“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.

If the revamped anti-discrimination ordinance is passed as it currently stands, lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people will be made into a protected class. This would come into effect even though there have never been any documented cases of discrimination in the city involving this group or their members. Despite this fact, after becoming a protected class these individuals would be able to bring forth allegations of discrimination against citizens and businesses. This newly designated protected class can start proceedings against average citizens simply if they feel they are “about to be discriminated against”. Let that sink in for a moment. The ordinance is stated as dealing with all matters surrounding housing, accommodation and the work environment–in short, most everything in life. So pervasive is the ordinance that it is said by some to take authority over state and federal entities within the city of Manhattan. This smells more than a little fishy from a legal perspective, but let’s keeps moving.

Under this ordinance, if a person is charged with discrimination they will be made to come in front of a three-person tribunal for judgment and sentencing. Out of compassion for readers knowing what is to come, this is your second chance to sit down. The tribunal itself will not be elected by voters but appointed at the whim of the mayor except for the stipulation that one member will always come from the protected status group. Without any specialized training or education, this tribunal will have the power to collect evidence, call witnesses and levy fines up to $50,000 on violators. Sound like America? You’re probably sitting down now and that is good because it gets a whole lot worse. If one finds themselves in front of this tribunal, not only will one third of the judges be biased against the accused but the entire system is set up counter to the American justice system. Yes, instead of a presumption of innocence for the accused, like witch hunts of old, the accused have a presumption of guilt and must prove they are innocent. A question screams to be answered, “What is happening in Manhattan, Kansas?” 

A pastoral letter of rejection to the ordinance change was signed by over 25 Kansas preachers and pastors and was read in a local Manhattan city meeting. On December 1, 2010 several hundred Kansas citizens came together at Kansas State University for a “Faith, Family, and Freedom Rally” to fellowship with one another and pray that city officials will take a different path, and set a better precedent for other towns and states that deal with this issue. The proposed ordinance is a bad law on every level from the spiritual to city economics. If a father sees a man follow his daughter into a public bathroom and objects, he may have to pay a fine. If a business decides to deny hiring, or giving services to anyone within this protected class, they may be fined out of business.  In reality, the law will be used to punish traditional Christian values whenever they come into conflict with the gay agenda. When it comes to knowing when one might be seen as committing discrimination against someone with gender identity issues, your guess is as good as mine. There are currently no criteria set up to define when a violation has occurred.

If you are simply shaking your head and giving thanks this debacle is not taking place in your town, be ready for a scary surprise in your morning paper. In April of 2010 Manhattan, Kansas, deep within the Bible Belt of the heartland, had its first gay pride parade. Then, by political fiat, the month of June was name by the Manhattan mayor pro tem as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month. Now in December, three out of five liberal politicians, on behalf of a minority group with a political agenda, are about to create a liberal city ordinance more extreme than anything seen in San Francisco. This new ordinance will be used as a civil hammer to beat traditional values into submission, and the shock waves will be felt around the country. Toto, we are in a big fix, because Kansas is about to be no longer in Kansas anymore.              

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

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.

            By now most Americans who have not experienced their own horror story at the airport have heard the tales of those who have been poked, prodded, and even fondled while trying to get on a flight. Stories of the handicapped being forced to stand on defective limbs while security personnel inspect their leg braces or the cancer survivor made to remove her prosthetic breast for inspection brings home the egregious nature of the new protocols. With the current system that is now being put into place, TSA cannot expect future increases in efficiency to mitigate the invasive nature of the experience to any noticeable degree. 

            It is in the strategic nature of the enhanced security protocol at the airports, and the argument made to passengers for their compliance that TSA utterly fails to make their case. They fail not just in the possession of full-body scanners or the implementation of enhanced pat-downs, TSA fails because blanket implementation of these protocols does not give airline passengers a degree of safety equal to or surpassing the violation of human dignity that they entail. Individuals seeking alternatives, such as Republican Representative John Mica of Florida, say the answer can be found in replacing TSA agents with private security guards. Mica’s reasoning for such changes is based on the idea that private industry through competition would increase quality and efficiency.

This is possible, but only if several fundamental strategies are put into place. More diligent inspection of passports and pre-travel documents along with observations of passenger activities and actions at the airport will go far toward true airline security. This goes hand in hand with observing sets of characteristics that identify what has been congruent with modern-day terrorists. At this point in time, this means placing higher scrutiny on Muslim males that are traveling from known terrorist locations over elderly American grandmothers in walkers flying to see their grandchildren for the holidays. To call this racist is to be misguided. To deplete critical security resources to invasively search people who do not fit any criteria of a terrorist simply to be politically correct is more than wasteful, it is reckless. It is reckless because it places all passengers at higher risk as security personnel decrease their attentiveness while searching individuals who are obvious non-threats.

Those that would place all airline travelers in front of the full-body scanners and rubber gloves of TSA personnel cite the case that if the current profile of the modern terrorist is actually observed instead of denied through blanket security procedures that those that wish to do Americans harm will simply use different actors to conduct terrorist activities.  The current evidence does not support this line of thinking for terroristic airline incidents. If this does change and grandmothers, Girl Scouts, American vets, and even farm boys from Kansas like myself fall under the profile of terrorists who blow up planes, then adaptations can be made, and protocols altered. The new protocols would come with, most importantly, a logical argument to be made for the reasonable balance of security measures and airline safety. Right now, we are all getting the equivalent of the unwarranted colonoscopy.    

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

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?

            In a summary supplied by the Council on Foreign Relations, Islamic Law in Sharia, known as “the path” in Arabic, is described as a guide for all aspects of a Muslim’s daily life. The conflicts coming from having Sharia in American law would be immediate. There is little doubt that to place a foreign legal system that dictates all matters of familial, financial, religious and criminal matters will bring drastic, detrimental conflict to the American legal justice system. From the background supplied by the CFR, we only have to look to what punishments are called for under “hadd” crimes as prescribed by Sharia law to bring the point home.

Five different crimes fall under the “hadd” category: unlawful sexual intercourse, false accusation of unlawful sexual intercourse, the consumption of alcohol, theft and highway robbery. Punishments for such offenses under Sharia may include flogging, stoning, amputation, exile or execution. Sound like the American way? Sounds more like a trip back in the Dark Ages. Sharia also embodies the well-documented honor killings for daughters and wives who were deemed to have brought shame to the family, not to mention genital mutilation, adolescent marriages, polygamy and gender-biased inheritance rules. Do people like Muneer Awad feel that these aspects of Sharia are necessary for First Amendment rights in America’s Constitution to be valid? Would subverting American law for individuals who commit honor killings or genital mutilations add to the “homey” aspects of the Sooner state? While the dangerous trend these days is to attack the exercising of state rights, Oklahoma voters deserve answers to questions such as these before their voices, and their state, are blacklisted alongside others such as Arizona.

            Some that may wish to push the Sharia agenda at worst, or to be apathetic to its dangers at best, say that Oklahoma’s lawmakers and voters are premature to address this issue as it has not yet been a factor in Oklahoma courts. Really, this question is of little importance when compared to Oklahoma’s right to deal as a sovereign state with the issues it finds important. If we were to poll the estimated 30,000 Oklahoma Muslims along with Oklahoma’s total population of 3.5 million citizens, I believe that Sharia law would be strongly rejected by a majority of all Oklahoma residents. But even so, groups like CAIR and their lackeys in the American Civil Liberties Union are framing the issue of the affirmation of the American court system as unconstitutional and the safeguarding of all American people as an exercise in Islamophobia. It appears that something dark and sinister may be afoot within the upcoming Oklahoma Sharia litigation, and Americans should be privy to the truth.  Groups like CAIR and the ACLU should be made to more fully explain their motivations for opposing state’s right in Oklahoma and its people’s desire to uphold American law.

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

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. 

Then there are true comedians that test our ability to discern funny from mean. Seth MacFarlane is such a comedic talent. Despite being your typical over-the-top liberal activist, he is truly talented. MacFarlane has collaborated in many very funny and creative television shows such as Johnny Bravo, Cow and Chicken and Dexter’s Laboratory. MacFarlane’s outspoken support for gay rights, atheism, and the legalization of marijuana do not affect his ability to make us laugh when he creates something that is actually funny. Even his adult comedies Family Guy and American Dad are creative and humorous at many turns. Yes I said it, he is funny here too. Unfortunately, MacFarlane brings justified public anger upon himself in the political arena, when he does things such as attacking Sarah Palin’s child with Down syndrome.

In this case it is not that conservatives don’t have a sense of humor, as many from the right can and do laugh while watching “American Dad,” with MacFarlane’s indirect joke-poking at former president George W. Bush. What MacFarlane failed to comprehend was that attacking Down syndrome children would not be funny no matter which side of the political aisle you are on.  The point is that when it comes to humor, Macfarlane often succeeds and should be acknowledge as funny despite being a liberal. Conversely, when he steps away from creating humor, and is consumed by his liberal nature and becomes mean, he should be acknowledged as a loser.

Thus enter Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert and “Team Sanity.” The liberal comedic duo of over-the-top Colbert with his “ultra-conservative” funnyman shtick and Stewart with his subconscious tendency to be an “angry little man” are running around the country to locations such as the National Mall with their “Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear” campaign. Many parts were really funny. There I said it once again. Liberals can be funny and most often it is when they are not being mean. While the event had the feel of comedy, even though it was liberal comedy, John Stewart still found a way of taking a person’s smile and turning it upside down with a liberal diatribe about how there is no true division in the country and that negative affairs within the United States are being overblown. This, like Michael Moore and the nasty shades of MacFarlane, kills the event for comedy-seeking conservatives, the same conservatives that may at times flip to Comedy Central and have at least a momentary chuckle. Stewart failed at the National Mall, not just for being wrong about the world in which he lives—we can forgive him that, after all, he is a modern-day liberal. However, we cannot forgive him for not being funny about it.

The point of importance is that political persuasion should not be the gauge by which we decide where humor is found. If it is funny, we should laugh, even if we are at times laughing at ourselves. If it is not funny, to treat it as such, despite the political direction in which the failed attempt is directed, is to purposely demean oneself. It is laughing to the point of hurting one’s dignity.    

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

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.

            Despite medical marijuana’s gateway legalization and protection from federal prosecution brought forth by the Obama administration, the White House has decided to at least give lip service to the idea of enforcing federal law on “marijuana for fun.” From the Christian Science Monitor we see that Attorney General Eric Holder, after receiving a letter signed by nine former DEA administrators, now says that he will enforce federal drug laws no matter what the outcome of Proposition 19. I don’t think the cannabis connoisseurs of California have much to worry about either way. For one, except for when facing off with conservatives, Holder’s spine tends toward a consistency of linguini. Secondly, despite Holder’s vow to make marijuana prosecutions a “core priority” of the Justice Department, the lion’s share of arrests will still be made at the state and local levels.      

            As is often the case, the most important issues transcend the immediate topic. The issue of legalizing “marijuana for fun” is simply another symptom of the growing liberalization of the country. There is little doubt that liberals in California have played a major part in the liberalization of the country, being banner carriers for leftist causes from gay marriage to the gateway legalization of marijuana. However, on the marijuana issue, much of the country has stood by in befuddled apathy listening to the equivalent of back-alley drug dealers tell Americans the economic benefits of mainstreaming the drug in California to save the state’s economic woes. The success of this progression is present for all who wish to see it. Medical marijuana for the dangerously ill led to marijuana for ankle sprains, all in the name of healing and all in direct violation of federal law. This led to the progressive thought: “why should people fuss with the doctor’s note when California can make an ounce of personal marijuana legal and collect some needed taxes to boot?”

Of course, if marijuana is not to be framed from the standpoint of pot promoters as a “healing herb” and now can be seen as a product of taxable income, would it not be more efficient and profitable to collect taxable income on this drug by the pound instead of by the ounce? Of course it would, and if proposition 19 passes on November 2, watch for increases in pot possession amounts, soon to follow. You can bet on it, or more aptly, you can bank on it. Moral relativism has been the catalyst to propel much of California’s “gateway” thinking, and don’t think that issues such as gay marriage and marijuana are the lowest points of this pitiful, progressive pit. Heaven forbid when California liberals discover the taxable potential in crack cocaine or kiddy porn. I will equally dread watching Eric Holder and the Obama administration try to show some spine on those issues, considering they are cut from the same clay as those they will have to oppose. Those who can’t see the direction the country is going through initiatives like Proposition 19 may not just be stupid, they may be high.

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 books “Living Under The Patriot Act: Educating A Society” and “Feeding Lions: Sharing The Conservative Philosophy In A Politically Hostile World.” Paul is also the radio host of the Kansas Broadcasting Association’s 2008, 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

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.

The point here is not to rehash a debate about the deviant inner workings of the Westboro Baptist Church; I would not drag readers into that gutter. The point is also not to have a high noon theologian-style standoff with WBC on who will get their comeuppance come judgment day. What is of importance here is whether this country should allow WBC to continue to harangue military families and call it free speech. Do we undermine the Constitution and what the First Amendment stands for if we say that unpopular speech, even the near-fighting words of WBC, can be squelched? Westboro, as the Saul Alinksy tacticians that they are, now bank on our Constitution to save them in their hour of need. Should they be silenced at the risk of silencing legitimate voices down the road in places like the Internet, Tea Party gatherings, and conservative talk radio?

Detroit Free Press columnist Mitch Albom laments about the Westboro issue and comes to a couple of interesting conclusions with which I partially agree. First, Albom concludes that the Supreme Court will most likely rule on the side of the Westboro Baptist Church. I agree that this will happen. Based on this conclusion, Albom forwards the idea that the current state laws pushing protestors to distances of 500 feet or more should be changed for groups like Westboro to 10 miles. Albom’s idea is that at that distance, Westboro would be made ineffective and they would give up their activities due to a lack of attention.

At first thought this might seem like the way to go, and my knee-jerk reaction, like Albom’s, is to make “distance” the defense for military families from Westboro’s brand of hateful speech. But alas, after further thought I believe that this would not bring about the desired effect and might possibly have a myriad of unintended negative consequences. We have to recognize that Westboro members, like a nest of vipers, are extremely crafty. They know the law and they use it to their advantage very effectively. If they were physically banned for 10 miles they would most likely affix jumbotrons to public walkways where they could flash their signs and scream insults at the dead via satellite. The point is that they would not give in, they would not give up; they would adapt to the letter of the law to continue their protests. Worse yet, the slippery slope issue is again brought forth. These are the points where Albom’s strategy fails to hit the mark.

Despite my disagreement with the current option, I do not come to the table without any solutions to the Westboro question. Westboro should be shut down, but not on the issue of free speech. They should be shut down because their protests are in fact an act of treason. Westboro’s military protests are open acts of treachery and clearly a breach of allegiance to the nation. Westboro, through their psychological warfare against the military, show a clear pattern of undermining the war effort and thus aid and comfort the enemy. Akin to passing out pamphlets at military recruiting stations to join al-Qaeda, Westboro passes out the threat to American families that if their children serve and die for this country, their cult may be attending the funeral. WBC protests disrupt communities, turn the local populace against the police who must protect the protestors from annihilation, and bring never-ending pain and anguish to grieving families of fallen soldiers. Arguably worse, Westboro’s funeral protests plant the seeds of fear into America’s bravest families who can only wonder if their fallen loved one will be the next on the Westboro Baptist Church hit list.

In the end, we can and should leave the Constitution uncut and uncompromised on this heated issue. I guess you could say that when it comes to the Westboro Baptist Church, the answer is already on the books, and jail will bring far more justice than the 10-mile proposition.

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 books “Living Under The Patriot Act: Educating A Society” and “Feeding Lions: Sharing The Conservative Philosophy In A Politically Hostile World.” Paul is also the radio host of the Kansas Broadcasting Association’s 2008, 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 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.

I feel true sadness and sympathy for the family, friends and students who grieve Ruelas’ death. However, the attacks on the L.A. Times for reporting Ruelas’ sub-par teacher ratings are not deserved justice, rather the implementation of political correctness. Within political correctness, value judgments of almost any kind become taboo, especially those that account for personal conduct. Ironically, it is politically incorrect to even talk about political correctness.

The Ruelas case brings the point home. Who is to blame for the death of Rigoberto Ruelas? If we take the example being modeled by the teachers union,  it is not only the unfairness of the evaluation system that found Ruelas lacking as a teacher, but more so the audacity of the L.A. Times for reporting his deficiencies. Nowhere in the teachers union’s politically correct assessment of this incident do we hear them talk about holding teachers accountable for their own actions. As is the case with political correctness, those who publicize a value judgment are treated as the offenders while the problem itself is allowed to grow and build. Following political correctness, no problem is too big to ignore. The Ruelas case reflects this. As reported in the Associated Press, it was not just Ruelas who had teaching issues at Miramonte that the L.A. Times made public. The Miramonte Elementary School itself ranked as “least effective” in raising test scores, and only five out of 35 third to fifth grade teachers at the school were ranked as high as “average.” The problem was widespread but would have remained hidden from the view of parents and the public without publication. So, is the L.A. Times the culprit in this story, or is it some really bad teaching? You won’t hear any apologies from the teachers union United Teachers Los Angeles for Miramonte’s poor teacher performance. Instead, they are demanding that the L.A. Times stop posting teacher evaluations. Without the now-controversial publication, educators such as Ruelas would still have been evaluated on the criteria of respect and likeability. Is this the yardstick of evaluation that is in the best interest of the students of Miramonte? It certainly would have been more politically correct. 

Taking political correctness to the next level, the teachers union has called for a boycott of the L.A. Times. The idea that teachers should have their own report cards and accountability made public will now be put to the test. The unfortunate reality in this case is that the students of this school have lost a teacher, and their pain is justified. Family and friends are without someone they care about and their mourning is difficult to bear witness to. However, in the case of suicide, the responsibility falls with the individual, as this is a personal act, and a very selfish one at that.

If this teacher truly killed himself in reaction to a poor teacher evaluation made public, a politically incorrect truth needs to be accepted. It was not a poor evaluation or the L.A. Times’ decision to publish it along with other educators’ results that ended the teacher’s life. It was Ruelas’ personal decision to leave this world instead of addressing it that is causing the pain felt by family and friends today. It was his decision to run from a poor performance evaluation instead of improving himself or challenging the criteria by which he was evaluated. In the end, it was a very selfish decision of this teacher to abandon those that held him in such high regard for the false belief in escape. This is an important lesson that the teachers union could be addressing, instead they are obscuring true issues of accountability by evoking political correctness. 

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 books “Living Under The Patriot Act: Educating A Society” and “Feeding Lions: Sharing The Conservative Philosophy In A Politically Hostile World.” Paul is also the radio host of the Kansas Broadcasting Association’s 2008, 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

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.

            Since Hugo Chavez has occupied the “throne” in Venezuela, he has done what dictators always do. That is, Chavez has brought to his country pain, punishment and repression, and has laid the groundwork for the country’s future peril. How so? Following the communist blueprint, Chavez has worked tirelessly to shut down all opposing dissent. He has done this not only by creating a voting monopoly, but also by simply shutting down almost all non-state-run media. In 2009, Chavez made a major push to shut down radio stations that dared to report news opposing his totalitarian-style government. As reported by Reuters, Chavez justified his actions by saying, “We haven’t closed any radio stations, we’ve applied the law.” Putting the communistic stamp of approval on his censorship, Chavez said, “We’ve recovered a bunch of stations that were outside the law, that now belong to the people and not the bourgeoisie.” Through the iron grip of Chavez’s hold on media outlets, the people are now privy to impromptu, marathon-style rants from the president at any and all hours of the day. As far back as 2007, the Guardian reported that Chavez was asserted to have set the record for the longest state-run television speech, which ran all of eight hours. During the government-controlled broadcast, Hugo Chavez was reported to have sung songs, delivered jokes, broken into angry rants and discussed breasts implants—all things one can do with absolute power and no accountability.

            It is not with great shock that we see that in 2008 Hugo Chavez forced through a referendum to end presidential term limits. There is little doubt that Chavez has no intention of ever stepping down as president. In all honesty, the people of Venezuela need to face the cruel reality that despite polling results, Chavez will never allow any opposing party to supersede his political will. Therein lies the futility of the mid-term. Venezuelan elections are a sham designed simply for public consumption, with the end results pre-destined by the totalitarian ideology of the puppet master at the country’s helm: Hugo Chavez.

            Last, like giant evil magnets seeking to lock together, the communist dictator of Venezuela is drawn to other dirty birds in anti-capitalist, anti-freedom and anti-American dictators like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. As America is pulled toward a potential future conflict with Iran, Chavez’s own chosen alliances with such radicals place his country in an unneeded tenuous position for the future. 

            It is always difficult to fully grasp the pulse of the people of nations under communistic control because of the lack of factual information flow. Venezuela may follow Cuba in resigning itself to having a poor economy and for all intents and purposes, a life-long dictator. On the other hand, if a majority decides to rid the country of Chavez and his lackeys, they will only do it by way of revolution; nothing short of that will have any true effect. Whether the people of Venezuela know it or not, their elections will remain nothing more than a futile public exercise until revolution is placed on the ballot and the majority of the people vote for it. 

 Paul A. Ibbetson is a former Chief of Police of Cherryvale, Kansas, and member of the Montgomery County Drug Task Force. Paul received his Bachelor’s and Master’s 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 books “Living Under The Patriot Act: Educating A Society” and “Feeding Lions: Sharing The Conservative Philosophy In A Politically Hostile World.” Paul is also the radio host of the Kansas Broadcasting Association’s 2008, 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

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.

            As much as I feel for whomever will take on that monumental task of being the Republican presidential candidate for the primaries and later, the winner in the general election, I am much more concerned about losing the country. In the bigger picture, that is the challenge at hand. Here are some fundamental truths along the pathway to the 2012 presidential election: Barack Obama will be extremely hard to beat in 2012. Any mentality to the contrary is almost as detrimental to the GOP as being part of an ACORN voter registration drive. On my radio program Conscience of Kansas I spoke with Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Patterson, author of the book “Conduct Unbecoming.” Patterson said of Obama that “he is the most anti-American, most radical president we have ever elected by far.” Now remember, Patterson worked directly with former president Bill Clinton. Despite the painful accuracy of Patterson’s assessment and the growing discontent found in Astroturf-free groups like the Tea Party, Obama and the Democrats have several ways to achieve victory in 2012. Republicans have only one.

            Here are some more 2012 election truths: Barack Obama is nothing if not a superb campaigner. Let not the lackadaisical John McCain presidential campaign diminish the real effectiveness of Obama’s campaign machine when put into action. We would also be wise to understand that power achieved is never easily relinquished. If the Republican Party fails to place truly conservative candidates in the primary, Obama will win. If the American people allow third-string democrats in the form of RINOs in the Republican Party to surpass true conservatives in the primary, Obama wins. If the American people vote a strong conservative through the primary and the party fails to adequately disseminate those values and how they address the issues of the day, Obama wins. Lastly, and possibly the most overlooked potential for defeat during the course of this upcoming 2012 general election battle, even if Republicans defeat Obama in the general election, if our party’s candidate does not have true conservative values, we lose, we lose, we lose.

            It might sound that pessimism is the word of the day, but that is not so. Barack Obama is indeed beatable, and he deserves to be placed in the annals of history with democrat failures such as Jimmy Carter.  Like many unhappy Americans today, I look forward to voting in the 2012 election. Heck, I want to video tape my trip to the polls and put it on YouTube, just to be able to relive the moment and to anger liberals till the end of time. However, the Republican Party must have a true conservative candidate to show voters the clear delineation between their values and the socialistic values of Barack Obama.

           The Values Voter Summit is but one of many chances for politicians in the Republican Party to prepare themselves for the scrutiny of the American people on both the right and the left. If Mike Pence and others can truly model the congressman’s own words at the Voter Summit that priorities are to be a Christian, conservative and a Republican, they will find the support of the Tea Party, they will be equipped to address the economic concerns of this nation. They will also have the strength from faith necessary to handle the liberal onslaught and defeat the Obama political machine. This is the Republican Party’s only true option to victory in 2012.   

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 books “Living Under The Patriot Act: Educating A Society” and “Feeding Lions: Sharing The Conservative Philosophy In A Politically Hostile World.” Paul is also the radio host of the Kansas Broadcasting Association’s 2008, 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

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.

Those that advocate the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research attempt to wrap their argument within the notion of helping society. Who doesn’t want to do that? In fact, if we believe the rhetoric from our recent past, like the bold words of John Edwards, who alluded to the fact that if embryonic stem cells could not make us supermen, they could at least make “Superman” actor Christopher Reeve rise up and walk after being paralyzed, it would almost be cruel to refuse such miracles so close at hand. Of course, if embryonic stem cell cures did not happen, it would not be because the science was not there, or would never be there, but because narrow-minded individuals like George W. Bush lacked the understanding to allow the careful and restrained usage of stem cells in limited situations like embryos discarded by patients of in vitro fertilization clinics. So much was to be gained if we had the will to bring this brave new world to fruition.

Of course those that accept this premise have not only bought into the John Edwards lies of instant embryonic cell miracles but also the much darker lie that comes from prioritizing one life over another. To get a sobering look at the deadly progression that comes from degrading life for societal improvement, two names come to the forefront in modern times: Margaret Sanger and Adolf Hitler. Margaret Sanger wrote the book “The Pivot of Civilization,” which is so full of eugenic madness that even the organization she founded, Planned Parenthood, has to distance itself from its very pages. It is a frightening book to say the least. Sanger wished for society to be free of the feebleminded and their tendencies toward poor economic status and societal violation. Her answer: society would never suffer from the ills of the mentally defective if those individuals never existed. Instead of embryonic stem cell miracles, selective breeding would bring about societal improvement if we were enlightened enough to grasp it. What was the natural progression of these eugenic beliefs? Not just Planned Parenthood, an organization that specializes in death, but a government that forces its citizens to pay for its operation.

Margaret Sanger’s book preceded Adolf Hitler’s racial eugenics piece in “Mein Kampf,” but they are solidly compatible with their focus on eradicating what they believed were out-of-control, undesirable elements in society. We all know from history that the progression of purifying Germany came in the form of the “Final Solution,” which just happens to be not too far from the mentality of Sanger’s modern day Planned Parenthood which teaches, “eradicate what is not desired.”

Sanger and Hitler were truly sister and brother to a common set of eugenic values. Both treated those they designated as defective as less than human, inconsequential and tainted. One focused on intelligence and the other on race, but when it came to the cold calculations, from Sanger’s desire for quarantines and forced sterilizations to Hitler’s usage of intern camps, both embraced their blood trail of progress. This eugenics mentality lives and its natural progression is seen today in the modern abortionists who help female teens fit better into their prom dresses or avoid missing spring break. It is seen in the zero-growth environmentalists who calculate the value of babies as having no more worth than any other natural resource. It is a deadly progression of cruelty in which the most brutal actions are depicted as societal improvements. Sanger’s morons beget Hitler’s troublesome Jews which beget Obama’s idea of punishment, which ultimately beget the embryonic stem cell industry waiting to go full bore.

What common factor has been missing throughout this entire observation? What critical void exists in this debate that allows those that advocate degrees of value for human existence to entertain credibility? The missing piece, the all-important component that has allowed, and continues to allow, such abominations that encapsulate the embryonic stem cell debate is the self-imposed absence of God. When God becomes part of the debate, life becomes sacred and murder becomes sin, not a matter of choice or the restructuring of society. If the current debate on embryonic stem cell usage remains an issue dictated by science alone, its progression may find an ending point worse than past atrocities.

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 books “Living Under The Patriot Act: Educating A Society” and “Feeding Lions: Sharing The Conservative Philosophy In A Politically Hostile World.” Paul is also the radio host of the Kansas Broadcasting Association’s 2008, 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