Dr. 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.

This is not an indictment of all those who go into this field of public service, rather the recognition of a framing process that takes place where some politicians seem to shine while others are deformed by the monster politician persona. The term “monster politics” serves to describe an environment beyond normal debate and division that highlights the power of the psychological to supersede the theatrical. It is the process by which a politician embraces political circumstances in a way that generates a negative persona, alienating the politician from his or her constituents and creating a dangerous air of unpredictability that is not conducive to future political service. We can appropriately call this the “terminal term,” or the building of the non-re-electable politician. While this is not the inevitable ending point for all who serve in public office, it seems to be the unfolding story of Barack Obama.

For perspective we should understand that all politicians come into office with a certain population that will always oppose them. Equally assured, all presidents through the course of their term have historically made pressing decisions that inflame segments of their own base constituency. Additionally, all presidents fall prey to the occasional faux pas, but monster politics is not evoked from these actions. Like the theatrical characters from which our perception of the monster arises, it is the actions after the critical incident—the bite, curse or lightening-induced creation itself—that frames the individual as the monster we know. It is the same with the president and it is here that Barack Obama, through his own actions, pushes the polls’ numbers of public sentiment toward the dark, dank depths of monstrous non-re-electability.

CNN’s August 4, 2010 poll shows that 27 percent of Americans have doubts that Barack Obama is an American citizen. Also, the most recent Pew Research Poll shows that 18 percent of Americans believe the president is a Muslim. This is a 7 percent increase from 2009 poll results. From Democracy Corps’ July
2010 polling results, 55 percent of Americans think Obama is a socialist and 56 percent think he is too liberal. Arguably, both charges may be one in the same. For Obama supporters it is not just the existence of poll classifications such as these that should be disheartening, but also the fact that Obama’s numbers are increasing in these areas over time.

It is the Obama administration’s inability to deflect, and often its overt actions, which perpetuate these negative attributes that have emboldened the classic monster politics scenario that now surround the president. Is the president a Muslim? Doubtful, but like an overactive Dr. Frankenstein, Obama has created his own monster persona through his own book quotes, Middle East apology tour, anti-Israel stance, and forceful, non-solicited statements such as those recently heard on the issue of the mega mosque fiasco near ground zero in New York. Like the fear and hatred generated by our classic monsters, the motivating force is the same in monster politics. It is the grouping of calamitous actions with alienation and unwanted mysteriousness, the latter two points exacerbating the first, which bring about such negative outcomes.

That is, in simple terms, the monster truly does bad things, but that is not enough to bring about its bad reputation. It must be in combination with personal characteristics that are in opposition with, or simply alien to the general populace, as well as a mysterious nature that creates an environment of unpredictability. Welcome to the world of Barack Obama. With this knowledge there is little wonder why Obama’s two decades of attendance at a radically socialistic church under the tutelage of Reverend Jeremiah Wright fails to give him public identification as a Christian with a growing number of Americans. It is in part a lack of personal Christian identification, if not hostility toward Christian conservatives in America, which has prompted more and more people to speculate Obama as having alternative religious affiliations.

Is Obama an American-born citizen? Probably, but like a vampire that refuses to stand in front of the mirror to be justified, Obama’s secretive, if not deceptive, actions on this important issue breed the mistrust from which caskets are torn open, castles are stormed, moors are patrolled, and approval numbers plunge into the abyss. Is Obama a socialist? The president has done nothing here but reinforce the affirmative by his actions and rhetoric, but even many of the socialists of today have avoided being caught up in the career-ending calamites of monster politics. If the president continues to separate himself from the American people by attitude, rhetoric and policy, he will do more than open the door to more grim conjectures about his future policies and personal character; he will have created his own forever-told horror story of the one-term president from the depths of monster politics.

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.

Is opposite-sex marriage higher in merit than same-sex marriage? Turning to our Judeo-Christian foundations, the answer is swift and absolute. Homosexuality is stated clearly within the Bible as an act of sin and an abomination to God (Leviticus 18:22). Furthermore, Romans 1:26-27 observes the shameful, unnatural indecency of the homosexual union. If merit, the claim to respect and praise, is still in question, 1 Corinthians 6:9 leaves no doubt that homosexuality is unrighteous, and those who engage in this activity will be rejected from the kingdom of heaven. Far beyond damning what Judge Walker wishes to lift up in gay marriage, the Bible, from its opening pages (Genesis 2:24) throughout (1 Corinthians 7:2-16, Ephesians 5:23-33), clearly states that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Lastly, is opposite-sex marriage of higher quality than same-sex marriage? Since Judge Walker has rejected the will of the people of California to decide this issue, and he undoubtedly would wish to avoid addressing the biblical ramifications of his court decision, we are left with the matter of the constitutionality of gay-ifying the institution of marriage in America. Unfortunately for Judge Walker’s position, like a remote island filled with only gays or lesbians, in time you are left with nothing but the truth. The truth is that Judge Walker’s constitutionality argument is brought around again to face the findings from points one and two.

Despite the attempts of liberal activist judges to recreate the Constitution as a morally relativistic reed that blows wildly in the direction of their personal agendas and deviant desires, the law remains steadfast as a document of the American people infused with our culturally engrained Judeo-Christian values from its inception. It is from these values that the Constitution is unique. It is from these values that we as a nation have been blessed so fully. Most importantly, it is from these values that the people fight today to maintain the fundamental viability of American culture through the observance of traditional marriage.

The court decision from U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker is far worse than an improper reading of the Constitution, it is an overt attack on American culture, which the Constitution was meant to safeguard. This attack on traditional marriage is nothing short of more legislation from the court benches of Sodom and Gomorrah. So, while gays and lesbians exalt Judge Walker’s court ruling in all its glitter-covered, spandexed glory, the judge’s own words are revisited, and a conclusion can be extracted. Yes, Proposition 8 did “enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples” on the matter of marriage. It does so factually, reasonably, biblically, and constitutionally. Meanwhile, the majority of Americans have to decide either to take on a long, nasty battle to keep marriage traditional, or to stand silently as pillars of salt while America quickly becomes something radically other than America.

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.

When it appeared that I would be given the free speech go-ahead by the Collegian, I submitted months of my political writings to make sure they had full knowledge of my writing style and content. Collegian editorial staff told me that I was a superb writer and that they were happy to have me aboard. Despite what I had seen in the past, I forwarded my opinion column in the hopes of creating civil discourse on what I felt were important subjects. All the articles I wrote for the university newspaper were listed in the “Most Popular” category on the Collegian’s Web site. Reader comments were abundant and, might I add, heavily in the favor of my arguments-so far so good.

I wrote an insightful article in which I argued that Republicans have done more for minorities throughout history than Democrats. Within the article I had a small misstatement in which I said that Clarence Thomas, instead of Thurgood Marshall, was the first African-American appointed to the Supreme Court. Instead of simply correcting the misstatement as had been done in the past and moving on, I was sacrificed on the altar of liberalism. Collegian staff openly accused me of inventing facts and it was quickly apparent that forces were marshaling against me.

Communicated through e-mail and later a copy-and-paste version in the college paper, the Collegian said I was in error in my article and their support for such a charge was stated as, “George W. Bush was not the first president to fill two Cabinet posts with minority candidates. Bill Clinton appointed six minority secretaries: Jesse Brown and Togo West, Jr. to Veterans Affairs; Federico Peña to Transportation and Energy; Henry Cisneros to Housing and Urban Development; Ronald H. Brown to Commerce; and Alexis Herman to Labor.” The problem here is that I never made any statement to this effect. I wrote, “George W. Bush was the first to extensively fill influential Cabinet positions with minorities including Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Alberto Gonzales.” I explained to a very angry Collegian staff that Condoleezza Rice was the first African-American woman appointed as Secretary of State, Alberto Gonzales the first Hispanic appointed to the highest law enforcer position in the country as Attorney General, and Colin Powell also appointed as Secretary of State and the first African-American male to fill that position. I used the term “influential” and used it properly as these positions are the top spots in the president’s Cabinet. My explanation was nonchalantly shrugged off and I was called a liar.

By this time the Collegian was making a fool of itself but they went even further to purge their ranks of a conservative voice. I was told that I had lied when I said the following, “The Democratic Party, on the other hand, opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which outlawed school segregation and inequality in voter registration. Democrats led an excruciatingly long filibuster to deny civil rights to blacks, which was eventually defeated.” When I asked Collegian staff to legitimate this charge of lying, I was told that yes, Democrats had opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but not all of them, and so I was a liar.

The Kansas State University Collegian gave me my walking papers, showed me the door and said my services were no longer needed. I was told that I was too dangerous to print. In fact, it was affirmed that I was so dangerous that there was true fear that I would bring down the entire university paper through litigation if I was allowed to continue to put pen to paper. If you think this sounds preposterous, you would be understating the situation. I wrote thought-provoking opinion articles that struck a chord with readers and ruffled the feathers of university liberals. Liquidating Ibbetson opinion articles in the Kansas State University Collegian avoided months of university liberals being brought to anger by inflammatory issues such as the Constitution, liberty, freedom and of course, God.

I wish to end this column with the same straightforward articulations I bring to all my writings. The Kansas State University Collegian has the right to hire whomever they want to write opinion articles, and I respect that right. However, I wish the staff would have been honest enough to say there was no place for strong conservative writers at their paper. While affirming the true existence of university liberal bias, they would have prevented a bunch of problems, and the necessity for this article. In the end we are brought back to the wise words of Thomas Paine-“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.” The Kansas State University Collegian may rue the day they reap what they sow.

ONLY the US Supreme Court has Constitutional Authority to Conduct the Trial

By Publius Huldah  Thursday, July 29, 2010
Canada Free Press

Does anyone read the U.S. Constitution these days? American lawyers don’t read it. Federal Judge Susan R. Bolton apparently has never read it. Same goes for our illustrious Attorney General Eric Holder. But this lawyer has read it and she is going to show you something in Our Constitution which is as plain as the nose on your face.

Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction…

“Original” jurisdiction means the power to conduct the “trial” of the case (as opposed to hearing an appeal from the judgment of a lower court). You all know quite well what a “trial” is – you see them all the time on TV shows: Perry Mason, Boston Legal, The Good Wife, etc. Witnesses testify and are cross-examined, etc.

The style of the Arizona case shows quite clearly that the named defendants are:

State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer,
Governor of the State of Arizona, in her
Official Capacity, Defendants.

Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than do you…

(continue reading)