Turn on the television, switch on the radio, or open a magazine, and you are likely to hear a discussion on the continual victimization of one group or another based on race, religion, or gender at the very least. Centered within this narrative are the power-wielders with their thirst for absolute control, and the helpless victims that must continually gasp for air under the boot of domination. The Ibbetson WrightRoad Victimization Index offers an easy-to-understand guide to what happens when one group interacts with another, as well as a no-nonsense evaluation of how victimization works in the modern society.

The victimization index owes its conception to the work of Houston radio talk show hosts Damon Rexroad and James Wright (www.conservativefunhouse.com.) Pondering the ramifications of interracial violence, they came up with a numerical system of understanding whether society would react with praise or punishment to an act of violence based on factors such as race, gender, religious/political affiliation, etc. I have been graciously allowed to extend and develop the theoretical foundations of this unique concept. Before we observe and apply the victimization index, it is important to understand how victimization has come to be applied in this country.

America is a very compassionate country. The United States has traditionally been marked by the unique spirit that includes a tendency to root for the underdog, naturally supporting the victims of oppression, against those who would look to dominate a lesser group or individual for their own self-seeking purposes. After all, the story of the throwing off of oppression is truly an American tale in itself. However, the American perspective on victimization versus the modern liberal highlights vast differences in perception. The founders of this country would have seen their position as victims of England’s oppression as a short-lived situation they would resolve, and not a life-long label to gain power through manipulation.

Unfortunately, the term victim today has been hijacked, and its true meaning altered from a descriptor of the oppressed to a label often used by counter culture, anti-biblical, special interest, and anti-American groups. The word itself—victim—now carries less of a connotation of helplessness and need for assistance, and is more often used to describe a position of power through entitlement. In this liberal scheme, the majority progressively becomes ruled by the minority. In short, to be labeled a member of a victimized group is to gain massive formal and informal power. The victimization index allows both for both positive and negative consequences. Formal consequences include the presence (or lack) of fines and prison sentences, and informal consequences can come from news articles, television stories, reactions from family and friends, etc.

The victimization index is a numerical reflection of the modern liberal narrative of the most oppressed to the least oppressed and goes as follows:
1. Muslim Male
2. Gay/Lesbian
3. Black Male
4. Black Female
5. Hispanic Male
6. White Female
7. Hispanic Female
8. Muslim Female
9. White Male
10. Conservative

From the index it is simple to determine the potential outcomes (formal and informal consequences) “based on individual-on-individual, (or group-on-group) interaction” by simply subtracting the index scores of the person who initiates an action with the person who receives the action. After subtracting the index scores, if the ending result is a positive score (+), the more positive the score, the more likely negative (formal and informal) consequences will take place. If the end result comes out to be a negative score, the more negative the score (-) the more likely positive (formal and informal) consequences will occur. The scoring is as easy as it is accurate. Let’s try a few examples and then readers can apply the victimization index as many times as needed to demonstrate its validity. How about when looking at border security, Jim Gilchrist, white male (9), calls for securing the border and creates the Minutemen Project that affects, among others, Hispanic males (5). Well, that’s 9-5=+4 which brings about negative informal consequences for Gilchrist such as being called a racist and being ambushed by radical liberals while giving university speeches.

Let’s go the other way, Barack Obama, black male (3), disparages a Cambridge police officer, white male (9) with abusing his authority against a minority professor at a university. Here the math is 3-9=-6. Note we are over half way up the positive consequences scale. So, Obama does not receive the Nobel Peace Prize for falsely injecting racial conflict, but instead is allowed to have a beer-summit with all parties involved at the White House and is later described as a grand peacemaker. Conversely, Joe “the plumber,” white male (9), asks then candidate Barack Obama, black male (3), on the campaign trail a question about business taxes and a much different situation occurs. Sorry Joe, but 9-3=+6 and it’s time to turn your life upside down. When liberal activist Jeanine Garofalo accuses Rush Limbaugh of being the spiritual leader of a racist tea-bagger movement, no matter how you do the math (white female to conservative 6-10=-4 or lesbian to conservative 2-10=-8), Garofalo is guaranteed book deals and TV show appearance invitations. As a person begins to fully comprehend the victimization index, it becomes easier to answer questions of how an identified radical Muslin, like U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, could continue to operate despite sending red flags to so many people in the military. It is not that Hasan adeptly fooled onlookers, it’s that few were in a rush to face the consequences of testing the index’s outer limits of being a white male or conservative to point the finger at today’s victim “king” in the Muslim male (10-1=+9 or 9-1=+8).

The simple truth, is you can do this all day with the same outcome; the numbers just don’t lie. The lowest rung on the index is the conservative (10), and it is important to note that all identity, (race, sex, religion, etc.) is taken away from this person. To be a conservative in the modern world of liberal victimization is to be all but faceless. The Ibbetson WrightRoad Victimization Index is not meant to provoke, rather to describe the world as it currently exists. As important as this current reality is the evidence that this index is in continual flux. If society has the capability to alter our conception of victimization then it must be possible, it must be within our ability to lift triumph over victimization, and success over failure. I not only believe Americans can do this, but I also see it as in our true nature to do so. These are the numbers I would prefer to add up in our country’s future.

Paul A. Ibbetson is a former Chief of Police of Cherryvale, Kansas, and member of the Montgomery County Drug Task Force. Paul received his Bachelor’s and Master’s degree in Criminal Justice at Wichita State University, and is currently completing his PhD. in sociology at Kansas State University. Paul is the author of the books Living Under The Patriot Act: Educating A Society and Feeding Lions: Sharing The Conservative Philosophy In A Politically Hostile World. Paul is also the radio host of the Kansas Broadcasting Association’s 2008 and 2009 Entertainment Program of the Year, Conscience of Kansas airing on KSDB Manhattan 91.9 f.m. www.ibbetsonusa.com. For interviews or questions, please contact ibbetson91.9@gmail.com

If it has been a while since you were a child waiting for Christmas morning, or whatever time of day the parental green light was given for the opening of presents, you may be a little out of touch with the true magnitude of this event. For most kids, Christmas is a magical time of both gift giving and gift receiving. This holiday event has its own magic that supersedes every other day of the year. While children perceive much more than they are given credit for, they have the tendency to have a somewhat flawed reality of their parents’ economic “Santa” capabilities. That is, despite what “wish list” limitations are handed down from the parent(s), when it comes to a perusal of the gifts in view, children have a way of accessing through “blurry early morning eyes” that maybe, just maybe, every one of their special requests reside beneath the colorful wrappings of the items under the tree. Adult concerns like poorly wrapped presents don’t even register on the kid scale of importance as the wrapping paper quickly turns to confetti in the child’s rush to unearth the next gift. Ah, to be young at Christmas time.

Eventually, subtle understandings of the limitations of Christmas begin to shatter the youth’s reality as they know it. These realities come slowly and sometimes painfully at first with hard truths, such as an understanding that no pony- not even a Shetland- will be in the last two- foot-by-two-foot box with your name on it. Eventually, the magic of Christmas from the present perspective all but fades when we become privy to the insider knowledge that Santa is sometimes constrained to a twenty-dollar limit no matter how good we have been. This is the inevitable transition we all make upon entering adulthood. It is not a bad thing, since the holiday of Christmas often takes on a higher, religious value that I believe is of much greater importance. Despite the positive nature of the transition from child to adult when it comes to Christmas, every once in a while the grown-ups should be allowed to feel that excited, childlike shiver of present expectation. To meet that need, I have come bearing gifts.

As is the case every year the goodies from the sack are political and should be just as equally expected, some will find my treats bittersweet. I want to say up front that I would like to give most in Congress a lump of coal this year as that is the most deserved gift this season. However, I am fully aware that the coal-deserving rhinos would simply toss their presents back my way with words of righteous indignation while the Liberals would accuse me of contributing to manmade global warming. Instead, I have decided to give my gift to you, the reader, in the telling of the political form of “The Night Before Christmas.”

‘Twas the night before Christmas, and for me and my spouse, not a creature was stirring, we both work in this house. The stocks were all hung by the chimney with care, in hopes that someday our taxes would be fair. The children were nestled all snug in their bed, blissfully ignorant of the dangers of the Fed. And mamma in her ‘kerchief settled in for a snooze, while I sharpened my knowledge, with an hour of FOX news. When out on the lawn there arose such a roar, I sprang from my bed to see if it was those hippies next door. With both stealth and quickness to the window I ran, to see in my front yard, a big ACORN van. The moon on the breast of the new-fallen snow illuminated an army of community organizers below. They were unloading their picket signs and having great fun; I smiled to my wife and said, “bring out my gun.” When, what to my wondering eyes should appear, but a “Hope and Change” sleigh, and eight big-city reindeer. With a smart and clean driver, so full of drama, I thought to myself, “could that be Barack Obama?” More rapid than vultures his minions they came, and he whistled and shouted, and called them by name. “Now Pelosi! Now Reid! Now Hillary, you vixen! On, Biden! On Grayson, On Snowe, The rhino in the mixin’. To the top of the porch! To the top of the wall! Tax away! Tax away! Tax away all! The guy in the suit whoever he be, had an eloquent voice; it was something to see. With his charismatic tone even I felt somewhat somber, until I noticed on his sleigh a big teleprompter. A plan was unfolding that fit like a glove: ACORN distracts from below, while this dirty bunch works from above. Knowing this crew was less than legit, we called the cops, grabbed our guns, but these folks wouldn’t quit. Until the moment the police arrived with a crash, a scripted voice from above told us all the good they would do with our cash.

Now my yard was in frenzy, a police/ACORN mess; tomorrow the protestors would probably sue me for their own personal stress. Within less than a moment the “Hope and Change” bunch had fled, with only a smoke trail left from their sled. I thought to myself as they flew out of site, “never trust a dirty Santa, even on Christmas Eve night.” Like a poorly wrapped present, it’s always what’s inside that matters. Just accept it with a smile. Have a very Merry Christmas.

Paul A. Ibbetson is a former Chief of Police of Cherryvale, Kansas, and member of the Montgomery County Drug Task Force. Paul received his Bachelor’s and Master’s degree in Criminal Justice at Wichita State University, and is currently completing his PhD. in sociology at Kansas State University. Paul is the author of the books Living Under The Patriot Act: Educating A Society and Feeding Lions: Sharing The Conservative Philosophy In A Politically Hostile World. Paul is also the radio host of the Kansas Broadcasting Association’s 2008 and 2009 Entertainment Program of the Year, Conscience of Kansas airing on KSDB Manhattan 91.9 FM. For interviews or questions, please contact Ibbetson91.9@gmail.com or go to www.IbbetsonUSA.com.

“I hate Sarah Palin, I… I just hate her!” That is not an uncommon outburst from some when it comes to feelings about one of the most polarizing figures (in “liberal” minds) in the political arena. As I write about the political happenings of the former governor of Alaska, I am continually amazed at both reader responses and callers to my radio program, Conscience of Kansas, when it comes to the level of hatred that Palin generates from some in the public. So, who are the real Palin-haters? Is there a common factor that binds people who find their blood boiling when this woman’s name is mentioned? Is their argument for Palin-hate justified? I hope to create a discussion that may illuminate why some politicians just appear to be “hate-magnets.”

First, we need to separate the broad strokes many often use to answer such questions. The quick and easy answer some might give on why they hate Palin is that she is a Republican – so Democrats will oppose her when it is prudent for their political survival. This is true to an extent, but can we say that people hate the opposing party with equal ferocity? To say that is true is to say that Gerald Ford garnered the same level of hate from his haters as Ronald Reagan did, or that George H.W. Bush made the hate meter go to the same level as his son George W. Bush. Yes, that’s right, the differences are huge. Simply put, there is opposition, there is hate, and then there is a surreal, supercharged, bionic loathing that appears to go on forever – as if powered by the static energy of the dark energizer bunny. I call it “Palin-hate.”

If we look at the 2008 presidential race we see a large disparity in the way many people treated the McCain/Palin ticket. Shortly after Sarah Palin joined the ticket, John McCain became all but forgotten by his adversaries who were drawn to Sarah Palin like hordes of angry moths to the flame. It would be accurate to say that from those that wished the McCain/Palin ticket to fail, John McCain drew at best opposition, while Sarah Palin drew pure hatred.

Many run to the argument that since Palin is a woman, the foundation for the hatred of her must be a product of male chauvinism. This is laughable, as the ironic cruelty of the matter happens to be that Palin is attacked more by feminists than by men. Cathy Young’s 2008 Wall Street Journal article, Why Feminists Hate Sarah Palin, touches upon the topic of Palin’s violation of feministic principles in her failure to terminate her special needs child, along with her adoration for her husband and her recognition of his importance to the family unit. So, it can be said that Sarah Palin is attacked as a woman, but neither for the reasons nor by the people one would traditionally think to be leveling such attacks. Even with the feminists out for Palin blood, they are only a small piece in a large puzzle. Further examples help to show that Palin-hate goes well beyond being only a “woman thing.”

Compare for a moment the 1984 presidential ticket of Mondale/Ferraro. Here we see another female vice presidential candidate attempting to break what is reported to be “the glass ceiling” holding women back from the highest levels of achievement. However, despite over two decades of “liberal-progressivism,” Ferraro was treated with much greater respect and professionalism in 1984 than Palin would be in 2008. Ferraro’s biggest scandals were based on personal tax issues and the business ties of her husband John Zaccaro. As unfortunate as it is, these problems are seen in American politics are all too commonly, and certainly should not be written off as a “woman thing.” The media’s feeding frenzy over how many skirts the McCain/Palin team would pay for the vice presidential candidate to wear during the campaign alone exceed the worst female-based attacks Geraldine Ferraro had to face. Even liberal Democrats Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, hate-magnets in their own right, are not hated in the same way as Palin. That is, they receive more mainstream alpha critiques of being power-hungry and overbearing. Not so for Palin.

Joel Sheppard of NewsBusters reports a more common example of Palin-hate in a documented interview with Hollywood star Martha Stewart as she spoke to HLN’s “Showbiz Tonight” producer Jenny D’Attoma. Stewart asserted that Palin was “dangerous” as a person in politics, while also being “boring” and “confused.” Note that the minimizing personal characteristics of being confused and boring still qualify Palin, in the eyes of Stewart, as having qualities of a “dangerous” person. Even President Barack Obama, who sits in the highest position of power in U.S. politics, receives a different level of scrutiny. Those on both sides of the fence that have extreme critiques of the President accuse him of being either the Son of God or the Antichrist himself. Either way, Obama gets top billing as a being with abilities and powers above the average person’s, while Palin, deemed just as dangerous, manages to be with the not-so-super powers of boringness and confusion.

I have come to the conclusion that Palin-hate is more complex than originally thought. Even if it originated predominately with liberals, it appears to be comprised of multiple layers of negative narratives. For instance, those who say they hate Palin because they think she does not have enough experience to govern most likely have additional negative narratives influencing their level of anger over such issues as her conservative values, non-feminist qualities, anti-global warming views, and the list goes on and on. It is the layering of negative narratives constructed by Palin detractors that create the extreme emotions that we see from many today. While I know there are still many questions to be answered on this topic, I hope that this analysis will open the door for future discussions on the phenomenon known as “Palin-hate.”

Paul A. Ibbetson is a former Chief of Police of Cherryvale, Kansas, and member of the Montgomery County Drug Task Force. Paul received his Bachelor’s and Master’s degree in Criminal Justice at Wichita State University, and is currently completing his PhD. in sociology at Kansas State University. Paul is the author of the books Living Under The Patriot Act: Educating A Society and Feeding Lions: Sharing The Conservative Philosophy In A Politically Hostile World. Paul is also the radio host of the Kansas Broadcasting Association’s 2008 and 2009 Entertainment Program of the Year, Conscience of Kansas airing on KSDB Manhattan 91.9 FM. For interviews or questions, please contact Ibbetson91.9@gmail.com or go to www.IbbetsonUSA.com.