Paul A. Ibbetson

Economy/Finances - Energy - Japan - Nuclear Power - Paul A. Ibbetson

Earthquake in Japan: Dependable Aid from America

March 24, 2011 by

Paul A. Ibbetson

There is no dependable way to foretell the next natural calamity that will befall planet Earth. Actually, the only thing mankind can say about the next planet-shaking catastrophe is that after whatever horrendous event has ended, America will have aid en route. Yes, many countries give assistance to afflicted areas of the world; however, the unchallenged leader of emergency aid is always America. The United States is usually the first to arrive at devastated locations of the world by request and is the last to leave, having brought the lion’s share of assistance with no strings attached. In fact, our country’s speed, efficiency and overwhelming willingness to assist nations in need has in some corners become viewed as less of a matter of American charitableness and more of a matter of world entitlement.

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.
Continue reading “

Earthquake in Japan: Dependable Aid from America”

Crime - Mexico - Paul A. Ibbetson

Mexico: Your Spring Break Death-stination

March 21, 2011 by

Paul A. Ibbetson

As eager colleges students from around the country prepare to leave school for spring break, many ask the question, where is the best place to go to have the most fun? For parents, the questions that are pondered and even discussed with their children as they prepare to leave are usually somewhat different. Many parents attempt and often stumble through those awkward conversations about the potential dangers of traveling abroad. Common parental concerns for their children on holiday cover the spectrum but often include discussions about avoiding the following: being arrested, impregnating or becoming impregnated by a new intoxicated friend whose name tends to escape recall, all the way down to the embarrassing impromptu left or right-cheeked tattoo. I think you know which cheeks I am talking about. Some of America’s spring breaking youngsters will fail to heed their parents’ well-intentioned advice and the ramifications will range from laughable spring break stories to parents getting late-night phone calls for the need of the family lawyer and a bail deposit. Even in these more unfortunate spring break scenarios, parents of American children expect their kids to return home, straighten-up, and get back to work or school.

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.
Continue reading “

Mexico: Your Spring Break Death-stination”

Christianity - Democrats/Leftists - Gay Marriage - Gays - Liberals - Paul A. Ibbetson - Religion

Christians Push Back Against Gay Agenda in Kansas

March 11, 2011 by

Paul A. Ibbetson

Recently there has been a push by liberals to advance the homosexual agenda into pivotal areas of American life. Barack Obama’s abolition of “don’t ask don’t tell” in the military has replaced silent service for gays with the requirement that the heterosexual majority of our fighting forces now accommodate a new, aggressive homosexual agenda if they wish to continue to defend the country. The foundation of traditional marriage in American culture is also under full assault. In another stunning attempt to force the homosexual agenda on the American people, Fox News reports that Barack Obama has ordered Attorney General Eric Holder to no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act, the law of the land that states marriage as between a man and a woman, as constitutional. Thus we see the lengths liberals will go to achieve their goals, to fundamentally change society. What many might not be aware of is just how many parts of daily lives are being challenged by the gay agenda and the modus operandi of those involved.

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.
Continue reading “

Christians Push Back Against Gay Agenda in Kansas”

Democrats/Leftists - Gay Marriage - Gays - Liberals - Paul A. Ibbetson - PCism - Society/Culture - Western Civilization

LGBT and Rainbow Justice

March 1, 2011 by

Paul A. Ibbetson

As of February 8, 2011, Manhattan, Kansas has created a new mentality for the state. The message is clear: “Christians, beware.” There is a new sheriff in town that goes by the name of LGBT. The acronym “LGBT” stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender and this organization and those that follow under its rainbow banners now wield the power to start a legalized process that could very well shut down local businesses in the city of Manhattan. This new ordinance alteration sends a clear message that the state itself is in an uncertain state of moral decline.

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.
Continue reading “

LGBT and Rainbow Justice”

Abortion - Budget - Constitution - Democrats/Leftists - Ethics - Government - Liberals - Paul A. Ibbetson - Planned Parenthood - Taxes

Abortion in 2011: From Tax Breaks to Heartache

February 24, 2011 by

Paul A. Ibbetson

Since the United States legalized abortion in 1973 in Roe v. Wade, approximately 40 million abortions have been conducted in this country. These death toll numbers, which continue to mount, dwarf the statistics of Americans killed in war, crime, accidental death from handguns, you name it. As we enter the year 2011, legalized abortion in America is by far the leader in institutionalized death. Prior to 1973 abortion was more than simply illegal, it was a socially shunned activity for both the pregnant mother and the covert abortionist. Today not only have the tables turned on the legality of taking the life of a baby in the womb, but the decades that have passed since Roe v. Wade have seen a continual desensitizing of Americans to the ramifications of abortion.

Since the recent mid-term election the Republican-controlled House has been working to pass the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. Among other things, the bill would stop internal revenue credits for expenses paid for medical care of the taxpayer or the taxpayer’s spouse or dependents for abortion. Furthermore, this bill would stop tax deductions through health benefit plans that include coverage of abortion. The bill is considered only a symbolic action for Republicans in the House of Representatives, since the Democrats will most certainly vote down any similar action in the Senate. It is a little bit too easy to simply look at the political maneuverings here and forget the actual tragedy that has become America.
Continue reading “

Abortion in 2011: From Tax Breaks to Heartache”

Anti-Americanism - Constitution - Democrats/Leftists - Economy/Finances - Government - Immigration/Immigrants - Liberals - Mexico - Paul A. Ibbetson - Taxes

Analyzing The Open-Border Mentality

February 17, 2011 by 1 Comment

Paul A. Ibbetson

How special is America? Is it truly a unique place where people can find opportunities for a better life that surpass those of other countries? Many think this to be true and the country has had a long history of being a welcoming place for people from all across the world. From 1892 to 1924 the port of New York at Ellis Island processed over 20 million foreign immigrants to legally enter the country. According to the National Park Service’s Ellis Island site, as many as 11,747 immigrants legally entered America in a single day in 1907. It is estimated that as many 100 million Americans are descendants of the process of legal immigration that took place at locations such as Ellis Island.

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.
Continue reading “

Analyzing The Open-Border Mentality”

Barack Obama - Budget - Children - Democrats/Leftists - Economy/Finances - Government - Health - Liberals - Paul A. Ibbetson - President - Taxes

The Pet Rock versus Obamacare

February 6, 2011 by

Paul A. Ibbetson

In 1975 advertising executive Gary Dahl had one of the simplest and most rewarding marketing ideas of the decade. He placed a shiny little rock in a box decorated as an animal carrier and offered it to consumers to buy and keep as a “pet.”

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.
Continue reading “

The Pet Rock versus Obamacare”

Barack Obama - Democrats/Leftists - Government - Liberals - Paul A. Ibbetson - President

Democrats Look to Dupe GOP at State of the Union Address

January 24, 2011 by 1 Comment

Paul A. Ibbetson

The Democratic Party, if anything, is consistent with their actions. They took advantage of an ideologically weak Republican Party that failed to rein in spending in 2006. Democrats managed to place one of their most liberal politicians into the office of president in 2008 and then proceeded to pass bill after bill that would expand government control by monumental leaps in the hopes of fundamentally transforming the nation.

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.
Continue reading “

Democrats Look to Dupe GOP at State of the Union Address”

Arizona - Crime - Democrats/Leftists - Elections - Ethics - Government - Liberals - Paul A. Ibbetson

The do’s and don’ts of Sheriff Dupnik: Another ploy to silence conservatives

January 20, 2011 by 1 Comment

Paul A. Ibbetson

The recent shooting in Tucson, Arizona, that critically injured Democratic Representative Gabrielle Giffords as well as killing six other innocent citizens brings the nation again to attempting to find reasons where they are least likely to be found. At this time authorities are still discovering many of the details; however, it has been reported that the shooter in the incident, Jared Lee Loughner, was a mentally unstable individual.

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.
Continue reading “

The do’s and don’ts of Sheriff Dupnik: Another ploy to silence conservatives”

Anti-Americanism - Barack Obama - Democrats/Leftists - Liberals - Paul A. Ibbetson - President

The Barack Obama Presidency: When being unbelievable is the best defense

January 12, 2011 by

Paul A. Ibbetson

As we step into a new year I take a moment to reflect on what has been attempted and what has been accomplished in the struggle to preserve traditional conservative values in this country. This is a struggle to which I have committed myself for the long haul. Through my radio program “Conscience of Kansas” I have had the opportunity to bring to the radio-listening public some of the country’s most renowned conservative minds. The topic they have all addressed in their own unique fashion is sections of Barack Obama’s life and his effect on the country in his position as President of the United States.

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?”
Continue reading “

The Barack Obama Presidency: When being unbelievable is the best defense”

Anti-Americanism - Barack Obama - Congress - Constitution - Democrats/Leftists - Elections - Gays - GOP - Government - House of Representatives - Liberals - Paul A. Ibbetson - President - Regulation - Republicans

The Repeal of DADT: To March or to Sashay into the Future?

January 7, 2011 by

Paul A. Ibbetson

On December 22, 2010, President Barack Obama signed a law that repeals the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for gays wishing to serve in the military. DADT was enacted by President Bill Clinton in 1993 and was a considered by many liberals a compassionate turn from the military’s previous ban on gays’ serving in the military. In a somewhat ironic turn of fate, in order to move the homosexual agenda forward Barack Obama would have to classify the social engineering escapades of Bill Clinton to be barbaric. At the repeal signing President Obama said that the new law would strengthen the country’s national security and upholds the values that the military fights to defend. He also spoke about the new law allowing skilled homosexuals who were previously turned away from the military to now join the American fighting forces and increase the ranks of our national defense.

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?
Continue reading “

The Repeal of DADT: To March or to Sashay into the Future?”

Anti-Americanism - Budget - Congress - Constitution - Democrats/Leftists - Economy/Finances - Elections - Government - Liberals - Paul A. Ibbetson - President - Taxes

Love, Hate and a Dry-Eyed Look at the Future of the Country

December 30, 2010 by

Paul A. Ibbetson

One reality of the 2010 midterm election is that voters have rejected the current agenda of President Barack Obama. Uncontrolled government spending with its repetitious forays into the private market has not settled well with the American people. The president’s promise of decreased unemployment after huge government spending did not come to fruition as promised, and as expected, people began to grumble. For those that are fighting the liberal agenda of the Obama administration, between demented Democrats in denial on one hand and weeping Republicans on the other, it is hard to keep the full reality of what is taking place in perspective. However, since the last couple of years have brought home the truth that elections have consequences, we should be very accurate about the recent midterm election and what it means and what it does not mean for the future of the political parties and this country.

The historical rejection of Democrats can be seen as more than a product of liberal politicians’ unwavering support of such plans as Obama’s compulsory healthcare program, apocalyptic government spending, or even his backward mentality on national security issues. Yes, the American people opposed Democrats because their policies were bad for the country. However, they came out in droves and voted them out of office in historic numbers because of the Democrats’ hostile stance toward anyone who questioned what they were attempting to do. As Barack Obama’s policies moved further and further away from the traditional economic and moral blueprint of this country, the voice of the American people rose in opposition. It was then that Democrats decided to forcefully turn their backs on voters to push the liberal agenda of the Obama administration through.
Continue reading “

Love, Hate and a Dry-Eyed Look at the Future of the Country”

Anti-Americanism - Family - Gay Marriage - Gays - Paul A. Ibbetson - PCism - Society/Culture - Western Civilization

LGBT: Kansas, you’re not in Kansas Anymore

December 17, 2010 by

Paul A. Ibbetson

“Toto, I’ve a feeling we’re not in Kansas anymore.” Those were the troubled words of Dorothy Gale as she found herself in a foreign world in the movie The Wizard of Oz. Many have used that sentence over the years for different reasons but in general it highlights a feeling of being somewhere that is so alien to our sense of normality that we cannot fully articulate where we are, only where we are not. As a lifelong Kansan I have felt that my state, as well as its location within the heartland, is a special place where traditional American values tend to be unbending to the onslaught of the political left. When I hear liberals scream words like, “gun toter” and “bible clinger” as they fail to advance their agenda in the heartland I have to say it puts a spring in my step. However, today as the sun shines down on the plains of Kansas, a liberal storm of great consequence is brewing.

Government officials in the city of Manhattan, Kansas are about to pass a modification of an existing anti-discrimination ordinance that will create the most intrusive pro-homosexual ordinance in the country. A gay advocacy group called LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual, Transgender) that enjoys an office at Kansas State University has been part of a five-year movement to pressure city officials to create a radical alteration to the city’s existing anti-discrimination ordinance. So, what will these changes look like and how will it affect Kansans within its jurisdiction? I interviewed Dr. Paul Barkey, a Kansas pastor who has been researching the potential ordinance change on my radio program Conscience of Kansas and we covered the issue in detail. You’ll need to sit down.
Continue reading “

LGBT: Kansas, you’re not in Kansas Anymore”

Budget - Democrats/Leftists - Economy/Finances - Ethics - Government - Liberals - Paul A. Ibbetson - Rights - Taxes

Taxes and Punishment: Why Attacking Achievement Hurts Everyone

December 10, 2010 by

Paul A. Ibbetson

The political wrangling over what to do with the Bush-era tax cuts that are set to expire has created another opportunity to observe the ideological difference in perspectives between liberals and conservatives on the issue of taxes. Most importantly, it highlights differences that go beyond differing blueprints for the economic future of the country and more to the contrasting viewpoints in how taxes should be used in modern America.

Out of the gate, liberals in the Democratic Party were resistant to extending the tax cuts in general. After the first rounds of debate it appeared that Democrats were willing to appease Americans with tax cut extensions for all but the wickedly rich. The problem with that plan was that the wickedly rich, which were deemed by the Obama administration as those with an income exceeding $250,000 also included arguably as much as half of all small-business owners. Despite the extensive political quibbling over what percent of small businesses will be negatively affected with higher taxes in a weak economy, there is an equally important question which is seldom addressed: What about the rich?
Continue reading “

Taxes and Punishment: Why Attacking Achievement Hurts Everyone”

Anti-Americanism - Business - Capitalism - Constitution - Democrats/Leftists - Government - Liberals - Paul A. Ibbetson - Regulation - Security/Safety - TSA

Political Correctness and your Body: Why TSA Security Measures Won’t Fly

December 2, 2010 by

Paul A. Ibbetson

This just in: TSA airport security personnel have now reaffirmed, after thousands of overtly aggressive body pat-downs, that elderly grandmothers and little children are still not attempting to commit terrorist attacks by carrying explosives onto planes. The growing discontent at the government’s new intrusive security measures are now being seen throughout the country. The reasons people don’t like it can be broken down into three areas of discussion: efficiency, invasiveness, and the strategic end results.

No one likes to be held up at the airport; however, most flyers are willing to accept delays that can be logically explained. For example, if the landing gear is about to fall off the plane, people have no qualms and show no resistance in patiently waiting while the issue is resolved. That is, people want to be safe while flying and will readily accept being inconvenienced if a reasonable case can be made for the situation. The problem comes when there cannot be a reasonable articulation made between extreme flyer inconvenience and passenger safety. Imagine if a plane with landing gear problems required all passengers to have a forced colonoscopy. The differential between the observed airline safety issue and the requirements placed on passengers would be so great that most flyers would refuse to comply. Welcome to the modern world of TSA security measures and what have become the unfriendly skies.

Prospective passengers in many airports are now being faced with having to go through full-body scanners that render the flyer practically naked to be photographed and observed by strangers. The long-term physical effects of radiation exposure from these scanners are unknown, along with their usefulness in detecting plastics and other materials terrorists use. As of now, full-body scanners do not make a case for security that equals or surpasses their offensive nature. Without more evidence of their practicality, TSA might as well request naked photographs of all passengers at the gate and save them the time of passing through the costly and time-consuming machines. However, the full-body scanners are quickly falling behind in public distaste to the full body pat down.
Continue reading “

Political Correctness and your Body: Why TSA Security Measures Won’t Fly”

9/11 - Anti-Americanism - Anti-Semitism - Democrats/Leftists - Government - History - Islamofascism - Journalism - Liberals - Media - Media Bias - Paul A. Ibbetson - Society/Culture - Terrorism - Western Civilization

Oklahoma: When Sharia Comes Sweeping Down the Plains

November 21, 2010 by

Paul A. Ibbetson

During the recent mid-term election, voters across the country voiced their will on more than just which politicians or political party they wanted to see in power for the next term. Voters in Oklahoma voted on whether or not Sharia, Islamic law, should or should not be used or considered within the state’s court system. Seventy percent–that’s right, seven out of ten Oklahoma voters—said no to Sharia and international law, and within days Oklahoma’s chapter of CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, filed a lawsuit against the Oklahoma State Election Board. As reported by Rachel Slajda of TPM Muckracker, Muneer Awad, director of the Oklahoma branch of CAIR who filed the suit, says that the new Oklahoma law violates his First Amendment rights, including his personal desires for actions to be taken after his death.

Two questions should be forwarded to Muneer Awad, American Muslims and visitors who feel that a rejection of Sharia law within the American court system is worthy of court litigation. The first question is, what are the true motivations for the opposition of the American justice system applying its own laws within a sovereign nation? The second question is, just what country do you think you are living in? Omar Sacirbey from the Religion News Service reports a conversation with Sarah Albahadily, a 27-year-old American-born Muslim woman, who said after Oklahomans voted on State Question 755, barring Sharia law from American courts, that she felt less at home in the state. Specifically, she said, “It’s disheartening, even though it was expected, you still feel the blow.” Statements like these leave me in a state of bewilderment. How can the enforcement of American law within America be felt as an emotional blow? What would be the end result of subverting American law with a Middle Eastern form of law such as Sharia?
Continue reading “

Oklahoma: When Sharia Comes Sweeping Down the Plains”

Anti-Americanism - Democrats/Leftists - Elections - Humor - Liberals - Paul A. Ibbetson - TV

Stewart and Colbert: Laughing With the Left Until it Hurts

November 12, 2010 by

Paul A. Ibbetson

There is just something about humor that makes it inviting in almost every situation. We love to have our funny bone tickled in so many ways, and it is both the joke and its creative delivery that keeps us coming back for more. Good comedy has the power to transcend many a strong grievance and many a harsh battleground. Take politics for instance. There is seldom found a more divisive subject that can be broached between two individuals. Politics has the power to set lifelong friends to physical blows at a high school reunion, or deacons to highly charged whispers of anger while passing the collection plate in church. I think you know what I am saying, and I bet you have been there before. If you haven’t, you will be, as assuredly as death and taxes, but there I go talking politics again.

The point is that humor serves as a “pressure relief valve” that allows us all to laugh at ourselves as well as those on the other side of the aisle. Being able to do both is important. Knowing when to do it is a step toward the divine. Everyone seems to have the ability to laugh at their adversaries; however, many do it in ways that demean themselves and the comedic process. When liberals laugh in a red-eyed, frothing frenzy during Michael Moore films they are not paying homage to comedic flair, but instead are simply wallowing in the filth of partisan anger. This is because Michael Moore films are not funny, but are sad in that “I just ran over your puppy and I think I will blame it on your neighbor because he is a successful capitalist” kind of way. To applaud poor comedic attempts, or just plain acts of political sniping, is attacking one’s own sense of where true comedy resides.
Continue reading “

Stewart and Colbert: Laughing With the Left Until it Hurts”

Democrats/Leftists - Government - Health - Journalism - Liberals - Media Bias - NPR - Paul A. Ibbetson - PCism - Society/Culture - Western Civilization

National Public Radio and the Skinny Fat Man

November 5, 2010 by

Paul A. Ibbetson

I once knew a guy who was about 50 pounds overweight. Any time a friend or family member would address him on the issue of cutting out the sweets, he would get indignant and quickly inform inquiring souls that he was completely fit in all areas except his midriff, which he would address in his own good time. We might surmise that from this gentleman’s thinking he thought his body was nothing short of a series of physical quadrants of which he had worked to address all but a final set of coordinates: his stomach. More than likely, the man was just fat and did not like being told so.

Brian Montopoli of CBS News tells us that National Public Radio no longer goes by that name; it’s NPR now. Well, I mean, the legal name is still National Public Radio as it has been for the last 40 years but they now request their brand name “NPR” be the title spoken on air. Why? Like a fat man demanding that he be called “Speedo-challenged” instead of simply overweight, National Public Radio is trying to run the fat-man scam on Americans. Montopoli talks about conservative pundits like Sarah Palin who call for cutting off public funding to National Public Radio and he insinuates that Palin is misguided as the federal funds the non-profit organization receives are considered by him as minimal. While the overall percentage may be less than 10 percent of their total budget, NPR receives millions of public tax dollars yearly. The case Montopoli forwards is as compelling an argument as when our gentleman friend with the mild protuberance tells us he has reduced his daily cupcake intake from twelve to nine of the tasty treats. Of course, the point is that he should not eat any, especially if we the American people have to flip the bill for the indulgence.
Continue reading “

National Public Radio and the Skinny Fat Man”

Budget - California - Crime - Democrats/Leftists - Elections - Government - Liberals - Marijuana - Paul A. Ibbetson - Regulation - Taxes - War On Drugs

California: The Gateway Drug State

October 28, 2010 by

Paul A. Ibbetson

When California legalized medical marijuana in 1996 with Proposition 215 to address their citizens’ headaches and shoulder pains, I along with many others saw this as the beginning of a push for wider legalization of the drug. This concern has now been validated with Proposition 19 that is on California’s November 2 ballot. If passed, California’s new pot law will allow individuals 21 years or older to legally possess one ounce of marijuana as well as to create “pot gardens” for recreational use. Legal pot will have transcended the need of any ailment to be consumed openly by Californians. Of course, the federal government may still throw you in jail, and that is an issue that might keep those secret marijuana-growing rooms secret.

As reported by the Christian Science Monitor, when California legalized medical marijuana the law was not picked up by the entire country. In fact, only 13 other states decided that the drug would become part of their healing regiment. Why? Because the federal government continued to enforce the drug laws prohibiting the drug’s possession and use. Both the administrations of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush prosecuted users and sellers after proposition 215 passed in California. The authority to enforce the federal drug laws on divergent states like California was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. That revelation is probably enough to make a California herb enthusiast drop his or her handcrafted water bong in slow-motion shock. Barack Obama’s “hope and change” in part brought change to how the federal government would treat medical marijuana states. Currently the White House’s stance is no prosecution for medical marijuana states.
Continue reading “

California: The Gateway Drug State”

Anti-Americanism - Christianity - Paul A. Ibbetson - Religion

Westboro Baptist Church and the Ten-Mile Proposition

October 25, 2010 by

Paul A. Ibbetson

The Westboro Baptist Church… need I say more? The nation watches as the Supreme Court deliberates on the limits of free speech in America involving the right of families to bury the dead in peace versus the need of the little Kansas cult to disrupt military funerals and tell grieving families that their dearly departed are going to hell. Going to hell, mind you, because somewhere in the world, a homosexual exists.

The rhyme or reason behind the actions of the Westboro sign-wavers is so contradictory to the Bible and to logic itself that their actions may never be brought to a reasonable understanding. The big head shaker when it comes to this group of peculiar proselytes is Westboro’s overwhelming indifference to actually bringing any converts into their fold. This group shows up at a location and tells people the equivalency of, “God hates you, you’re going to hell and we’re not; have a nice day.” This appears to be the Westboro mission statement. I know; I live only 40 miles from these dirty damnation designators and their central compound in Topeka, Kansas. I have had them shake their signs at me in Wichita, Kansas, while attempting to go to church, and I have been in spitting distance of them at Kansas State University. I interviewed Shirley Phelps-Roper on my radio program Conscience of Kansas in 2008 and I still receive positive feedback from YouTube viewers who enjoy the moments when I turn Phelps-Roper’s microphone off to break up her rants and filibustering.
Continue reading “

Westboro Baptist Church and the Ten-Mile Proposition”

Democrats/Leftists - Education - Ethics - Government - Health - Journalism - Liberals - Media - Media Bias - Paul A. Ibbetson - Society/Culture - Teachers Unions - Unions

Death before truth: Political correctness in America

October 15, 2010 by

Paul A. Ibbetson

If you want to see the pervasive nature of political correctness in America today, the national public outcry following the Rigoberto Ruelas suicide in California is a salient example. Ruelas, a fifth grade teacher at Miramonte Elementary School in south Los Angeles, is believed to have committed suicide after receiving poor ratings in a teacher-rating database that was posted in the Los Angeles Times. Specifically, Christina Hoag of the Associated Press reports that Rigoberto Ruelas was described by friends as being distraught over scoring “average” in his teaching effectiveness in English and scoring as “less effective” in the area of math. Ruelas had an overall score of “less effective.” As Ruelas’ body was found in the Big Tujunga Canyon area in the Angeles National Forest by law enforcement officials, the question, “who is to blame?” cascades across the nation.

The apparent suicide of Rigoberto Ruelas brings about the usual pain and anguish of such events. Having worked numerous suicide investigations as a criminal investigator, I understand there are many common elements that family and friends suffer through when individuals choose to take their own lives. One of the common themes is an attempt to rationally explain how such a tragedy could take place. With the attempt to find explanations for such traumatic events comes the common quest to assign blame. This is when the politically correct operatives step out of the woodwork to point the public toward those they wish to be held accountable.
Continue reading “

Death before truth: Political correctness in America”

Communism - Elections - Liberals - Paul A. Ibbetson - Socialism - Venezuela

Mid-term elections in Venezuela: Did revolution make it on the ballot?

October 8, 2010 by

Paul A. Ibbetson

As reported by the Christian Science Monitor, Venezuela’s communist dictator Hugo Chavez faces his biggest challenge to retain his political voting monopoly since ascending to power almost twelve years ago. Citizens of Venezuela are building in dissatisfaction with the country’s growing crime rate and poor economy. As Steven Bodzin of the Monitor reports, the token opposition parties that currently exist under the totalitarian reign of Hugo Chavez will attempt to use any mid-term election successes as a springboard to actually defeating the president in 2012. Good luck.

While it seems cold to highlight the futility of using the electoral process to improve the lot of individuals anywhere within a communist dictatorship, truth is still the best medicine. What is the truth in the face of a growing population of Venezuelan people who want more money, less crime and in the end, more freedom to make it happen? The truth is that it will never transpire under a communistic regime run by a dictator like Hugo Chavez.
Continue reading “

Mid-term elections in Venezuela: Did revolution make it on the ballot?”

Children - Congress - Conservatives - Democrats/Leftists - Elections - GOP - Government - House of Representatives - Liberals - Paul A. Ibbetson - President - Republicans

Values Voter Summit: Why winning is not enough

October 3, 2010 by

Paul A. Ibbetson

The recent Values Voter Summit in Washington gave people a chance to hear from some of the potential Republican presidential candidates for 2012. Indiana Congressman Mike Pence, the lesser known of the political lineup that spoke at the event, took first place with 24 percent, narrowly beating former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee who received 22 percent of the votes from the 700 plus attendees of the event.

While straw polls have no real validity as a gauge of the future political waters, they do show us that the Republican Party has begun to think about the future. It is now that the GOP and the American people must do some careful thinking. As much as we all would love to know the primary candidates now, strategic reasoning places most of those declarations further down the road. The most important reason for this is that when politicians announce their candidacy, they are immediately placed under attack, often attacks frivolous in nature, and must expend valuable time and resources defending their names. Strategically, this is a fight best scheduled for months before an election, not years. While this kind of baseless mud throwing demeans the process, it has unfortunately become so common that we are shocked when politicians at any level of government simply square off on their platform issues. At my last count, Delaware senatorial candidate Christine O’Donnell, who just won her primary, is currently accused of being a mentally unstable, litigious, satanic witch who improperly uses campaign funds to gain the allegiance of a radical right-wing Tea Party movement. Did I miss anything? A stroke of the keys on your computer in a week will probably bring forth accusations that make these look tame, and a presidential candidate will have it much worse.
Continue reading “

Values Voter Summit: Why winning is not enough”

Abortion - Biology - Health - Liberals - Paul A. Ibbetson - Science

Embryonic Stem Cell Research: The blood trail of progress

September 25, 2010 by

Paul A. Ibbetson

With a recent federal appeals court decision temporarily lifting the ban on embryonic stem cell research, the question of destroying a life to save a life is again thrust back into the realm of public debate. As reported by medical AP writer Lauran Neergaard, the National Institutes of Health will rapidly resume embryonic stem cell research as well as remove holds on grants and contracts allowing the use of embryonic stem cells.

The stance from the White House on this debate has been predictable. Former President George W. Bush’s position against federal funding for embryonic stem cell research was a part of his pro-life stance and heavily based on his religious belief in the sanctity of life. Barack Obama, the president who said in 2008 at a rally in Pennsylvania that if his daughters ever made the mistake of getting pregnant he would not want them “punished with a baby,” has predictably taken the modern liberal stance on this issue in support of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
Continue reading “

Embryonic Stem Cell Research: The blood trail of progress”

Democrats/Leftists - Freedom - Government - Liberals - Paul A. Ibbetson

Just Relax Your Throat: Liberals and Their Need to Force-Feed America

September 19, 2010 by

Paul A. Ibbetson

Are you hungry, America? Got a rumble in the tummy telling you it’s time to eat? If we are honest about it, Americans have a really big appetite for almost everything. I will admit that to self-loathing liberals, who bemoan this country at every turn, that this is a characteristic requiring praise, not apology. Hunger to excel, achieve, compete and succeed has been an individually engrained American quality for our entire history. While it is very anti-PETA to say it, America doesn’t seek the lettuce of prosperity; we want the big, thick, juicy meat of victory and success in everything we do. I get hungry even thinking about it.

It’s not the case today that liberals from Barack Obama to the ACLU are trying to cut in line and get the best portions of what America has to offer for their own plates; that would be too straightforward, too capitalistic. Instead, liberals want Americans to consume an ideology counter to our appetite, and to take up policies detrimental to our well-being. This is why as a nation we must be discerning in what we consume. Chew on that.
Continue reading “

Just Relax Your Throat: Liberals and Their Need to Force-Feed America”

Anti-Americanism - Democrats/Leftists - GOP - Government - House of Representatives - Islam - Islamofascism - Liberals - Paul A. Ibbetson - Religion - Republicans - Terrorism

Lt. Col. Allen West: A Voice for the Leavenworth 10

September 9, 2010 by

Paul A. Ibbetson

Is somebody watching over you today? Is there someone somewhere that is willing to put your well-being ahead of theirs? Those are powerful questions that we seldom ponder here in America. Why? The answer is that safety, security and most importantly freedom, the delicacies sought in so many places in the world, are things we in America nonchalantly pile upon our plates daily like hungry diners at an all-you-can-eat smorgasbord. Say what you will, but the reality is that even in the worst of times we really have it good. However, America, the magnet for so many people of the world, has been maintained and has flourished by the blood of the American soldier. The soldier’s willingness to fight and if need be, die on foreign soils against vicious enemies for the nation’s survival is often underestimated.

The war on terror brought a realization to most Americans through the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, that we had to take a stand against radical Islamic extremism. In one of President George W. Bush’s best moments as the leader of the free world, Americans took an overdue offensive stance against terrorism. American fighting forces, along with others across the world, have been fighting a brave battle against the scourge of Islamic terrorism. Unfortunately, the battle to defeat terrorism has been as much a battle within as on the outside. In a political environment not seen since Vietnam, the American soldier has been placed in the very untenable situation of being charged with finding victory in the battle zone, without being able to incorporate the normal tools by which victory is attained. Political correctness on the battlefield handed down by those in government without the belly for war or simply American victory, has threatened the lives of American soldiers in more ways than one.
Continue reading “

Lt. Col. Allen West: A Voice for the Leavenworth 10″

CNN - Democrats/Leftists - Government - Journalism - Liberals - Media - Media Bias - Paul A. Ibbetson

Classic Monster Politics

September 3, 2010 by

Paul A. Ibbetson

What do Bela Lugosi, Boris Karloff, Lon Chaney and Lon Chaney Jr. have in common? They are forever known as the faces of the classic monsters Dracula, Frankenstein’s monster, Phantom of the Opera, and the Wolf Man. Whether you were frightened by these classic representations or the continual evolutionary adaptations that have followed, we all know these monsters when we see them and we all do the same thing when they are thrust into our faces: we take a big step back.

As interesting as the creatures themselves is the construction in how they are perceived. With this in mind, no relevant “monster talk” would be complete without addressing the most prevalent but least identified monsters of today. This identification is made if we are smart enough to expand our minds to enlightened ways of thinking and bold enough to shine our torches into the deepest, dankest recesses in which these illusive modern ghouls take refuge. The problem in the end is that when we finally take a bold look, we are more likely to find a beast with a three-piece suit and briefcase than a creature in rags and chains. In place of ravenous, blood-sucking fangs, we are likely to find smiling faces, stacks of ambiguous laws and a well-manicure hand that can whip out a signature in total darkness. Who are these new slithering, sinister surrogates of evil? Without a doubt it is the modern-day politician.
Continue reading “

Classic Monster Politics”

Anti-Americanism - Constitution - Democrats/Leftists - Gay Marriage - Gays - Law - Liberals - Marriage - Paul A. Ibbetson - Regulation

Gay Marriage: Court Decisions from Sodom and Gomorrah

August 15, 2010 by

Paul A. Ibbetson

In a recent court decision, California’s Proposition 8 initiative, which stated that marriage was to be between a man and a woman, has been struck down as unconstitutional. As reported by Fox News, the decision that overruled the voters of California was made by openly gay U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker. Walker, one of three openly gay federal judges in the country, said that the people’s choice in California for traditional marriage was unconstitutional because “Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.” Of course, homosexuals around the country dance in glee at the new court decision amidst the flutter of rainbow flags, while appeals and other court battles over the gay marriage question prepare to begin.

Today, to oppose the destruction of traditional values is to violate the less-than-silent-but-always-growing edict of political correctness. So in the spirit of being overly fair to gay marriage proponents, let us revisit Judge Walker’s rationale for overturning the country’s long-standing tradition of marriage. Judge Walker states on the issue of marriage that opposite-sex couples must not be seen as superior to same-sex couples. The word “superior” is commonly defined as having a higher importance, above the average in merit, or being of higher quality, to name a few. So using Judge Walker’s argument on couples, is traditional marriage of higher importance than gay marriage? From the standpoint of Californians, it most certainly is. In one of the most liberal states in the country the people rose up to defend traditional marriage in November 2008. The importance of this issue was so strong that the people took action to correct the decisions of their liberal courts within five months of the state Supreme Court’s legalization of gay marriage. They did this legally through the voting process, and traditional marriage won because of its importance to the voters of California.
Continue reading “

Gay Marriage: Court Decisions from Sodom and Gomorrah”

Anti-Americanism - Children - Democrats/Leftists - Education - Government - Kansas - Liberals - Paul A. Ibbetson

Too Dangerous to Print: Liberal University Bias

August 11, 2010 by

-By Paul A. Ibbetson

Thomas Paine once said, “He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself.” How true these words are. One of the most fundamental reflections of liberty is the freedom to question, challenge and debate the world around us. This freedom does not exist everywhere in the United States and certainly not at the university level.

As a lifelong Kansan, it would be much less painful to talk about liberal bias in places like Berkeley or Columbia University, but unfortunately my example comes from the least likely of places expected for liberal bias, Kansas State University. It was here that I was hired to write a political opinion column for the college newspaper. I was not naïve to the Collegian’s historically antagonistic relationship with conservative writers. In my 2009 book, “Feeding Lions: Sharing The Conservative Philosophy in a Politically Hostile World,” I had documented the firing of fellow conservative writer Chuck Armstrong, who was sent packing by the Collegian after writing an article about radical Islam. Armstrong’s article, based on his radio interview with scholar Robert Spencer, was labeled as racist and the Collegian threw Paine’s words out the window.
Continue reading “

Too Dangerous to Print: Liberal University Bias”

9/11 - Anti-Americanism - Barack Obama - Christianity - Democrats/Leftists - Foreign Countries - Government - Islam - Islamofascism - Jews - Judaism - Liberals - Military - Paul A. Ibbetson - Religion - Sharia - Terrorism - Western Civilization

Mega Mosques and the Territorial Mark

August 5, 2010 by

-By Paul A. Ibbetson

Right now at ground zero in New York a battle over the construction of buildings following 9/11 is raging. It is hard to believe that almost nine years following the Islamic attacks that took thousands of American lives, post-9/11 construction has moved at the speed of a dying snail. Even more perplexing than the failure of New York officials to take on aggressive construction projects to breathe life back into areas destroyed by 9/11 is the proposed mega mosque building project only blocks away from ground zero.

It’s times like these that a person has to shake his head and wonder, “Are you just trying to provoke me?” From Voice of America News, Carolyn Weaver reports on the plans of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, president of what has been called the Cordoba Initiative to create a mega mosque and community center near ground zero. In Weaver’s report, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf attempts to frame the mega mosque as though it will be a cultural meeting point for as many non-Muslims as followers of Islam. With the long history of Islamic intolerance of what they consider non-believers, Rauf’s sales pitch demands a high level of scrutiny. To get further compliance, Rauf claims that those who oppose a mega mosque being built on the ashes of 9/11are Islamophobes. This is an insult to America’s dead and deserves a healthy rebuke, which I am ready to give.
Continue reading “

Mega Mosques and the Territorial Mark”