In you live in America, Europe, or many other places on the planet, then you probably have heard the tales of bad fortune that befalls unprepared souls who allow a black cat to cross their paths. In this realm of superstition the most capable and blessed black cat path-crossers find themselves with bad fortune, and heaps of it. In an ironic twist of fate, it is said that even the unluckiest people who test this taboo find out that their low lot in life can and will get lower. That’s sad.

Some would question the strolling power of the black cat even in the face of undoubtedly real catastrophes that take place among people who believe they have triggered this unstoppable bad luck. Could it be that when Mr. Whiskers crosses a person’s path people act in ways that increase their risk of misfortune? Possibly they may believe, at least subconsciously, that with bad fortune on the horizon, who needs to worry about well-thought out decisions? The skeptic in me sees the black cat as the perfect scapegoat. A matter of fact a person doesn’t have to face the real cause of their misfortune when it can be laid at the furry dark paws of the bad luck giver.

When it comes to tangible misfortune, Greece has the current spotlight with the country’s bankruptcy and the $146 billion IMF bailout, which most likely will be only the beginning of the loans that the country will require for survival. Despite the limited impact of Greece on the European markets, they have a powerful story regarding what awaits America if we continue to follow the socialistic blueprint of limiting the free market and expanding governmental control.

For Greece, the conversion from the drachma to the euro was the only excuse needed to engage in unlimited spending that went to the unions, social programs, and government double-dealing, which are always part of the quest for the socialistic utopia. Sound like America? More than you know. America has followed Greece’s fast track to ruin by electing a socialist president who barely screamed above the fanfare his intentions to fundamentally transform the nation and begin redistributing wealth. It is easy to see what America is allowing to cross its path.

America is poised to assist with the Greek bailout through donations to the IMF. I would say that we are paying for the right to compare America’s and Greece’s fates, and we should not waste the opportunity. First socialism failed in Greece, and other countries will soon fail in Europe from the same system. Second, and comparable to America, Greece will soon learn that without the capitalistic free market, no amount of borrowing will fix their financial problems. Lastly, the deaths in Greece at the hands of union protesters and others should be a wake-up call to all Americans of the consequences of the mentality that goes with government entitlement, as well as the dangers that come with attempting to remove those entitlements.

There will be more violence and turmoil in Greece as they are pushed by the IMF to face their poor decisions as a country and what has brought them to the brink of economic destruction. Will they embrace the truth that it was socialism that brought their bad fortune, or will they blame it on the winds of fate? Possibly a black cat passing their country’s path?

In the end, countries must break free from the excuses found in convenient myths and superstitions like the kinds that make certain colored kitties so unpopular. All of us must stand on the truth that our fate is the product of the decisions we make, and the decisions we allow our governments to make on our behalf.

Paul A. Ibbetson is a published author, lecturer, and radio host. He can be contacted at ibbetson91.9@gmail.com.

Sarah Palin is back in the public spot light with her new bestselling book, Going Rogue. At the moment, on just about every television channel, one can view the very photogenic Palin being quizzed about her new book and her plans for the future. Of course, the big question that comes up at some point in every conversation is – will she run for the top spot in the next presidential election? While trying to pick the person that will be the Republican Presidential Candidate in 2012 is a pre-mature question, who among us, both liberal and conservative, can’t say it is not a tantalizing topic to discuss? For conservatives, it is one of the most important chances to correct this Titanic-style course of destruction that Barack Obama has chartered for the country. For liberals, it’s a chance to hate a new conservative presidential candidate with all the energy they can muster. Good times.

As is often the case, I would direct attention away from the tantalizing and back to the practical, which (in this case) still brings us to the case of Sarah Palin. I believe that Palin’s re-emergence has a fundamental importance that should be grasped. However, the big difference here, and probably one of the biggest of big differences from the current public focus, is that I believe it has little to do with Palin as President. Let me explain.

As Sarah Palin emerges again as a potential political player, we will see an inevitable, grotesque, re-enactment of the Palin attacks, the likes of which had never before been heaped upon man, woman, or beast in the political realm. One should remember the eerie depths liberals plunged to when degrading Palin as a political candidate, by attacking not just her political views, but by attacking her as a wife and mother. We should not forget that, despite all the liberal rhetoric being brought forth promoting the rightness of empowering diversity, the left—and all its agents—attacked Sarah Palin with reckless ferocity for attempting to find a place among the highest echelons of power as an intelligent, strong woman. The fact that Palin is physically beautiful appears to be only additional salt in the wounds of liberals that feel she has transgressed against them. For this sin, liberal cheap-shooters, such as Newsweek, will continue to frame Palin’s physical beauty as a detriment to her internal qualities. It’s as unprofessional and demeaning as Barack Obama’s “lipstick on a pig” statement from the 2008 Presidential Election primary. Despite the wrongness of these actions, the public should be prepared for more – and for it to hit lower guttural depths. As well, the microscope will be placed on every potential political plan, policy, and procedure that will cross Palin’s lips in the next few months and after intense scrutiny, inevitably, she will be found lacking in some category. Ah, to be human.

After sifting through all the glitter and gloom of the Palin story, the practical matter of importance still boils down to action based on values. It is here, in that private place of contemplation, that we have to ask ourselves the value, if any, of making rogue vogue? This is where you might want to lean forward and apply additional focus to the article. The questions of fundamental importance are whether or not the Palin philosophy of following conservative values outweighs political prestige and party? If doing what you feel is right is worth losing title and station, if placing God and family before the well-embraced public sentiment of moral relativism and political expediency, is it worth the pain? Is it not good enough to simply do what is right, despite tomorrows poll rating? Is it worth it to go rogue? I must admit, I was among the many that questioned Palin’s decision to step down from the position as Governor of Alaska. The thought of “finish what you start,” was heavy in my mind, in combination with the fact that I knew liberals, the same liberals who were heaping fraudulent law suits on her and the state of Alaska, would later attack her for stepping down. My second point is now coming to fruition; however, I may have been wrong to believe that Sarah Palin failed to finish what she had started. In fact, she may be in roguish fashion illuminating the fact that conservative values have validity alone, and only find certain limited facilitation through the political process. The echo of Palin’s gubernatorial step-down surely also reflects the Republican Party’s ultimate need for conservatives and not vice versa. If any of these ideals are true, and I believe they are, then it is worth saying that gold, glory, governorships and dare I say, even presidencies, should be the fruits of this scarce righteous mentality. These ideals have become almost foreign today, and most certainly could be termed rogue.

Will Sarah Palin run for President? Can she win? Only time will tell. What we can say, in the here-and-now, is that despite who faces the Barack Obama presidential machine in 2012, this person would be wise to place conservative values as their mainstay. This candidate would be best served to look above for guidance—as opposed to opinion polls and the press—and allow followers to be drawn to his/her true character, and not to peripheral qualities that have no true relevance. Is this mentality rogue? If it is, then let us make rogue vogue by every means possible, with the greatest of speed, and with the highest amounts of fervor for the betterment of the country – while we still can.

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.

Sometimes being right is personally rewarding, sometimes it’s of financial benefit, and sometimes, unfortunately, it’s just downright painful. I recently wrote an article, “What’s Still The Matter With Thomas Frank?” about the upcoming (at the time) documentary by filmmakers Laura Cohen and Joe Winston, inspired by Thomas Frank’s 2004 bestselling book, “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” The article I wrote caused a minor brouhaha with the filmmakers, who posted a commentary rebuttal and a photo of yours truly on the official film website. Other than framing me, the way liberals often do conservatives, as boiling over with anger and throwing Nazi labels where they have not been applied, it seemed like a typical day at the office of politics. I was somewhat amazed, and quite pleased, to see the comment section on their website fill with a majority of comments in my favor. People seemed to easily get the points I was trying to make.

What did come from the postings on the filmmaker’s website, in combination with comments from many of my radio listeners, was the need for me to watch the movie myself and write a review. At first, I thought this was beyond my purview, but after reading film critic Roger Ebert’s admittedly biased, bosomed embrace of the movie, I re-qualified myself with lightning speed. Watching the film in general was not a problem, as I would only be taking the advice I gave to readers in my original article. However, to watch the film post-haste was slightly more difficult, as the film was only being aired in leftist strongholds, such as the Democratic fundraiser in Wichita, Kansas (where I would have to shell out cash at the door), or the liberal “Alliance for Peace and Justice Organization,” in Manhattan, Kansas. To avoid having to fund the Democratic Party, Manhattan was the choice.
The accommodations in Manhattan were nice. After the crowd had been properly prepped with an oration of the glowing review by Roger Ebert, the lights dropped and an eerie morose melody started the movie as viewers began their journey into the filmmakers view of the great state of Kansas, and its people.

As a life-long Kansan, my experience was two-fold. First, the imagery of the movie has some very stunning footage of hay fields and country homes that was very beautiful to view. It is hard to deny the physical beauty of this state, and I admit to being biased with that opinion. Unfortunately, the film at its heart is not about the landscape but the people that inhabit that landscape, and more accurately, certain types of people. This is the heart of the review, or what the cattlemen might call the “meat” of the matter. Those weak of heart or lacking a firm grip on reality should just get up now, and with the same effort one would use to avoid a true Kansas cattle stampede, run while the running’s good.

I am afraid to report that when I compared Thomas Frank’s book, which I believe was a cheap hatchet job on the majority of the people of Kansas, and the 2009 Cohen/Winston documentary of the same name, I found that the apple does not fall very far from the tree. A few fundamental themes ran through the film. The first theme is that when Christians and their values are mixed with politics it is the recipe for political doom. The liberal crowd on viewing night seemed quite joyful as the pro-lifer, Phill Kline, is defeated by Paul Morrison for Kansas Attorney General (I wonder how voting for Morrison worked out for those voters). The next theme that is painstakingly drawn out (in the Wild West World story) is that when religion and politics are mixed, it causes great financial hardship and calamity.

Apart from the perils of Christianity, the film was a liberal smorgasbord of tasty treats, such as the plight of the illegal alien, the stupidity of [President] Bush, the senselessness of the war in Iraq, and if you make some room on your plate, they will just kept coming and coming. This may seem strange, but I thought the most compelling person for heartfelt sympathy was none other than Thomas Frank. Shocking? I truly began to feel pity for Frank as he all but pleads with the keepers of the dusty Kansas archives to explain to him where all the good socialists have gone. Pity turns to sadness for Frank’s desire for an alternate reality, such as when he is filmed stumbling through the all but forgotten socialist cemetery for “radicals” and stating in a forlorn manner, “This is my Kansas.” For me, that is the saddest moment of the film for many reasons, none of which is my desire to live in a socialist state.

The main star of the documentary is without a doubt the disgruntled former Republican, Donn Teske. Teske, a (Frank-friendly) resource from the 2004 book, pops up throughout the film in such beautiful Kansas activities, such as riding the tractor and grilling hamburgers. He is truly a lovable character, and even when we get to the end of the film and he is shown to be quite the left leaner, we almost love him too much to care.

The reward from viewing this film is that I can now share my knowledge of the levels of usage of direct and indirect propaganda that were present. Compared with a typical Michael Moore documentary, What’s the Matter with Kansas? is more than a little dry. Moore uses direct propaganda through a very fast paced production with constant narration. In other words, Moore directly lies to viewers nonstop throughout his movies, and with copious amounts of flare. This makes for faster viewing, but a more insulting film to those in the know. As I usually consider two showers a necessity to cleanse myself after watching a Moore film, one will suffice after viewing What’s the Matter with Kansas?

Contrary to the style of Moore, Cohen and Winston use indirect propaganda in that they do not act in the film or give a running narrative to the film; however, they show you a filtered view of reality that fits the message they want viewers to receive. They avoid focusing viewers on the Republican’s landslide victories throughout time, but instead focus upon their defeats. They could show you Christians that have had positive outcomes putting their views and beliefs into political work, but instead the movie is fixated on the sad outcome of the church that found itself at Wild West World. Can we call this a typical story of Kansas? I think not.

In the end, while less grandiose and repugnant than some films that have found their way to the public, what we have here is another propaganda film attacking conservative Christian values. Yes, in the end, sometimes being right is downright painful.

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