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.   

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

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

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

Without question Imam Rauf is attempting to crack the political correctness whip on the backs of Americans in the hopes that fear of the bigot brand will allow Islamic expansion into what Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs has properly termed a “war memorial.” The idea forwarded by proponents that unity and tolerance can be achieved by building a mega mosque where Americans were butchered by Islamic radicals has the same tasteful appeal as building a Nazi gift shop at Auschwitz. So why create a religious supercenter in the most inflammatory place it could be built in America?

 The answer is to make a religious statement of supremacy by expanding mosque construction in areas of cultural and historical significance. This is not just an issue within the United States. James Delingpole of Human Events talks at length about the Islamic push for mega mosque construction near the site of the 2012 Olympics in England. On Pajamas Media Television in an interview with Baroness Caroline Cox, councilor Alan Craig, who spearheaded the opposition to the London super mosque project, aptly alluded to the fact that the mega mosques go far beyond benign meeting places of worship to what can be interpreted as overt symbols of Islamic expansion.

 Once again showing her moxie in the face of the politically correct whips, Sarah Palin called for New Yorkers to oppose the mega mosque at ground zero. After Sarah Palin, GOP gubernatorial candidate Rick Lazio stepped up in opposition to the mosque and called for Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to investigate Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. If preliminary research on Rauf is any indication, the attorney general would be wise to take a long, hard look at the Imam who is rolling out the construction plans for the super mosque in New York.

  As Aaron Klein of WorldNetDaily reports, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf appears to be nothing short of a proselytizing Islamic radical. According to Klein, Rauf has publicly blamed America for 9/11, refused to recognize Hamas as a terrorist group and even was quoted as refusing to admit that Muslims carried out the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Even Rauf’s 2004 book titled “What’s Right with Islam is What’s Right with America” had a radically dark Arabic title when published overseas, “The Call From the WTC Rubble: Islamic Da’wah From The Heart of America Post-9/11.”Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf’s books, in combination with the super mosque project, congeal into nothing short of a two-headed snake that will strike all in its domain or a rabid dog raising its haunch to mark new territory.

 Either way it’s dangerous, deadly business that carries the unique, foul odor of anti-Americanism. The American people have no inclination, requirement or duty to be tolerant of such an aggressive affront to the dignity of our dead by those who would perpetuate the same mentality that has brought such pain to our people. The territorial mark of a mega mosque at ground zero in New York should be met with complete and utter rejection. 

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

In 1997, under the direction of Andrew Niccol, people viewed on their cinema screens a sterilized world of growing government perfection. The movie, “Gattaca,” depicted a world where through genetic selection only children with their parents’ desired hereditary traits were given societal acceptance. The children that were born naturally, void of the process called preimplantation genetic diagnosis, were labeled “in-valids” and were treated as societal junk and placed in menial labor jobs. To the elites of this futuristic world, this made for a more productive humanity. Like liberals today, the power wielders of this science fiction story wanted to make their version of a better, more productive and certainly healthier society, and to do that they needed the power of the government. Gattaca was a world of sterilized government control where the “haves” and the “have nots” of social class warfare could be identified with the technological speed of an eye scan, cheek swab or blood test.

 It would be easy to leave these Orwellian-style cinematic depictions of worlds with governments running amuck at the doors of the theatre if it weren’t for the disquieting reality that society seems to mirror these movies at an alarming rate. One has only to look to recent events to see that it is the modern liberal of today that works feverishly to build the Gattaca of tomorrow. Ed Morrissey of Hot Air reported on July 6, 2010 of New York Governor David Paterson’s attempt to tax the fat out of people, with a high-profile levy on sugary drinks. The ultra-liberal, get-your-Gattaca-here Mayor Gavin Newsom achieved level one of calorie control in his sphere of influence by declaring Coke, Pepsi, and Fanta Orange as in-valid and thus rejecting them from city vending machines and exchanging them for soy and rice milk.

  If you think that you can avoid having to choke down Newsom’s rice milk by simply avoiding San Francisco, you are not seeing the bigger picture. Liberals wish to control every aspect of human life. This is a desire based not simply on their warped belief that they know better than average citizens how average citizens should live, but also on the less altruistic reality that liberals like to wield power through government control. Of these liberal builders of a bigger, better and much bolder government of tomorrow are the Obamas. As president, Barack Obama has expanded government control into the private industries, the banks, health care and soon the energy by which all of these entities operate. Michelle Obama, well she wants to build a better tomorrow by way of your children.

 As reported in Politico, with Michele Obama’s outlet on LetsMove.gov, the first lady tries aggressively to move beyond simple nutrition education and into the world of liberal mandates when it comes to school food. Michele Obama was quoted by Politico as saying, “Kids are malleable, and they’re also open to learn. We’re the ones that stand in the way.” She further states, “We’re going to have to step it up and make some changes on our own to get our kids where we want them to be.” Within this same vein she spoke about her future plans to eliminate school desserts and push her agenda to the public forefront, at the level of attention given to the AIDS epidemic. In other words, move over Newsom, with you rice-milk-filled city vending machines, it’s the Obamas who wish to draw up the master blueprints to a healthier world through government control. The effects in the schools are moving quickly. Alison Bologna of Fox News Boston reports that children are now being sent home with “fat reports.” The school is reported to be required to calculate the body mass index (BMI) of children to decide what portions they are allowed to eat. The “valids” and “in-valids” at school will now be determined by the governmental BMI.

 Is this assessment nothing more than fear mongering, an attempt to falsely portray a soon-coming world of “Obamaca” where only science fiction really exists? Some will say so even as Barack Obama expands the government into every part of the economy and Michele Obama trots school desserts into the parking lot to be shot. I say that any time government mandates supersede education and free choice, we move further away from what America stands for, and what had made this blessed nation great. Freedom—it’s as American as apple pie with all the glorious calories. 

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