This is an unfortunate world mentality that is often reinforced by liberals right here in the U.S. The truth is that Americans are not just exceptional, they are exceptional in their willingness to give to others. How so? America gives proportionally more aid for its size and population than any other developed country. Americans give readily across all income levels. We also give aid as a nation when there is virtually no chance of future reciprocation, such as the huge amounts of aid that have been sent to Haiti. This country sends assistance to places so hostile, such as Somalia, that simply getting the aid to its destination can be a life and death mission. Unlike Islamic nations, America brings charitable goods to countries with dictators that have been designated as enemies of the United States. The ongoing aid in Iraq is a salient example of this; however, a long-standing example of American aid to a previous enemy nation is before the world now in the catastrophe that has struck Japan.

On December 7, 1941, Japan ruthlessly attacked America at Pearl Harbor, prompting the United States to officially enter World War II. After countless American lives were lost to the Japanese the war ended only after America developed and used atomic bombs on the Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki. America could have walked away from Japan and forced the defeated nation to fend for itself, could have been imperialistic and enslaved the nation as Japan had originally attempted to do with China. Instead, America saved China through Japan’s defeat and saved Japan through American charity and later the infusion of the capitalistic system. No other country of that era attempted, or completed, an equivalent forging of positive bonds as were made between Japan and America after World War II.

Recently as Japan was struck with an 8.9 magnitude earthquake and a subsequently devastating tsunami, the Los Angeles County Urban Search and Rescue team departed to assist the Asian country with 74,000 tons of rescue equipment and supplies followed shortly by another U.S. rescue team stationed in Fairfax, Virginia. These American rescue units, as reported by ABC News, are specially trained to deal with earthquake-related disasters. In addition, the U.S. government has ordered ships, air support and military troops to assist Japan with Humanitarian aid. Many countries will also do the right thing and help Japan in its time of need, but America will do the most and will do it for the longest. More importantly, through the unique, charitable nature of the American citizen and the country that bears its will, the United States will assist a country we have already built from the ashes up, a former enemy that struck the United States first so many decades ago. For all the chiding America takes around the world and internally from liberals of our own country, when it comes to getting emergency aid, or what some might call the charity “green,” the world always looks to the red, white and blue. Americans are not perfect, but we are certainly exceptional.

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 degrees in Criminal Justice at Wichita State University, and is currently completing his Ph.D. in Sociology at Kansas State University. Paul is the author of several books including the 2010 release “Oliver’s Tale: A Squirrel’s Story of Love, Courage, and Revolution.” Paul is also the radio host of the Kansas Broadcasting Association’s 2008, 2009 and 2010 award-winning radio program, Conscience of Kansas airing on KSDB Manhattan 91.9 FM, www.ibbetsonusa.com. For interviews or questions, please contact him at ibbetson91.9@gmail.com.

The idea of an American citizen’s child being abducted, raped, tortured, shot, beheaded or otherwise murdered for the most part still remains outside the typical parent’s pre-vacation precautionary mindset. Unfortunately, an untimely death does potentially await traveling Americans on vacations such as spring break. What does that mean? It means that there is always of element of danger traveling as a tourist abroad. The American public still has fresh in their minds the case of 18-year-old Natalee Holloway, the young girl that went missing on May 30, 2005, during a chaperoned high school graduation trip in Aruba. Most viewers of this travel tragedy were likely to have been absorbed in the Holloway family drama, or the bizarre statements and actions of the suspect Joran van der Sloot. One of the important lessons almost lost within this national story was that all tourists when abroad are potential victims. The best that can be hoped for is that one maximizes the likelihood of survival with the same vigor that is put into plans for fun and entertainment. Then there is the subject of Mexico.

Compared to present dangers of Aruba, Mexico is nothing short of a war zone. Most Americans are aware of the massive influx of illegal aliens through the U.S. southern border and since September 11, 2001, a growing number of Americans have been attempting, largely in vain, to force the government to secure the nation’s porous southern border. To a greater extent the secure border argument has been surrounding the staggering economic cost to U.S. taxpayers from illegal immigration but Americans that live near, or have traveled to areas such as Ciudad Juarez, Tijuana, Nogales, Nuevo Laredo, Piedras Negras, Reynosa, Matamoros and Monterrey know those are places where Mexicans are slaughtered daily and where Americans can get caught in the crossfire. The U.S. Department of State reports that Americans have been trapped between firefights in areas such as Nayarit, Jalisco and Colima and have been unable to leave the area until hostilities have diminished. As reported by Lee Ferran of ABC News, the U.S. Embassy has recently been urging U.S. citizens to limit or avoid traveling in parts of Durango, Coahuila and Chihuahua. The Texas Department of Public Safety has echoed this sentiment for the simple reason that in those places, tourists’ safety cannot be guaranteed.

Despite the beauty and abundance of natural resources that exist for the tourist trade, traveling to Mexico is akin to playing Russian roulette with more bullet chambers full than empty. Here is an example: the State Department tells people that the Mexican military and police are currently fighting to control Mexican drug trafficking organizations (DTOs) and that they have set up many checkpoints within the country and that traveling Americans should comply with officials at these checkpoints. The State Department’s website also explains that DTOs have also been known to wear military and police uniforms, have vehicles that resemble police cars and possess automatic weapons and grenades. These DTOs are said to be known to create false checkpoints, placing Americans at risk.

In 2009, the Houston Chronicle reported that over 200 Americans have been killed in Mexico since 2004. As Lise Olsen reported in the investigative piece, more non-military Americans died unnatural deaths in Mexico than in any other country from 2004 to 2009. The average was one dead American per week. If you turn on your television today you are bound to hear a Mexican official related in some way to the tourist trade assuring Americans they are safe at Mexico’s tourist locations. However, in 2009 CNN reported that in the well-known Mexican vacation spot Cancun the tortured body of Mauro Enrique Tello Quiñonez, the area’s top drug enforcement official, was found along with other dead bodies in the heavily visited tourist area. Over 100,000 American teens and young adults are reported to travel into Mexico yearly and they do so with a Mexican government that can neither control its criminal elements in the drug trade, nor safeguard tourists that are simply looking for some fun in the sun, and maybe a little bit more. American parents and their children alike should carefully contemplate whether or not taking holiday in Mexico is worth the heightened risk that it will surely offer this year’s tourists.

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 degrees in Criminal Justice at Wichita State University, and is currently completing his Ph.D. in Sociology at Kansas State University. Paul is the author of several books including the 2010 release “Oliver’s Tale: A Squirrel’s Story of Love, Courage, and Revolution.” Paul is also the radio host of the Kansas Broadcasting Association’s 2008, 2009 and 2010 award-winning radio program, Conscience of Kansas airing on KSDB Manhattan 91.9 FM, www.ibbetsonusa.com. For interviews or questions, please contact him at ibbetson91.9@gmail.com.

If one looks closely, a repetitious pattern of presentation and action is observable from the liberal left. To start with, some radical change in traditional culture for the greater good is always forwarded, while at the same time the public at large is denied an opportunity to exercise their voices through a vote on the issue. When a people’s vote does slip by the liberal machine, it is later circumvented by a governmental fiat. To liberals, the best societal decisions are best made without society. The issue of how we recognize traditional marriage, the law that Barack Obama is now declaring void without the authority of the courts, as a tyrannical third-world dictator might do, is an issue that has already been decided by the voters. The overwhelming majority of Americans have already voted for traditional marriage as being between a man and a woman. Once again, it would take a complete subversion of the voting majority to attack this Judeo-Christian pillar of American society. Unfortunately, this is not just a Barack Obama problem. The actions of this President are simply a byproduct of a growing problem that has been taking place for some time in this country. In reality, Barack Obama is nothing more than the predictable fruit of the loins of modern-day liberalism, and that fruity fruit has been very fruitful.

As moral depravity is being pushed on America’s defensive forces and the foundation of America in traditional marriage, liberals have been working to destroy Christian values in day-to-day business interactions. While an infiltration of homosexual ideology may have been brewing as far back as 2005, the actual blitzkrieg that struck Manhattan, Kansas, and turned the traditional town into the most liberal in the state happened within 11 short months. Within those months, the gay activist group LGBT became ensconced within Kansas State University, a month was designated by political decree for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender awareness complete with its own gay pride parade, and the passage of the most liberal anti-Christian discrimination law the state of Kansas has ever seen was passed by a 3-2 vote. In keeping with the liberal standard operating procedures of today, the voters of Kansas were bypassed to advance a political agenda that was, and continues to be, counter to the majority’s will. Beware of anyone or any group that tells of the great things they will do that you will eventually enjoy, and then works with all their ingenuity to make sure you are excluded from the decision making process.

While the nation needs to push back the societal suicide being demanded by Barack Obama and liberal surrogates, the people of Manhattan, Kansas, are taking it upon themselves to stand up for their town’s traditional values. They are doing this through a repeal petition on the anti-discrimination ordinance alteration that made lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people a protected class with the ability to bring preemptive charges against citizens of Kansas, thus beginning a process of mayor-appointed kangaroo courts with non-elected judges and business crushing fines. The same bill gives no protection to Christians outside their congregational buildings as “Main Street” is being transformed into “Gay Street” and all those who find themselves in violations will be severely punished. The citizens of Manhattan, Kansas, are pushing back against the gay agenda with the radical notion that they, of all things, should be able to vote on the laws that will affect their daily lives. Local Kansas pastors and other Christian leaders are currently gathering petition carriers and making their case for the ordinance repeal through the community website Awakenmanhattan.com. 

As the nation decides whether or not to push back against the liberal gay agenda being forced upon the majority of America, they would do well to watch the battle that is brewing in Manhattan, Kansas. For this city in the heartland of America, the majority of citizens are going to take a stand and attempt to reverse a portion of the invasive gay agenda that is attacking not only our state, but the country. The battle that will be fought and the ending outcome may very well reflect the nation’s will to hold fast to the biblical and constitutional values that have made this country great.

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 degrees in Criminal Justice at Wichita State University, and is currently completing his Ph.D. in Sociology at Kansas State University. Paul is the author of several books including the 2010 release “Oliver’s Tale: A Squirrel’s Story of Love, Courage, and Revolution.” Paul is also the radio host of the Kansas Broadcasting Association’s 2008, 2009 and 2010 award-winning radio program, Conscience of Kansas airing on KSDB Manhattan 91.9 FM, www.ibbetsonusa.com. For interviews or questions, please contact him at ibbetson91.9@gmail.com.

For the gay activist group LGBT, the process for passing a law counter to historical Judeo-Christian values found in the Bible Belt was simple. They just had to keep lobbying and placing pressure on city officials until a liberal voting power block was present that would subvert the majority’s will for the political initiatives of a special interest group. Make no doubt about it, what LGBT and its cohorts are offering Manhattan will be painful and potentially longstanding. The consistently anti-Christian American Civil Liberties Union hosts a page for LGBT and they describe the organization as follows: “The LGBT Project fights discrimination and moves public opinion through the courts, legislatures and public education across five issue areas: Relationships, Youth & Schools, Parenting, Gender Identity and Expression and Discrimination in Employment, Housing and other areas.”

So how will this discrimination ordinance alteration affect the city itself? In many ways the ordinance is still bizarrely ambiguous. It was passed before the wording was finalized. Yes, the city government went beyond the Nancy Pelosi-esque wording of “we need to pass Obamacare so you can see what’s in the bill,” to saying in effect, “We will pass the ordinance and tell you what the fine print reads later.” If you ever wanted to see an example of an out-of-control government, there it is. What we do know is that homosexuals, amongst others, will be able to forward allegations of discrimination against business owners and landlords that may force private Kansas citizens to be brought before a non-elected human rights panel that the city mayor will appoint. The panel, which by its rules will always have an activist member appointed, will have the authority to call witnesses, collect evidence and levy heavy fines. This is a Pandora’s Box and I believe its creators have no true idea of how much it will be used and misused if it is not repealed.

The ordinance allows gays to bring preemptive violation charges against citizens they believe may discriminate against them in the future. Unless science can rapidly catch up with the modern liberal version of equality, Manhattan, Kansas has created a city ordinance reminiscent to Tom Cruise’s performance in the science fiction movie “Minority Report.” That should be a clincher to call this ordinance insane and unenforceable, but there is more. The ordinance has a sloppy and completely incomprehensible definition of gender identity of which one of the byproducts is the need for employers to create gender-identity-acceptable bathrooms and other facilities. What will be the identifiers to designate these facilities? When a town gets to this level of absurdity, who knows, maybe a “?” placard will suffice.

I have never been more ashamed to be a Kansan or a citizen of Manhattan than I was when I saw the Christian value of morality and American citizens’ freedom being trampled upon by this radical ordinance alteration. However, the anger I and others feel toward this legislation should be qualified to avoid misconception on such a sensitive subject. Most likely everyone knows a person described within the acronym LGBT. They are true members of our communities, known to us as acquaintances, friends and family. There is no doubt that Christians can, and should continue a respectful dialogue with those whose life choices violate God’s laws. What cannot happen in showing respect to those we disagree with is selling out our biblical values.

It is also important to understand where this ordinance alteration stands within our community, state and nation. The LGBT-driven ordinance in Manhattan supersedes individual conversations and exchanges of ideas of morality. The legislation takes the issue of morality into the public square and the heart of our society. In this arena, the nation will be pulled toward the values we accept collectively. Here there is no room for tolerance when it comes to our core Judeo-Christian values and the tone the community sets for the future. If we are honest with ourselves, the dilemma of the ordinance alteration in Manhattan, Kansas, is not a product of a sweeping tide of homosexual support, it is an inevitable outcome when the majority of citizens become lukewarm to the necessity of placing moral conservatives into public office. While we care for those with the deviant lifestyle of homosexuality, they do not share our value system, nor can we acquiesce to their societal demands without facing the ultimate damnation of such a decision. In the end, the repeal of such an affront to Christian values as seen in this recent ordinance alteration by the City of Manhattan is not just something we should consider, it is our responsibility.         

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 degrees in Criminal Justice at Wichita State University, and is currently completing his Ph.D. in Sociology at Kansas State University. Paul is the author of the several books including the 2010 release, “Oliver’s Tale: A Squirrel’s Story of Love, Courage, and Revolution.” Paul is also the radio host of the Kansas Broadcasting Association’s 2008, 2009 and 2010 Entertainment Program of the Year, Conscience of Kansas airing on KSDB Manhattan 91.9 FM, www.ibbetsonusa.com. For interviews or questions, please contact him at ibbetson91.9@gmail.com

            Unfortunately, the mentality that gave America such a large infusion of hopeful and hardworking immigrants to this country has vanished and has been replaced with something much different. For one, immigrants entering America through Ellis Island came in with no preconceived beliefs that the United States owed them anything. Instead, immigrants entered the country with gracious humility to seek out the “American Dream.”

Traditional immigration encompassed a mutually respectful exchange between country and immigrant for the right of admittance. Foreigners had to show that they had a trade or other ability that would be useful to the country in order to be allowed in. Also, immigrants had to show that they were not carrying harmful communicable diseases that would be a detriment to the American people. Some immigrants were held for observation due to fear of disease and about two percent of those seeking to enter the country were turned away. America’s policy at that time was most certainly pro-immigration but it also encompassed a secure border element that is sorely lacking today. The next time you’re faced with an argument for open borders by someone who declares we are all descendants of immigrants, remember that a majority of this country’s classical immigration was conducted legally.

            Today’s open-border mentality has been steadily moving toward an entitlement belief system that combines the thinking that America, for some inexplicable reason, owes everybody everything and that the country’s financial pockets are bottomless. This open-border entitlement mentality has not only enveloped immigrants that enter America through our southern border, it is also a heavily entrenched mentality for many within the U.S. government. The idea that America needs illegal immigrants to do America’s work is still touted despite the crushing unemployment rates of the last two years. The open-border mentality has been tested by time and continues to exist. No matter whether a Republican or Democrat is running the country, the border remains unsecured and the American people continue to pay from their own pockets, suffer from a lack of security and be forced to endure the open-border propaganda machine. 

            Recently Americans were shown a presentation meant to highlight the futility of the fence at the Mexican border. Fox News aired footage of two women scaling a four-million-dollar-a-mile security fence in eighteen seconds at the southern border. The message being sent is that attempts to secure the border are futile.  What is less evident in this visual of the fast-moving climbers circumventing the border fence is the missing concertina wire at the fence’s apex let alone the lack of funding for double fencing that has fallen to the wayside since 2006. If one can break away from the open-border mentality, what is actually shown in such depictions is that the American government is extremely successful at failing when they really try.

To maintain the current open-border mentality that secure borders are akin to hatred of immigrants, an idea that would have been rejected by the immigrants processed at Ellis Island, it has become acceptable for government officials to spend their times downplaying incidents such as the daily gun battles that occur in places like Laredo, Texas, by the Mexican drug runners. The open-border mentality requires a person to accept as economically reasonable the $1.6 billion being spent for welfare, public safety and healthcare for illegal aliens in Los Angeles County alone. Sadly, U.S. citizens are more likely to receive a bundle of airmail(ed) marijuana via catapult than a secure border.           

America has never had an inability to secure the border. If the government desired, we have the means to create a southern border that would allow only recognized and processed immigrants into the country as we did at Ellis Island. What we have is a mentality problem that starts with how some perceive the worth of America and its relationship with those that wish to visit or become part of this wonderful country. The immigrants that came to Ellis Island came with respect for America. Respect of country leads to a respect of a country’s law and its people. The idea of illegal immigrants covertly entering America to give birth to children that will eventually receive citizenship and social benefits that must be paid for by the descendants of Ellis Island’s legal immigrants is more than a painful irony. In the end it shows us the dark side of the current open-border mentality, a mentality that perceives the value of America as less than what has been traditionally held by the immigrants that have made this country so great. We will all pay if we allow this mentality to dominate our actions as a nation on the issue of border security.

  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 degrees in Criminal Justice at Wichita State University, and is currently completing his Ph.D. in Sociology at Kansas State University. Paul is the author of the several books including the 2010 release, “Oliver’s Tale: A Squirrel’s Story of Love, Courage, and Revolution.” Paul is also the radio host of the Kansas Broadcasting Association’s 2008, 2009 and 2010 Entertainment Program of the Year, Conscience of Kansas airing on KSDB Manhattan 91.9 FM, www.ibbetsonusa.com. For interviews or questions, please contact him at ibbetson91.9@gmail.com

Dahl marketed this (unique) product by reminding consumers of the unwanted expense, time and effort that conventional pets take compared to his lovable and low-maintenance “pet rock.” Within a six-month period, the Pet Rock received national fad appeal and Dahl made millions of dollars before market saturation and copycat competitors, in combination with the next line of fanciful fad products greatly diminished the short-lived pet rock craze.

If you asked me if the pet rock changed the world I would say no. However, if you asked me if the Pet Rock, when compared with the colossal Obama health care system that now looms over the country, will be seen as having more of a positive impact over time, I would say absolutely. Liberals will jump out of their skin at such a statement because Obamacare, with all its countless socialistic tentacles, is advertised as a cure-all for so many issues that the list of its potential good deeds is still being written. With all that said, I still pick the rock. Why? While both the Pet Rock and Obamacare fall within the category of goods and services, we have to look deeper to see what they really represent if we really wish to see their impact on the country.

The thing of importance that separates the two products from one another is the ideological foundations by which both are presented. Both the Pet Rock and Obamacare become relevant when we look at the issue of equality, though they are evaluated differently. Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman called these two competing ideologies on the perspective of equality, “equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.”

Gary Dahl’s pet rock is easily an example of the freedom of opportunity. Anyone could have created and marketed the idea of the Pet Rock, but it was Dahl who conceived the product and took the leap of faith with a possibility of succeeding or failing. What is of importance is that Dahl was not restricted from attempting to achieve wealth beyond people with less innovation in the marketplace. We can safely assume that at some point Dahl was more than likely approached by someone that spoke against selling a rock in a box as a pet. The point of significance here is that no one, most importantly not the government, tried to stop Dahl from attempting to move ahead of the pack. That’s America for you, or at least America in the 1970s.

Equality of opportunity, as Friedman aptly shows, is reflected within the Declaration of Independence with, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” This equality is greatly enhanced when all are allowed the freedom of opportunity to win and lose in the marketplace, to choose their own destiny as individuals. As important is the freedom of opportunity to try again when first attempts fail within the marketplace.

When applying equality of opportunity, we can easily replace Gary Dahl’s humble pet rock with Henry Ford’s Model T automobile or Bill Gates’ software magic at Microsoft, and the equation remains the same. Equality of opportunity does not guarantee riches or happiness but it opens the door for the pursuit thereof.

Conversely, Obamacare is openly advertised as an equality of outcome proposition. The problem is not a lack of compassion or good intentions here; the problem is innate within the mechanism by which this product is rendered to the people within the free market. To start with, Obamacare subverts the free market by requiring that all participate. The freedom to choose your participation level within the system is taken away under the guise that all will be guaranteed admittance.

As Friedman shows, the push for equality of outcome can only create an environment in which freedom is reduced and innovation is subsequently limited. Forced participation, reduced freedom of choice, skyrocketing costs and reduced quality of service are not simply potential dangers of the ideology of equality of outcome, they are inevitable realities. The divide between the intent for equality found within the Declaration of Independence and the reality of the implementation of equality of outcome is massive and fraught with negative consequences.   

One of these consequences is that implementing equality of outcome from which Obamacare is birthed within the free markets of America threatens to create a rancid enveloping fog of mentality that government-managed mediocrity is acceptable as the status quo. This is a dangerously contagious kind of thinking that will most certainly expand its way beyond this monstrous health care bill for years to come. Yes, when compared to the huge promotional campaigns of the glories of the new health care program, the pet rock may be seen as inconsequential; however, when both products are compared ideologically, the freedom of opportunity that made Dahl’s rock in the box a short-lived sensation had a more positive impact on the country than will Obamacare.  

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 degrees in Criminal Justice at Wichita State University, and is currently completing his Ph.D. in Sociology at Kansas State University. Paul is the author of the several books including the 2010 release, “Oliver’s Tale: A Squirrel’s Story of Love, Courage, and Revolution.” Paul is also the radio host of the Kansas Broadcasting Association’s 2008, 2009 and 2010 Entertainment Program of the Year, Conscience of Kansas airing on KSDB Manhattan 91.9 FM, www.ibbetsonusa.com. For interviews or questions, please contact him at ibbetson91.9@gmail.com

If we are honest with ourselves, even in this current environment of Obama-buyer’s-remorse, in a best-case scenario only a fraction of the damage this administration has brought upon the country will be nullified. Unfortunately, that is the sunny account at best. Why? Because the Republican Party has become notorious for failing to consistently frame the political landscape that all are asked to play on. Equally as detrimental to the country, when an agenda does exist, Republicans have lacked true convictions that motivate others to join the cause.

Compared to the modern-day Republican Party, Democrats work with great efficiency. Foremost has been their ability to frame the political landscape. Consistently through his administration Obama has used a majority vote to ram his agenda through. Democrats have initiated the most socialistic national restructuring program in American history and claim it is emergency help for the middle class. While pushing their liberal agenda, they have framed Republicans as being the heartless party of “No.” When Democrats have found one of two liberal Republicans to vote their way the story is framed as a Democrat victory with strong bi-partisan support. The recent past has been a repetition of Democrats initiating and Republicans reacting.

Even the current environment with its potential for a sweeping shift in political power has not been the product of the Republican Party pulling Americans toward the Constitution’s call of freedom and conservative values. Far from it—the first round of victories against the Obama machine were made by regular Americans who formed their own meeting tents under which to congregate and strategize for the future of their country. Republicans have been painfully slow to embrace what are for all intents and purposes their base supporters. Groups like the Tea Party and their equivalents defeated Democrats in historical numbers in the last mid-term and literally dragged the Republican Party into the winner’s circle. This is not acceptable nor is it repeatable.

There is hope for the GOP; in fact, major victories are more than attainable if they will simply consolidate the party as the place where true conservative values are found. Oh yes, they will also need to have a backbone in conjunction with a well-developed and disseminated message. As important, they will have to avoid allowing Democrats to set the tone for the new Congress and in the ensuing days to the next election. Democrats can see the writing on the wall and they will most certainly attempt to control a Republican surge toward 2012. The next framing of the political landscape will most likely push off with the upcoming State of the Union address. The message from Obama will be for compassion and cooperation with the subtle implication that groups like the Tea Party and other constitutionalists are promoting hate and violence. The Arizona shooting incident, ironically framed in its aftermath by another liberal in Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, will be marked as recent proof of how dangerous life can be when we do not all get along (translation: to be more liberal is to be more reasonable).

David Jackson from USA Today reports that Democrat Charles Schumer of New York and Republican Tom Coburn of Oklahoma say that they will sit together during Obama’s annual address in the hopes that congressional colleagues will follow suit. This call for unity is not done because love is in the air. It is a ploy by Democrats to set the stage for the political future because they are losing ground on all fronts. So, while it was full steam ahead with their political agenda when Democrats had a majority vote, now that they can be blocked in the House and potentially routed in 2012, it’s time for us all to come together and put the partisan, if not deadly, vitriol as spun by Sheriff Dupnik, away for a more harmonious liberal reality. Once again Democrats wish to frame the political landscape and they hope that Republicans will be foolish enough to go along with it.

This trickery is but one of many schemes that will be spun over the coming months. The GOP will again fall prey to being reactionary pawns in a democratic game unless they set the stage for the future themselves and force Democrats to play by their rules. The truth screams to be told by the GOP if they have the backbone and the vision to see it through to its fruition. The country needs to be brought back to its constitutional foundations and the current tentacles of socialism must be shrugged away with the national disdain it deserves. The restoration of the country requires fiscal responsibility that is quantifiable, not simple lip service. A true merging of the Tea Party and the Republican Party will be pivotal to achieving voting power in 2012. Instead of adapting to liberal agendas, the GOP must force Democrats to vote against the people’s will and thus expose themselves to future elimination at the polls. Republicans should spend their time, such as that during the State of the Union address, to more clearly define themselves as the party of conservative values, and reject falling for another bi-partisan illusion that in the end, simply furthers the liberal Obama agenda. 

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 degrees in Criminal Justice at Wichita State University, and is currently completing his Ph.D. in Sociology at Kansas State University. Paul is the author of the several books including the 2010 release, “Oliver’s Tale: A Squirrel’s Story of Love, Courage, and Revolution.” Paul is also the radio host of the Kansas Broadcasting Association’s 2008, 2009 and 2010 Entertainment Program of the Year, Conscience of Kansas airing on KSDB Manhattan 91.9 FM, www.ibbetsonusa.com. For interviews or questions, please contact him at ibbetson91.9@gmail.com

In almost all cases that involve the taking of an innocent life, the quest to find the answers as to why such atrocities take place is never adequately found. This comes in part because there is no answer for loved ones being prematurely taken from this earth that can ease the pain for those that remain. We all know and have grudgingly come to accept the nature cycle of life and the shooting in Arizona violates all that we hold acceptable when it comes to death. Unfortunately, the case of the Arizona shootings is at risk of being misdirected from honoring the dead and helping to heal the injured to promoting political agendas based on a false premise.

When I heard Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik start a political speech at the press briefing following the shooting, I could see the writing on the wall, “Conservatives need to shut up.” Having spoken to the media about criminal matters as a former law enforcement officer, I perceive Dupnik’s personal attack on those in radio and television as nothing short of bizarre. The links he drew between bigotry, national vitriol and this particular incident appeared politically motivated and makes him sound like a liberal no matter where his true affiliations stand. He is right about one thing: free speech does have consequences, but not the consequences the sheriff was trying to convey. The founding fathers supported free speech because they knew that through standing up and saying, “I don’t agree,” and “this is not right,” and other words often spoken with great passion, that this country might break free from its shackles. The need for such free debate with all its emotion is still needed today if we hope to deny those that wish totalitarian rule back into this country.

The problem Sheriff Dupnik suffers from at best is that he has confused peaceful, passionate opposition with violence. He has failed to separate the actions of a nut with a gun from those of peaceful Americans that are fed up with the government and want to take back the reins. The American people are not acting like bigots, criminals or killers when they demand that the government exercise the people’s will with the power voters have temporarily given it. From Dupnik’s lips to the computer keyboards of the radical left, the demands for conservatives to be silent have begun.

In my morning e-mail inbox the usual daily assortment of angry liberal messages had distinct focus this week thanks to Sheriff Dupnik. The demands that I stop talking and writing about political issues included a laundry list of forbidden topics as is always the case, but this week they were unified in that my silence would now “stop the hate as seen in Arizona,” and “save lives.” Please. I was quick to give a physical address of where they could send their requests. Hint: it’s a place warmer than Arizona.

Violence like what took place in this shooting incident is unacceptable, period. However, attempting to silence groups because of a single individual who might be associated, or is fictitiously associated, as a fringe member is the sorriest of Saul-Alinsky-style political maneuvers. Do Christians stop teaching the word of God because there is a rogue in Westboro Baptist Church running around preaching hate? Of course not, and nor should they. Ann Coulter brilliantly documented that it has been a liberal behind all the assassinations of our American presidents throughout history. Does this mean that all liberals are guilty of mixing vitriol and violence, including murder, in their quests for political victory? Even more importantly, should all liberals just shut up for fear that someone nuttier then them may grab a gun and start shooting people? The answer is no to both questions. I say this with full knowledge that in time the Arizona shooter Jared Lee Loughner is just as apt to be found a liberal as he is to be found a Tea Party attendee.

When it comes to Arizona’s problems such as an unsecured border and the catastrophic financial burden illegal aliens place on the state and nation, much can and should be discussed in the future. The thing in this case is that the border, illegal aliens, gun ownership, the Tea Party, politically zealous sheriffs, and Sarah Palin are not the real issue. The relevant issue is that a mentally deranged person killed innocent people and there is now tremendous pain and suffering in Tucson, Arizona and the entire nation. The country’s “do’s and don’ts” list must be constructed with more thought than that of Sheriff Dupnik. The biggest tragedy now would be to focus on imaginary foes and minimize what has truly been lost.    

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 degrees in Criminal Justice at Wichita State University, and is currently completing his Ph.D. in Sociology at Kansas State University. Paul is the author of the several books including the 2010 release, “Oliver’s Tale: A Squirrel’s Story of Love, Courage, and Revolution.” Paul is also the radio host of the Kansas Broadcasting Association’s 2008, 2009 and 2010 Entertainment Program of the Year, Conscience of Kansas airing on KSDB Manhattan 91.9 FM, www.ibbetsonusa.com. For interviews or questions, please contact him at ibbetson91.9@gmail.com

Speaking about their books, articles and lectures, these individuals boldly stepped to the radio microphone to share their investigations of Barack Obama and their concerns for the future of the United States. Jerome Corsi submitted the question that has still today to be answered on the absence of candidate vetting in the years preceding the 2008 election that would place into power a politician that could not or would not proffer simple qualifying documents such as a long-form birth certificate. David Freddoso outlined the hypocrisy and arrogance of Obama before the country would see it full-blown from the White House steps. Tim Carney, with his sharp mind and energetic zeal, walked listeners through the economic disasters that would befall the country under the Obama agenda. Brad O’Leary gave credence to the attack on Christianity that has become part of the administration’s operating procedure. David Limbaugh, when talking with me about the totality of the damage inflicted on the country to date in combination with Obama’s nonchalant indifference to voices of opposition, showed his frustration with a strength of emotion that cannot be questioned. The concern that came to mind when listening to Limbaugh as well as these other voices of reason is, “will people believe them?”

I perceive that the problem for believability in cases like these are not based on a lack of factual evidence; on the contrary, the evidence brought against Barack Obama comes with endless pages of easily traceable source material which validate the arguments being forwarded. Since this is the case, it would be reasonable at first glance to assume that Obama would be politically doomed. To say this, however, is to underestimate the psychological advantage that sets in Obama’s favor when being faced with the facts of his catastrophic administration. What advantage is that, you ask? The advantage is that the true story of Barack Obama’s life and policies in practice, when grouped together, defy belief.

In fact, Barack Obama’s life and presidency would be un-publishable as a work of fiction because in its totality, it lacks the realistic foundations that even the most fantastic works of fiction require. To put it plainly, the actions of Barack Obama are so historically over-the-top, so mindboggling in their destructive audacity, that on an average citizen’s case-by-case analysis alone they appear to be pure fiction. When the actions of this President are presented in a chronological series, most people suffer a mental overload and simply disengage from attempting to place so many unbelievable pieces of information under their mental “fact” category.  

Some of the most creative fiction writers have paralleled limited portions of the Obama history with success. Let’s take a look. A fresh politician gains political ascension while being controlled by sinister powerful forces (The Manchurian Candidate, 1962). A death-panel-conducive healthcare system that combines utopian ideals with compulsory participation (Logan’s Run,1976), or the systematic denegation of society that sees people being completely dependent on government while that same government feeds upon the populace (Soylent Green, 1973). How about a government so totalitarian in nature that its citizens are instructed to turn in (flag) their neighbors when they challenge aspects of the government’s agenda (Nineteen Eighty-Four, 1949) or one that turns its back on the biblical foundations of childbirth to embrace an atheistic, eugenic vision of the future ( Brave New World, 1932; Gattaca, 1997)?  Even individuals like Obama who appear to have the uncanny ability to draw vermin and other pestilence to their proximity have been documented into fictional works (Amityville Horror, 1977). The most compelling piece of fiction that Barack Obama has put into motion is the “all is well” scenario as seen in his “Summer of Recovery” tour while unemployment continued to hang near 10 percent (The Matrix, 1999).

If you tried to publish even a limited grouping of Obama parallels from reality to fiction, your piece would be rejected and you would be told it was too overwhelming, too grisly and too unbelievable. Publishers would tell you to tone it down, make it more like real life. This is what political writers face when attempting to counter the Obama agenda. To expose Obama, the opposition must expose the truth and in doing so readers are taken to the edge of their sanity.  The President has, to a greater extent, been able to hide behind the outrageousness of his decisions. Still the battle for the acknowledgement of reality must continue. Personally, if the American people fail to take hold of the reins of government, I fear the future of America will fall somewhere among the realities of Red Dawn (1984), Mad Max (1979) and Planet of the Apes (1968). 

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 degrees in Criminal Justice at Wichita State University, and is currently completing his Ph.D. in Sociology at Kansas State University. Paul is the author of the several books including the 2010 release, “Oliver’s Tale: A Squirrel’s Story of Love, Courage, and Revolution.” Paul is also the radio host of the Kansas Broadcasting Association’s 2008, 2009 and 2010 Entertainment Program of the Year, Conscience of Kansas airing on KSDB Manhattan 91.9 FM, www.ibbetsonusa.com. For interviews or questions, please contact him at ibbetson91.9@gmail.com

To the case that Barack Obama makes for radically altering the standard of operations for military service, the President stands in complete opposition to the belief system of the founding fathers and the traditional standards of this country. How far is the gap between the value system that guides the current President on the issue of homosexuality in the military than that of the founding fathers?

Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media writes of George Washington’s opposition to homosexuals in the military.  In 1778 a soldier was court-martialed for attempted sodomy. The official record of the trial verdict and punishment makes clear Washington’s disgust with homosexual activity within the military’s ranks. The record of soldier Enslin’s attempted sodomy court-martial was discovered in a discussion by David Barton of Wall Builders on homosexuals in the military and was collected from the writings of George Washington from the General Orders at Valley Forge. It reads as follows: “At a General Court Martial where of Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778), Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment [was] tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false accounts, [he was] found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and [we] do sentence him to be dismiss’d [from] the service with infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of camp tomorrow morning by all the drummers and fifers in the Army never to return.”

So while the Continental army was in the fight of its life and the projection of victory was unsure at best, George Washington found it of utmost importance to place high value on personal conduct within the military ranks. To maintain the dignity and the cohesion of the fighting force, Washington went beyond forbidding homosexuality within the ranks; he aggressively punished it. The reasoning behind Washington’s strong opposition to sodomy and other homosexual acts in the military was based in part to biblical values that repetitiously and without the slightest bit of ambiguity state that homosexuality is a sin and an abomination to God. Additionally, Washington, as well as other military leaders, understood the disruptive and demoralizing effects of promoting the homosexual lifestyle within the close confines of military duty. In other words, Washington had a very different vision from Obama’s on the ideals that the military fight to defend.

The biblical issue of morality is a message that finds only deaf ears today from the liberal left. The idea of God’s law when it comes into opposition of the homosexual agenda is framed with words such as “homophobia.” For the advocates that would follow the radical reframing of American values on military service created by Barack Obama, it is easier to say heterosexuals fear homosexuals than to say that God is right.

Even the mentality surrounding future military participation added by overt homosexuals that may wish to join a more gay-friendly armed forces, something that Obama touts as a bolstering factor to the country’s future national security, is full of warped inconsistencies. Many military experts have voiced concerns that existing U.S. soldiers will not want to share showers and other intimate living arrangements with overt homosexuals. My interview with retired Lt. Col. Robert Patterson, author of the book, “Conduct Unbecoming”, who was responsible for the Nuclear Football under President Bill Clinton, highlights one such voice of opposition. On my radio show Conscience of Kansas, Patterson stated his opposition to the repeal of DADT saying it would lead to lawsuits and a lowering of military morale. According to Patterson’s conversations with military personnel, he estimated that up to 25 percent of serving forces would leave, or consider leaving the military due to the repeal of DADT. A mass exodus of traditional soldiers would most likely outweigh any national security increase brought forth by overt gays entering the military.

In other words, from a national security standpoint, Barack Obama’s repeal of DADT will most likely make the country less safe, less secure. From a moralistic perspective, Barack Obama is doing far more damage than simply asking the military to march to a different cultural tune; he is demanding that they sashay into moral debauchery as defenders of the free world. The repeal of DADT is truly proof that America has come a long way; the problem is that we have come a long way all in the wrong direction.

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 degrees in Criminal Justice at Wichita State University, and is currently completing his Ph.D. in Sociology at Kansas State University. Paul is the author of the several books including the 2010 release, “Oliver’s Tale: A Squirrel’s Story of Love, Courage, and Revolution.” Paul is also the radio host of the Kansas Broadcasting Association’s 2008, 2009 and 2010 Entertainment Program of the Year, Conscience of Kansas airing on KSDB Manhattan 91.9 FM, www.ibbetsonusa.com. For interviews or questions, please contact him at ibbetson91.9@gmail.com