunity to deal with environmentalist issues with pro-growth, pro-capitalistic measures that will ensure America’s economic future as well as our responsibility to be good stewards of the planet may very well be more limited in the near future. These limitations may come about as the product of public sentiment after everyone has full knowledge of the potential green crimes committed by those who would try to force the world to follow a political agenda under the guise of saving the planet.

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.

What do we do now? That is the question that is building up like a tidal wave from a nation that finds itself at the precipice of national self destruction. The nation is slowly coming out of a deep, fitful, medicated sleep of apathy, brought about in part by the public’s ingestion of the socialistic narcotic of Barack Obama’s “yes, we can” philosophy, with all its negative side effects. I have pondered what might have been the thoughts of those sleeping aboard the fated Titanic as it began its descent to the ocean’s floor. Think about waking up from a sound sleep to feel cold water rapidly rising around you and not know why it was happening or what to do next. Think of the growing thoughts of doom and helplessness as options disappear as fast as the rising water. If you can grasp in your mind the cold feeling of helplessness and the dark embrace of impending doom of the Titanic catastrophe, then you can certainly identify with the current mindset of this country. Yes, for the first time in a long time, the nation itself is recognizing its own mortality as it watches itself plunge into the abyss. The echo across the land is like that of a canon, but despite the glaring volume, it’s the same question that always springs forth from those in dire straits, “what do we do now?”

The way to the survival of this country is as simple as it is obvious; however, to illuminate the path, let me remove some of the most obscuring obstacles that serve to misdirect us. First, we must understand that the terrible state this country is in is not simply the product of the skewed leadership of Barack Obama. Yes, it is most likely an understatement to simply say that Barack Obama has made a bad situation worse within this country. It is probably also an understatement to say that Barack Obama will replace Jimmy Carter as the worst U.S. President of modern time, but to focus any more energy here is to stray from where you and I – this country – will find the answers of importance, the answers we need.

We often think that the path to victory is found in securing our economic future, or to maintain our defenses against the radicals around the world that wish to destroy us. These are no doubt important pursuits, but in struggling to address these issues, we often find ourselves wandering further and further from that which is most important. It is in these dark days that Americans should remember what has brought this country riches more precious than gold, and security beyond what can ever be acquired at the end of a weapon. America’s bounty comes from the endless blessings of the Lord. As the idea of the “American Dream” has traveled around the planet, it is nothing short of a living example of God’s wondrous gift of prosperity to our country. The record of America’s defense of its people, even in the face of some of the world’s most dangerous foes, has been nothing more than the validation of the age old truth that “when God stands with a nation, who can stand against it?”

Traditionally, Americans have set an example to the world of a country that knows where its true strength comes from, and have been humble in the knowledge of this blessing. That same spirit has made America the most giving country – and the country with the most to give. Those that have wished to paint America in a negative light, to question the righteous majesty by which we are guided, often point to our mistakes. They do this with great effect as America has had many instances in which it has fallen from grace, but despite our low points, we have remained a country that continues to stumble along the path of God’s word toward the city on a hill. That is, until now.

Just as many are awakening to the deceptions of the Obama Administration, this country must open its eyes to the fact that we have deceived ourselves. We have allowed the country to decline to such a state that we find it normal to practice such sacrilegious behavior, like: a) God is too controversial to be placed in the public square, where children are taught, or where this country’s rule of law is exercised, and b) we tolerate, if not promote, the sinful arrogance that man commands the heavens and controls the weather of the planet with the same trivial toys the Lord has placed in our hands. Together we share the responsibility for the loathsome practice of shunning personal accountability and for teaching the demented philosophy that none can fail, while ensuring that all do. How disappointing to the Lord we must be in our ignorance and arrogance.

Plans, budgets, laws, parties, politics, and elections; these are all important things and I spend an abundant amount of time dwelling and debating the entire lot, but, I tell you they are nothing when compared with our relationship with the almighty living God. For a nation that feels lost, it feels so because it is. So, what do we do now? I would hope for the poor soul that found himself in the rising waters of the Titanic what I hope for America today as it finds itself drowning in the waters of moral relativism and religious defiance. To survive as a nation, to prosper again, we must fall to our knees in humble recognition that we have lost our way and request forgiveness and guidance. This is the path to victory.

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

Sarah Palin is back in the public spot light with her new bestselling book, Going Rogue.At the moment, on just about every television channel, one can view the very photogenic Palin being quizzed about her new book and her plans for the future. Of course, the big question that comes up at some point in every conversation is - will she run for the top spot in the next presidential election? While trying to pick the person that will be the Republican Presidential Candidate in 2012 is a pre-mature question, who among us, both liberal and conservative, can’t say it is not a tantalizing topic to discuss? For conservatives, it is one of the most important chances to correct this Titanic-style course of destruction that Barack Obama has chartered for the country. For liberals, it’s a chance to hate a new conservative presidential candidate with all the energy they can muster. Good times.

As is often the case, I would direct attention away from the tantalizing and back to the practical, which (in this case) still brings us to the case of Sarah Palin. I believe that Palin’s re-emergence has a fundamental importance that should be grasped. However, the big difference here, and probably one of the biggest of big differences from the current public focus, is that I believe it has little to do with Palin as President. Let me explain.

As Sarah Palin emerges again as a potential political player, we will see an inevitable, grotesque, re-enactment of the Palin attacks, the likes of which had never before been heaped upon man, woman, or beast in the political realm. One should remember the eerie depths liberals plunged to when degrading Palin as a political candidate, by attacking not just her political views, but by attacking her as a wife and mother. We should not forget that, despite all the liberal rhetoric being brought forth promoting the rightness of empowering diversity, the left—and all its agents—attacked Sarah Palin with reckless ferocity for attempting to find a place among the highest echelons of power as an intelligent, strong woman. The fact that Palin is physically beautiful appears to be only additional salt in the wounds of liberals that feel she has transgressed against them. For this sin, liberal cheap-shooters, such as Newsweek, will continue to frame Palin’s physical beauty as a detriment to her internal qualities. It’s as unprofessional and demeaning as Barack Obama’s “lipstick on a pig” statement from the 2008 Presidential Election primary. Despite the wrongness of these actions, the public should be prepared for more – and for it to hit lower guttural depths. As well, the microscope will be placed on every potential political plan, policy, and procedure that will cross Palin’s lips in the next few months and after intense scrutiny, inevitably, she will be found lacking in some category. Ah, to be human.

After sifting through all the glitter and gloom of the Palin story, the practical matter of importance still boils down to action based on values. It is here, in that private place of contemplation, that we have to ask ourselves the value, if any, of making rogue vogue? This is where you might want to lean forward and apply additional focus to the article. The questions of fundamental importance are whether or not the Palin philosophy of following conservative values outweighs political prestige and party? If doing what you feel is right is worth losing title and station, if placing God and family before the well-embraced public sentiment of moral relativism and political expediency, is it worth the pain? Is it not good enough to simply do what is right, despite tomorrows poll rating? Is it worth it to go rogue? I must admit, I was among the many that questioned Palin’s decision to step down from the position as Governor of Alaska. The thought of “finish what you start,” was heavy in my mind, in combination with the fact that I knew liberals, the same liberals who were heaping fraudulent law suits on her and the state of Alaska, would later attack her for stepping down. My second point is now coming to fruition; however, I may have been wrong to believe that Sarah Palin failed to finish what she had started. In fact, she may be in roguish fashion illuminating the fact that conservative values have validity alone, and only find certain limited facilitation through the political process. The echo of Palin’s gubernatorial step-down surely also reflects the Republican Party’s ultimate need for conservatives and not vice versa. If any of these ideals are true, and I believe they are, then it is worth saying that gold, glory, governorships and dare I say, even presidencies, should be the fruits of this scarce righteous mentality. These ideals have become almost foreign today, and most certainly could be termed rogue.

Will Sarah Palin run for President? Can she win? Only time will tell. What we can say, in the here-and-now, is that despite who faces the Barack Obama presidential machine in 2012, this person would be wise to place conservative values as their mainstay. This candidate would be best served to look above for guidance—as opposed to opinion polls and the press—and allow followers to be drawn to his/her true character, and not to peripheral qualities that have no true relevance. Is this mentality rogue? If it is, then let us make rogue vogue by every means possible, with the greatest of speed, and with the highest amounts of fervor for the betterment of the country – while we still can.

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.

As has been the case for many years, and especially most recently, the charge is that conservatives are falsely railing against a straw man in their observations and accusations leveled against the activities of liberals, and the Obama administration. Before I address this situation directly, let’s take a moment to look at what is meant by the term “straw man.”

The concept of the “straw man” is the observation of the deceptive capability of humankind. When an individual wants to divert attention from a true issue, a false or irrelevant topic is created and attacked, and by doing so, advantage (if not victory) is achieved through such an argument. This is a mixture of misdirection and deception, and in layman’s terms, a battle waged against things that just aren’t there. Defending against the straw man charge is problematic. For conservatives that have the fortitude to stand up to the Obama administration’s attacks on this country, it is not just the repercussions brought forth by angry liberals that are a problem. Going beyond those attacks is the challenge for conservatives to constantly disprove the straw man; that is, that the threats facing this nation being brought forth by the most aggressive socialistic pushers of modern day are more than the fictitious creations of a minority party wishing to grab back the reins of political power.

When it comes to battling the accusations from the left that conservatives are simply attacking a straw man, the strategy liberals have in play is for those who wish to stand up for this country to spend endless time trying to prove the obvious - that this administration is about to destroy the country. This is the epitome of hypocrisy, even from the left which has hit some really highs lately, hitting below the belt pertaining to the best interest of this country. This does not mean that illusionary constructions are not taking place to deceive the public. What it does mean is that the biggest scams on reality today are not coming from the demonized gun toting, Bible-clinging conservatives. Here are the real culprits and the straw man illusionary constructions they are spinning, and why they must be stopped sooner - not later.

The biggest false reality and misdirection that is being framed across the United States is that we, the American people, are living in a state of normalcy and the greatest nation on Earth is being guided by a President, with a supporting cast of politicians, who aspire to promote the continual prosperity of a capitalistic Christian nation. The most deadly of illusions being forwarded daily to the public, and with extreme efficiency, I believe, is the notion that this nation can survive any and all actions of abuse heaped upon it. It’s time to remove the veil of deceit before the face of this country and let all the straw men burn until nothing but the truth stands before us. The truth, unfortunately, is that we are all in big trouble. As the nation goes, we go. 

In a country where the waters of the “well of the benefit of the doubt” run deep, President Barack Obama has drawn every drop in his short tenure as commander and chief of the United States. From his lips alone, he has rejected America as a Christian nation and washed his hands of the Biblical (if not humanity’s) responsibility for the unborn. This same president has indebted the nation to our economic opponents to amounts the human mind can no longer fathom, and the numbers keep increasing by the second. Through his minions found in the radical, left-leaning Democrat Party, this president is attempting to socialize the very existence of every man, woman, and child within our borders and bring them to their knees as modern-day slaves.

The question of the acceptance of a fabricated illusion of normality versus the cold reality of impending doom and chaos is nothing new as it has been the unfortunate choice for people throughout history, such as the Romans in the time of Caligula, the Soviets in the time Stalin, the Germans in the time of Hitler, the Iraqis in the time of Hussein, and now the Americans in the time of Obama. The tyrants, methods of destruction, and illusions spun to quell revolt may change but the inevitable outcomes remain the same. Slavery, pain, suffering, economic and physical death have consistently been the end product.

The American people stand in a historical place where others have been before. A place where once a myriad of choices stood, having been squandered, now only the most basic remain. As those before us have had to decide, we can choose to languish in an illusion that all is well, that all will be well, until the bloody end, or we can collectively take up the mantle of responsibility and meet the forces of destruction and unseat them from power and stop the deadly tide that will inevitably destroy us. Let all the straw men burn with their adjoining deceptions despite who may be their creators as this country can no longer afford illusionary constructions when our current situation is so near, real, and dangerous.

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

As conservatives and the Republican Party, the party most able to bring back the misplaced spirit of this country, fight to find both their bearings and their grit, they are also faced with the not so wanted task of culling out those that will inevitably hurt the movement. The sometimes bandied about notion that movements should take all comers to expand their ranks is fool hearty, at best, and probably the most often whispered advice from the enemy, at worst. For liberals and the Democrat Party, which have toiled over the last few decades to become one and the same, the painful truth is that America is a center-right nation. That’s right, conservatives have the actual physical numbers to win elections, pass meaningful laws, set their agenda, and even course correct the dire straits this country finds itself in today. So, if today’s liberal cannot numerically defeat mainstream America at the polls, who can? The painful truth is that the biggest culprit, the most accurate monkey wrench thrower attributing to conservative political defeats, has been, and will always be, the missteps of conservatives themselves as they attempt to retrieve what is rightfully theirs: victory.

There are a handful of political poisons that conservatives fall victim to swallowing that inevitably lead to “death” at the polls. I could talk about the lack of political fortitude (call it like it is), or even the inability, to articulate a clear and concise message to the people in a world where cryptic political double-speak is considered graceful, but for today, the focus is placed on the importance of who should be, and who should not be, allowed to walk under the banner of the Conservative Movement. Liberals always hate the analogy, “birds of a feather flock together,” because if you walk through their “coop” you will always find some very dirty birds. However, for liberals, the saying becomes so much more valid when the associations are linked to conservatives - and the “filthy flockers” that sneak in to snuggle under their banners.

The worst of these groups, when it comes to poisonous association residue, are the publicly identified “Conspiracy Theorists.”  Surely, you’ve heard of some of them, like the Loose-Changers, and the 9-11 Truthers, among others. These small but vocal gangs of self-pronounced sleuths eagerly hunt and report by way of covert cyber space chat rooms, and doomsday-style websites, the secret, evil, underhanded workings of the government, private businesses, the rich, the poor, foreign operators, hell, everybody. While these groups, like the farthest of the left liberals should be given their free speech chance to tell the world the benefits of tinfoil for blocking government created mind control radio waves, they are the rotten apple in the conservative barrel.

Here is why. The most obvious is the group association that those who wish to hurt a conservative movement can make at every turn. For example, when a handful of uninvited 9-11 Truthers show up at a TEA Party, the liberal media places the conspiracy nuts at the top of their reports and frames the entire event from that vantage point. Is that fair? Absolutely not, but it happens all too often. Conspiracy theorists, in effect, become the “low hanging fruit” when it comes to diminishing the credibility of Americans who wish to restore this country back to its original foundations. Think about it. For the liberal media - in the tank for Barack Obama, why should they spend their time cutting out footage of African Americans rejecting the current “hope and change” fallacy of the administration, or any of the other myriad of examples of the legitimacy of the TEA Party grassroots movements, when they can tape 5 minutes of conspiracy nuts explaining how former President George Bush and Vice-President Cheney set satchel charges in the World Trade Center.  

Part of the expansion of the conspiracy theory industry has come from the “crazy for profit” vendors, such as Alex Jones. Jones, who has created the website infowars.com, which is part X-Files, part National Treasure, and part pure crapola, has found a way to turn a dollar - breeding anti-everything distrust. The dark side of the Ron Paul philosophy often finds a home among the clickables on Alex Jones’ website. What you will find when you cruise the Alex Jones website, as well as the other conspiracy sites that espouse the “everybody is out to get us” mentality, is anger, distrust, paranoia, and all the building blocks of self generated doom and gloom.

What you will not find is the conservative message of hope for the country or the positive idealism of Lincoln, Eisenhower, and that of the beloved Ronald Reagan. I believe these individuals would, as should conservatives today, shun the modern day conspiracy theorist with their repetitious unanswerable assembly line of secret plots and dirty deeds. It is naive to believe that the anger and distrust heaped by the conspiracy crowd on then, President George W. Bush, now placed upon Barack Obama, will not also run rampant upon the next president, even if he or she is the embodiment of the conservative ideal that the mainstream majority of America is naturally drawn too. If we are honest with one another, we already know that the modern conspiracy theorist, that is currently “jonesing for the Alex Jones” experience, will immediately see evil ‘men in black’ working within the shadows of a leader completely the opposite of Barack Obama. In short, conspiracy theorists will always be at odds with all echelons of power and authority by the nature of their existence, which is all the evidence they need that bad things are afoot.

It is because of the necessity for the country to find a President of a different ideology than Barack Obama that conservatives, and the Republican Party which most closely represents them, must cull out and toss the conspiracy theorists from their ranks - both publicly and privately. Conservatives must come to an understanding that, over time, this action will increase, not decrease, their political power. In simple terms, tossing a few rotten apples from the apple barrel is not only wise, but also saves cleaning up an inevitable big stinky mess down the road.

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

America, where is your character, your pluck, your grit? If that question seems overly harsh and needlessly aggressive, then you are staring directly at the problem. This nation sits at the precipice of a fundamental, irreversible transformation that will make all too visible a new country that is incontrovertibly “one nation under a spineless, politically correct, brow-beaten, emasculated bunch of sheep.” Is that too harsh? If you believe my words are too offensive, that I should tone it down, possibly give contemplation to all opposing views from every potential angle, if not every position within the cosmos, then, you’re actually staring at the real problem.

At a time when the country is faced with an administration that wishes to transform this country into a completely socialistic nation, Americans appear to be dangerously low on grit. Some would counter the statements I have posited, as to the lack of American character in an obvious time of need, with the examples of the growing number of Americans that are participating in town halls, and the growing TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Parties. I applaud and participate in these events with great spirit and enthusiasm; however, they will not be the final weapon to defeat the forces that truly wish to destroy this nation.

I am not idealistic, nor need I be to understand the predicament this country is in and the chasm that divides where we have been as a nation, from where we are now. It is true that there have always been those within this great nation that carry within their heart desires that run counter to the betterment of the nation. We know them as the socialist, the communist, the anarchist, and all others that share similar desires that run counter to the best laid plans of our country and its founding fathers.

The presence (if not the appearance today) of these jackals within the echelons of power and influence is not a product of a sudden massive influx of anti-American cohorts, but of the effect of a slow, yet progressive, erosion of our true national character. The growing masses that make up the groups of opposition fighting for the survival of the nation today in the TEA Parties, among others,  could double - if not triple - in time, and may ultimately be victorious against the current threat of the Barack Obama socialist machine. While you and I work and pray for this to come to reality, the matter of American character will still lie before us, as does our ultimate destiny.

In this struggle for the short term survival of the nation, as well as our place within history, I must admit a more than ample amount of animosity at the predicament we find ourselves in as a nation, including the timidity by many to provoke our enemies to anger - even while we are battling with these same foes for the future of all we hold dear. Has the quest for individual character, moral value and spiritual salvation been permanently replaced with the need to acquiesce to moral relativism, atheism, and the will of the group collective? I pray that this is not so, while knowing full well that if we as a nation were in proper form, there would be little concern about the few who would be offended by a nation that quests for the divine while denying the alternative, socialist bonds.  

I submit to you that as surely as an administration as unbelievably atrocious as that of Barack Obama could never have come to fruition in a country that carried the same national grit of the past, that we are equally destined to repeat the same calamitous scenario in the future - if we do not find this country’s true American character - and firmly hold on to it.

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