More on Target

I just posted an article from ALIPAC about Target removing a "politically incorrect" costume. Yep, they caved.

However, the store doesn't seem to have a problem in the world trashing President Bush or Hillary Clinton.

I was shopping in Target Friday and happened to walk by our local store's Halloween card section. A card with a mask of Obama on the cover caught my attention and I had to read. You'd think that since it was Halloween the card would have been scary, but nope, it had some mushy love Obama message.

No biggie, no problem with that. He's the Prez and it's OK to have a nice Halloween card about him.

But then I looked up at the cards above.

One was a card with President Bush saying something about having a third term... open it up and it's a message about scaring you to death.

There was another trashing Hillary Clinton... two women yakking about going as a bitch for Halloween...

Another that trashed George Bush and Dick Cheney.

I was disgusted. There was not one negative, scary Obama card... not like past Halloween holidays where Target had some for both sides of the aisle, poking fun equally.

So what's going on with Target? Scared to step on Obama's toes? Scared they'll be called racist? Scared that someone will picket or come after then because they dared to be fair? Why not just have the nice card about Obama and not carry the ones trashing Bush, Cheney or Clinton?

I plan to take another trip back to the local Target and check out the cards a bit more closely. I'm also going to take a look at the Halloween costumes. If after double checking I confirm my "findings" then yours truly will not be shopping at Target, and I'll certainly be encouraging others to do the same.

If you're looking for signs our country is undergoing a sea change, that's a small one in some ways, but it's a big one in others. It seems that every day I see more and more signs that things they be a changin' in our once-great-country. It's subtle in many cases, but when you stack 'em all together, we're in HUGE trouble. We can't afford to just write off these seemingly small things, we have to stand up, make noise... peacefully, but loudly and with clarity.

Bush ain't here to push around...

Just read the article below titled "Allies abandon U.S. at climate confab". The Obama administration sent a large delegation to this global climate conference and Europe and all those other countries that have been trashing Bush for not doing enough, didn't show.

One has to wonder if now that Bush isn't here to push around and blame for nothing happening (even though he was a global warming believer), the true feelings of these other countries are showing. As long as they could point a finger at the United States and Bush as the big bad boogie (or is it bogey) man they had an out. Now they have a U.S. President who's bending over backwards to move forward and they aren't there.

That's not to say that by the time the big conference rolls around in three months that they won't have their act together. Maybe they'll have another bad guy to point a finger at by then. Or maybe it'll be time to put up or shut up.

I've read enough on both sides of the global warming issue to believe it's a bunch of hogwash. Yep, put me right up there with the flat earthers all you global warming believers. I was rather young, but I do remember when everyone thought we were heading to a frozen earth. I remember picturing the United States covered in ice... I'm all for cutting back on emissions, cleaning up the earth, I recycle and am a vegetarian... I'm a tree hugging conservative but I can't swallow the global warming hype. Anyway, here's the article. We'll all see in three months what happens.

Allies abandon U.S. at climate confab
By John Zaracostas THE WASHINGTON TIMES
GENEVA Western nations that spent the past several years slamming the Bush administration for not doing enough to deal with climate change were conspicuously absent from a recent global climate conference.
The Obama administration sent a large entourage to the third World Climate Conference in Geneva earlier this month, trumpeting the return of the United States to the climate change debate.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/15/us-takes-lone-lead-on-climate-change/?feat=home_headlines

What? Not even lip service Mr. Obama?

Our new President has decided to shun the annual National Day of Prayer service and the Catholic breakfast held the following day. He says he's reverting back to the days prior to President Bush.

Ummm.... this is the sixth annual National Catholic Prayer Breakfast. He doesn't have to go back that far to boycott the Catholics, just six years. Of course, he doesn't seem to be going out of his way to embrace Catholics anyway, so any excuse to avoid them will do I suppose.

I can't say with any certainty which Presidents have attended a service on the National Day of Prayer (NDP), if any. In reading historical accounts the bill enacting the current NDP wasn't signed into law until 1952. President Truman did the honors. Seems to me that some of the presidents since then might have attended a prayer service. However, there were various national days of prayer prior to that and it appears that President Lincoln and other Presidents participated in whatever they called it during their time in office. I'll let you know if I ferret out any more info on who has or has not attended since 1952.

Whether previous Presidents chose to attend a service or not doesn't matter today. If I were in President Obama's shoes, you better believe I'd have my butt sitting in a pew of a church on the day designated for prayer for our country.

Mission
The National Day of Prayer Task Force's mission is to communicate with every individual the need for personal repentance and prayer, mobilizing the Christian community to intercede for America and its leadership in the seven centers of power: Government, Military, Media, Business, Education, Church and Family.

Kind of a no-brainer to me. Whether I'm Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Latter Day Saint, Jehovah Witness or any other brand of Christian, I'm praying that day. If I'm President, I'm going to let the people of the nation know that I'm praying. Can we say "moral booster", Mr. Obama?

I have a LOT to say about this one...

It's not as if Obama isn't having problems with the Catholics already. He covered up Jesus and Christian symbols when he spoke at Georgetown University causing a bit of a stink. He's pushing through every pro-abortion action conceivable. Then there's the stem-cell issue, something that offends many of faith.

Now he's snubbing the Catholic prayer breakfast?

It's not as if there aren't a ton of people in this country wondering if he is Muslim or Christian. The idea that he may lean Muslim has been fostered by the bow to the Saudi King, his willingness to speak to terrorist nations without precondition and other actions (or lack of actions). He hasn't chosen a church (unless I missed something these past few weeks). He says he prays, but doesn't say if it's to a Christian God or just in general.

Now he's boycotting a Christian prayer service? Once which was enacted BY a President and has been ongoing since 1952?

Our country is in turmoil and we're battling to keep our heads above the financial waters. Our economy has tanked, capitalism is under assault, our military is trying to follow orders in Afghanistan as they receive mixed messages, the CIA is wondering what the repercussions will be for legal actions they make today... the list of things causing us angst is way too long for one blog.

Now Obama is avoiding a prayer breakfast that if nothing else gives a symbolic sense of concern and caring?

He shows a distinct lack of concern for those who believe. He shows disdain for the Catholic Church by rebuffing the Prayer Breakfast.

There are some things that people in leadership do just because they should. Whether he believes or not, it's a small thing to go to a prayer breakfast. By choosing not to go he just added another log, as opposed to straw, to the camels breaking back. Now more of us are going to question his motivations, his actions, his beliefs and his faith. If he'd opted to go? It would have been a short bit of time from his schedule. He would have shown that he respected the Christian faith and the Church. Questions wouldn't have been raised.

People of no faith are in the minority in this country according to statistics, whether we regularly go to church or not. He would have offended less by going than by not.

Instead he seemingly scorns this annual event where Christian leaders pray for our country, our leaders and the world. He scorns those of us who believe in the importance of prayer by not paying lip-service at a minimum.

Obama to be prayer day no-show
President Obama is distancing himself from the National Day of Prayer by nixing a formal early morning service and not attending a large Catholic prayer breakfast the next morning.
All Mr. Obama will do for the National Day of Prayer, which is Thursday, is sign a proclamation honoring the day, which originated in 1952 when Congress set aside the first Thursday in May for the observance.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/06/prayer-day-no-show/

On the National Day of Prayer:

On April 17, 1952, President Harry S. Truman signed a bill proclaiming a National Day of Prayer must be declared by each following president at an appropriate date of his choice. In 1982 a National Prayer Committee formed to coordinate and implement a fixed commemorated day of prayer. In 1988, President Ronald Reagan amended the law decreeing that the National Day of Prayer should be held on the first Thursday of May. A claimed intention of the National Day of Prayer was that it would be a day when members of all faiths could pray together in their own way

Obama Demands Georgetown University Cover Christ Symbols Before Speech
Obama Demands Georgetown University Cover Christ Symbols Before Speech. Filed under: ... stage where President Obama spoke at the university on Tuesday and the ...

CNSNews.com - Georgetown Says It Covered Over Name of Jesus to Comply ...
... Obama spoke Tuesday and the White House had asked Georgetown to cover up all ... President Obama is greeted by Georgetown University President John J. ...www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46667

ALIPAC - Rule of Law: Obama Must Deport His Aunt

Just passing this one along 'cause it's interesting. Maybe it's an issue that should be important to me, but it's not. I am burning up the wires doing everything I can to halt the porkulus package from going through.

ALIPAC - Rule of Law: Obama Must Deport His Aunt

The national organization, Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, is filing an arrest request with Immigration and Customs Enforcement today and issuing a public demand for President Obama to honor his rhetoric about the Rule of Law by deporting his aunt Zeituni Onyango.

Zeituni Onyango is an illegal immigrant, who is currently under a court's order to leave the country or be deported, and has been living in taxpayer subsidized housing in Boston for five years. She is currently a fugitive from justice and is staying with friends in Clevelend vowing to fight against being deported now that her nephew is President.

"President Obama has promised the American public that his administration will honor the principles of open government, the Constitution, and the Rule of Law," said William Gheen of ALIPAC. "Obama must either deport his aunt or destroy his own credibility by showing her favoritism."

Americans were shocked by recent revelations that President George Bush issued a secretive executive order prior to the elections requiring Homeland Security to clear all immigration arrests with the White House beforehand to assure that Obama's aunt Zeituni Onyango did not become a political issue during the campaigns.

Obama recently repeated his claims of support for the intrinsic American principle of the Rule of Law. On January 21, 2009 he stated on CNN and other national networks, "Let me say this as simply as I can. Transparency and the Rule of Law will be the touchstones of this Presidency."

The Rule of Law is a principle considered to be a core concept of what America stands for. The 'rule of law', in its most basic form, is the principle that no one is above the law. Thomas Paine stated in his pamphlet Common Sense (1776): "For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other."

The principle is intended to be a safeguard against arbitrary governance, whether by a totalitarian leader or by mob rule. Thus, the rule of law is hostile both to dictatorship and to anarchy.

"Actions speak louder than words, Mr. President," said William Gheen. "If you do not execute the deportation order for your aunt, then your lip service about the Rule of Law is no CHANGE from George Bush."

ALIPAC supporters are being asked to contact talk radio shows, the White House, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement to demand that the principle of the Rule of Law is restored in America, and that Zeituni Onyango leave the United States America or face deportation by months end.

For more information, visit www.alipac.us

Chris Matthews... arrrggghhhh....

Went to check out Eyeblast (like it) and found this video on the front page. Chris Matthews is wacky. He is so far out there he deserves his own planet (somewhere on the other side of Pluto).

I was flabbergasted that anyone could lay claim to a modicum of intelligence and say the things Chris Matthews said. He no more knows George W. Bush's reasoning and though process than I know what goes through Obama's mind. That tingle he felt in his leg when he fell in love with Obama was brain tremors...

I can't believe any rational being listens to his show if this is the kind of drivel he shares with the world.




If the video doesn't work, here's a link: http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=yduzIrIrnz

Can facts change minds?

I have long wondered whether facts could change the mind of a die-hard liberal, or conservative for that matter. I read an article in the CS Monitor earlier today by Jonathan Zimmerman which brought the question to mind again.

He referenced a study by Drew Westen from Emory University (but didn't provide a link). I did a search and found a couple of studies by Westen on the subject (releases included below). I also found that Westen had released a book in 2007, “The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation”.

In making the search I ended up on a much broader road than I'd intended. It led me to articles on why Obama attracted the minds of the masses. It took me on side paths on how the media influences the public.

It took me all over the place, but I ultimately found an answer of sorts. It was the answer I expected.

The answer is usually no, emotions overrule factual evidence by a huge margin.


As conservatives, we typically work with facts and try to convince others with rational arguments. We decry the fact that we don't seem to be able to change the minds of our left-learning friends with logic.

Facts definitely don't seem to sway the opinion of Bush-haters and Palin-haters!

One thing that I did find comforting in reading the study and the Zimmerman article, is that some minds can be changed. If I read my numbers correctly, about 15% read, study and make judgements based on facts (on the left and right!). Zimmerman says he occasionally changes a mind here and there. I've heard callers on Sean Hannity and other talk shows say they tuned in and ultimately changed their minds.

As I read articles and studies, I realized that the question asked by Westen and Zimmerman was secondary to a much bigger question we as conservatives need to answer. How do we even get the facts to liberals to change the small percentage of minds that could possibly be changed?

How many of your liberal friends would ever listen to Rush Limbaugh? watch Fox News? subscribe to a conservative magazine?

If they simply listen to the mainstream media, how are they going to hear the facts that might change their minds? If all they read is the Daily Kos or Huffington Post, how can we reach them?

For every blog a conservative turns out there's at least one being churned out by a left-leaning blogger.

Conservatives don't own many, if any, large mainstream media outlets. Even Fox News, which is routinely lambasted by the left, has a regular station with loads of liberal shows.

We have very few ways to really reach out and touch the minds of "progressives".

They think we're wrong, we think they're wrong.

I don't know the answer. How do you change someone's mind if you can't use facts? Even if facts DID work, we still have to address the question of how to get them in front of large groups of the population, Independents, Conservatives and Dems.

We can appeal on an emotional level, assuming we can infiltrate the media! But what's sexy about doing what's right? About being responsible?

How do you get conservatives to "stoop" to using emotions? It just isn't in the overall makeup of most on the right to try and package principles in a pretty package. Right is right and wrong is wrong.

Yes, I know you thought I'd come up with something profound by the time you wandered through this article! Hate to disappoint.

If anything, I suppose my "profound" suggestion would be that we keep on plugging along. We keep writing, we keep putting out the fact and we find ways to get a whole lot better at getting our side into the media.

We are making inroads via the Internet. More and more websites and blogs are popping up that promote conservative views. Twitter is becoming "the" conservative place to be thanks in large part to www.TopConservativesOnTwitter.com. More and more conservative bloggers are partnering. Emails are flying and conservative social networks are flourishing.

My final suggestion? Go forth and conquer the media before it's too late.

---

Do opinion pieces ever change your opinion?
Given the fixity of our partisan beliefs, it's a rare occurrence. Yet history shows that reason and rhetoric can win converts.
by Jonathan Zimmerman
Right on, Professor Zimmerman! Keep up the great work!
Wrong again, Professor Zimmerman! Get a real job!
Welcome to the wacky and wonderful world of op-ed writing. For the past decade, I've published two opinion pieces a month in newspapers around the country. Thanks to the magic of the Internet, meanwhile, I've received thousands of e-mail responses from my readers. And here's what I've learned: Opinion pieces rarely change opinions.

---

2005 - Emotions, Not Facts, Form Basis of Political Opinion

An Emory University study has found that when it comes to forming opinions and making judgments on hot political issues, most people don't let facts get in the way of their decision-making. The research, led by Emory psychology professor Drew Westen, tested whether people make decisions based on emotional bias or fact, and emotions won by a landslide.

"In high-stakes, emotionally charged political situations, people respond to ambiguity not by consulting the data but by consulting their emotional preferences, prejudices and predilections," Westen says. "The data suggests that perhaps the only way for any of us to make reasoned judgments about political matters is to identify and admit our own biases, maintain constant vigilance to detect and counteract them, and be particularly vigilant and circumspect when we find that ''voting our conscience' just happens to coincide with voting along party lines."

The research involved five studies that covered American political crises during the past six years. Westen looked at how people judged the issues based on both the relevant facts (cognitive constraints) and also how the subjects felt about the issues and the people involved, such as Presidents Clinton and Bush (emotional constraints).

In all five, cognitive and emotional constraints contributed in predicted ways to people's judgments. However, competing emotional pulls (such as toward the two parties, human rights and the military) accounted for much of the variance in seemingly "cold" cognitive judgments. Examples include whether or not Clinton should have been impeached, or whether the evidence produced by a soldier charged with abuses at Abu Ghraib prison crossed the threshold for allowing his lawyers to interrogate senior civilian officials.

Although about 15 percent of respondents were found to have primarily considered evidence and fact when forming their opinions, researchers could correctly predict 80 percent of the time how a person would view an issue based on their opinions of the Bush administration, the Republican or Democratic parties, the military and human-rights groups.

"If a person is paying attention enough to think about something, he or she usually has some motivational or emotional interest in it. In this sense, every act of cognition is simultaneously an act of emotion regulation. The more ambiguous the data, and the more emotionally significant the outcome, the more one can expect emotion regulation to trump information processing," Westen says.

----

2004 Political Forecasting Looks at Minds of Voters
Instead of relying on factors such as history, polling and approval ratings to forecast voter behavior, Emory psychologist Drew Westen developed a political forecasting model that looks at the role of emotions in how people make decisions about political issues and candidates.
http://www.emory.edu/news/Releases/westen1080334326.html

---

2006 - Emory study lights up the political brain
When it comes to forming opinions and making judgments on hot political issues, partisans of both parties don't let facts get in the way of their decision-making, according to a new Emory University study. The research sheds light on why staunch Democrats and Republicans can hear the same information, but walk away with opposite conclusions.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-01/euhs-esl012406.php

---

Drew Westen Opinion piece in CNN:
Commentary: Obama thinks like a professor, inspires like a preacher
A single factor never produces a complex event like the historic election of Barack Obama. But when the final post-mortem on the election of 2008 is someday written, it will no doubt include at least three.
First, John McCain started with three strikes against him. Those strikes happen to be the three strongest predictors that enter into the equations used by political scientists to predict who will win an election: an unpopular incumbent president (in this case, the most unpopular in the history of polling), an economic downturn (in this case an understatement), and an unpopular war.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/06/westen.winning/index.html
(Westen wrote a piece for the Huffington Post also, I decided not to give them any more publicity ;-)

Eye-opening Video on "Progressives" Agenda!

Hat tip to @HighPlainsBlogger (HPB)!

In sharing this video on Twitter, HPB said to grab a stiff drink. Was he ever right on that one! This video is from back in March of last year and their campaign efforts have ended, but the thought process behind this initiative is flat out mind boggling.

I don't know that I've ever seen the behind-the-scenes maneuvering laid out so clearly and openly. After watching this, I went wandering around the Internet looking at "progressive" sites, something I've avoided doing. Yes, I get bits and pieces, but I'm not one to read the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post. I get enough of the liberal agenda from the mainstream media (and the nasty comments left on my blogs ;-)

In the video below the presenter is very professional and matter-of-fact. Not so with any other site or commentary I found.

Grab yourself your tonic of choice and listen to this carefully. It's worth watching twice.



If the video doesn't work, click here to view.