Saturday, October 18, 2008

Hawaii Pulls Plug on Child Care Socialism

Hawaii's experiment with socialized medicine will end on November 1, 2008 after only seven months. Keiki Care is available to all children in Hawaii regardless of financial need. And that was the problem.

Families cancelled private insurance coverage so their children could get Keiki (child) Care. Even economically stable families dropped their private insurance for subsidized care that cost only a $7.00 co-pay. Dr. Kenny Fink, Department of Human Services Med-QUEST administrator, said,
"People who were already able to afford health care began to stop paying for it so they could get it for free. I don't believe that was the intent of the program."
State health officials argued that most of the children enrolled in the universal child care program previously had private health insurance, indicating that it was helping those who didn't need it.
Well, duh! Who couldn't see that coming? Republican Gov. Linda Lingle who signed this idiotically compassionate bill into law certainly didn't.

Keiki Care was meant to help the estimated 3,500-16,000 children between birth and 18 years who were in need. When Hawaiians were offered something for near nothing and without financial restrictions, they did what people do - they jumped at the government give away program.

Totally predictable behavior, but not to the fiscally compassionate. No matter the experience of Hawaii, the possible Democrat controlled government under Obama will institute socialized everything that will not end after only seven months.

The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.

Friday, October 17, 2008

Levi Stubbs Dies, Four Tops Music Lives

Levi Stubbs, Four Tops frontman, a great voice of my youth, born 1936.

October 16, 1966, the Four Tops appeared on The Ed Sullivan Show, singing and dancing their second No. 1 hit, Reach Out, I'll Be There.

Levi Stubbs died today, October 17, 2008.

The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Obama Disses Plumbers

A plumber is the guy he's fightin' for. (Laughter.) How many plumbers you know are makin' a quarter million dollars? (Laughter.)

Barry O did listened and then willfully ignored what Joe said. Joe does not make a quarter million dollars a year. Joe said, "I'm gettin' ready to buy a company that makes 250..., 270...80 thousand dollars a year..."

This is the man Democrats are fightin' for - Barack Obama, an arrogant snob without a sense of propriety, proportion, perspective, respect, or decency. Least of all, he has no sense of probability. Anyone who's owned a house knows the plumbing will fail sometime.

The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

CHANGE! Democrats Have Already Delivered

Sen John McCain and Sen Barack Obama debate tonight for the last time. This election has been characterized by the Democrats as a referendum on and an indictment of the G.W. Bush Administration. Democrats and the Obama campaign have been vacuously chanting 'CHANGE' without realizing their leadership has already brought change to the country and our pocketbooks.

I found this at the blog, Dr. Helen, from commenter MICKLARR ...

A little over two years ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%;
4) the DOW JONES hit a record high - 14,000+;
5) Americans were buying new cars,taking cruises,vacations
overseas, living large!...

But Americans wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress and yes--we got 'CHANGE' all right. In the PAST YEAR:
1) Consumer confidence has plummeted;
2) Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon and climbing!;
3) Unemployment is up to 5.5% (a 10% increase);
4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS and prices still dropping;
5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.

The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Glaciers Grow First Time in 200 Years

Two hundred years of glacial shrinkage in Alaska, and then came the winter and summer of 2007-2008.

WHAT?!! Alaskan glaciers have been shrinking for 200 freakin' years until now. Do the Global Warming Fried Earthers know this? Has Al Gore heard the news?

So, what are the glaciers doing now?

Unusually large amounts of winter snow were followed by unusually chill temperatures in June, July and August.

"In mid-June, I was surprised to see snow still at sea level in Prince William Sound," said U.S. Geological Survey glaciologist Bruce Molnia. "On the Juneau Icefield, there was still 20 feet of new snow on the surface of the Taku Glacier in late July. At Bering Glacier, a landslide I am studying, located at about 1,500 feet elevation, did not become snow free until early August.

"In general, the weather this summer was the worst I have seen in at least 20 years."

Never before in the history of a research project dating back to 1946 had the Juneau Icefield witnessed the kind of snow buildup that came this year. It was similar on a lot of other glaciers too.

"It's been a long time on most glaciers where they've actually had positive mass balance," Molnia said.

That's the way a scientist says the glaciers got thicker in the middle. Read more.
GROWING!! OMG! That means the it's been really, really cold, not really, really hot. But... but, Al Gore says he's hot.

The first sentence says the glaciers have been shrinking for 200 years. Since 1808, SUVs and industrial pollution have been hard at work destroying the planet's ecosystem. Except the Industrial Revolution didn't get going full throttle til 1830-1840, although it did start sometime in the 1780s around 2:15 p.m. on a Tuesday, so there were no SUVs and the pollution hadn't the time to get from the source to Alaska.

I bet Sunbeams had plenty of time to do the job.

The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.

Monday, October 13, 2008

Barack and the Plumber

Senator Robert Kennedy(D) promised during the 1968 Presidential campaign, to increase spending on numerous social programs and start new social programs and spend even more tax money. When asked by a citizen who was going to pay for all the programs, the beloved Bobby answered, "You will." At least he was honest about it.

This past Sunday, Senator Barack Obama was canvassing an Ohio neighborhood, when he was approached by a citizen, a plumber by trade.
"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the plumber asked, complaining that he was being taxed "more and more for fulfilling the American dream."

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
Fox News
Hear it for yourself with own soon to be astonished ears:

That was certainly an Oscar winning performance, much like this one -

Obama says he will drink the milkshake of tradesmen - plumbers, carpenters, electricians, brick layers, and anyone else who has achieved in their lifetime, in order to pay for those who have achieved nothing, not worked, and demand more. It's just not fair, says Obama, that some people are ambitious, work hard, and accumulate wealth and some people are not; the non-achieving lazy bastards should share in the wealth and, by the Almighty, Obama will force the successful (read greedy) to share their wealth by taxing them. Tax the rich till there are no rich no more.

Someone said that Democrats love employees and hate employers. Barack Obama is the living embodiment of that.

The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.

Obama Still Refuses to Release Documents

The October Surprise -

The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.

The Indictment of President Obama

Federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is investigating Tony Rezko's connections to Sen. Barack Obama and some folks close to the investigation believe Fitzgerald is close to convincing Tony Sopra ahhh... Rezko to rat out Obama. If that happens, many of the Democrat leadership may also be subjected to investigation.

After my Saturday post, Rezko to Give Up Obama to Feds in RICO Investigation, suek asked a good question, "Could they bring charges against a sitting president? I thought that charges had to wait until the term was finished... Please tell me I'm wrong..."

The quick and short answer is YES. The longer answer I will rip off lock, stock, and barrel from Richard Matthews writing at Daily Kos. Why do all the research when the Kossacks have done such a bang-up job already. The post is entitled "Indicting Bush and Cheney", but it applies to any President.

Vice President

Precedent exists to indict a Vice President.

Vice President Aaron Burr was subject to indictments in two states while still in office. Burr stayed out of those two states to avoid prosecution.

In the case of Spiro Agnew, Solicitor General Robert Bork filed a brief arguing that, consistent with the Constitution, the Vice President could be subject to indictment and criminal prosecution. While still Vice President, Agnew plea bargained a deal in which he plead "no contest" to tax evasion. He resigned the same day he entered his plea.


For a President, there is no clear precedent one way or another. The closest is the case of Nixon. The Grand Jury reportedly wanted to indict Nixon. Prosecutor Jaworski convinced them to avoid the issue of whether the President may be indicted by naming him as an unindicted coconspirator. This was sufficient to get a subpoena for Nixon's records including the tapes. Nixon argued that the subpoena was invalid because he was not subject to indictment. The Supreme Court sidestepped the indictment issue by ruling that they did not need to answer that question in order to reach their conclusion that the subpoena was valid. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 687 n. 2 (1974).

There is not a single word in the Constitution that supports a claim that the President cannot be indicted. On the contrary, the Constitution merely says this about impeachment:
Article I, Section 3, Clause 7:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Note that in the above sections the Constitution treats impeachment of the President exactly the same as impeachment of any other Officer. The only place where the Constitution treats the President differently with respect to impeachment is in that the Chief Justice sits as the presiding officer in the Senate trial of a President:
Article I, Section 3, Clause 6:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Since the Constitution treats the President identically to all other Officers, and since there is substantial precedent for indicting other impeachable officers including judges and members of Congress, it follows that the President may also be indicted. Courts have specifically held that a federal judge is indictable and may be convicted prior to removal from office. United States v. Claiborne, 727 F.2d 842, 847-848 (9th Cir.), cert. den., 469 U.S. 829 (1984); United States v. Hastings, 681 F.2d 706, 710-711 (11th Cir.), cert. den., 459 U.S. 1203 (1983); United States, v. Isaacs, 493 F.2d 1124, 1142 (7th Cir.), cert. den. sub nom., Kerner v. United States, 417 U.S. 976 (1974).

Note also that Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 brings up the issue of indictment. It clearly indicates that those subject to impeachment are also subject to indictment "according to Law." It in no way suggests that the law be suspended until after the impeachment and/or Senate trial.

The New York Times reported on 1/31/99 that "Starr has concluded that he has the constitutional authority to seek a grand jury indictment of president Clinton before he leaves the White House in January, 2001."

Professor Eric Freedman of the Hofstra University School of Law has submitted extensive written and oral testimony to Congress stating that a sitting President may be indicted. He questions under what circumstances this power may be used. See, e.g., E. Freedman, "The Law and King and the King as Law: Is a President Immune from Criminal Prosecution Before Impeachment?" 20 Hastings L.Q. 7 (1992).

Among Freedman's arguments in support of the position that a sitting President can be subjected to criminal proceedings, Freedman contends that the 25th Amendment can be used as a mechanism for having the President leave office temporarily if a criminal trial or resulting sentence precludes the President from performing his constitutional duties. The Amendment kicks in if the President "is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office," then the 25th Amendment applies (the quoted text is straight from both the 3rd and 4th sections of the Amendment).

In practice, I do not expect the 25th Amendment to actually be applied. For all of the arguing by Presidents that their ability to function would be impaired by any court action, I bet all such arguing will disappear when they are faced with the 25th Amendment. All of a sudden, an indicted President will announce that he can discharge 100% of his duties despite the indictment. All concerns about being preoccupied with the prosecution will disappear. Nevertheless, the 25th Amendment is a useful argument to counter any claim that a President may be unable to discharge his duties.

Countering the Arguments Against Indictment

Many of the arguments that a President cannot be indicted are trumped by the 25th Amendment. If the President can be removed temporarily to deal with criminal proceedings, the Office of the President can continue unimpeded. It is the Office that must be protected, not the person who sits in it.

Also, many of the arguments against indictment are really arguments against arrest. If the President remains free during criminal proceedings, he can perform his job just fine. Criminal proceedings need not impede the President any more than impeachment proceedings. If criminal proceedings take too much of the President's time or if incarceration should be necessary, clearly the 25th Amendment provides more than adequate remedy to protect the Office of the President and the continuation of the government.

The official government position on indictment of the President is contained in several papers circa 1974 (regarding Nixon and Agnew) and 2000 (Clinton). These argue that the Vice President can be indicted but the President cannot. The arguments regarding the President are weak.

First, the papers admit that "the plain terms of the [Impeachment Judgment] Clause do not impose such a general bar to indictment or criminal trial prior to impeachment and therefore do not, by themselves, preclude the criminal prosecution of a sitting President."

The papers also admit that there is difficulty in assigning an implied immunity to the President when the Constitution expressly provided immunity to Congress in the Arrest and Speech or Debate Clauses of Article I, Section 6. If the Founders had meant to give immunity to both the President and Congress, why did they only expressly say so for Congress? If they only meant to define for Congress the boundaries of a broader immunity, why did they not expressly define the broader immunity for the President? The argument that there cannot be an implied immunity in addition to the express immunity is not conclusive, but it is very strong. The papers dismiss it without providing adequate justification.

The papers then go on to argue that there is an implied immunity. They invent this from reading between lines in cases that do not apply. There is no case that rules on the indictment of a President.

In fact, the same arguments that were used in these papers to argue that a President cannot be indicted were used unsuccessfully to argue that Nixon's tapes could not be subpoenaed and that Clinton could not be made to testify to a Grand Jury. Courts overruled those arguments. No final court decision has ever accepted as strong a principle of executive privilege as would be required by these arguments that the President cannot be indicted.

The papers consider the possibility that the precedents that say that other Officers can be indicted while in office do not apply to the President. The papers end up admitting that they cannot justify such an argument.

The papers admit that a trial of the President would not be precluded due to being "too political for the judicial process." If other Officers can be indicted and tried fairly, so can the President.

The papers raise question of whether it is practical to have a prosecutor who is part of the Executive Branch prosecute the President. The experience we have developed with independent prosecutors in the cases of Nixon, Clinton, and the CIA leak case show that this is not a problem. Nixon may have tried to fire the prosecutor, but he did not succeed. Furthermore, if a conflict of interest cannot be resolved, the 25th Amendment provides a resolution. If the President and the Cabinet refuse to apply the 25th Amendment, then the prosecution may need to be delayed -- but that does not mean that a prosecution should not be allowed in all cases.

The papers then turn to the argument that past precedents give executive privilege to the President that prhibit indictment. In this area, they talk about the constitutional balance of powers. While balance of powers is an accepted principle, there are no words in the Constitution to back it up. Nothing in the Constitution says that one branch cannot take actions that affect other branches. In fact, clearly, such actions are allowed. For example, Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 gives Congress the authority to audit spending by the other branches. Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 gives the Judicial Branch authority to indict any impeachable Officer.

They note that Jefferson claimed to not be required to personally attend the Burr trial. Yet it is a big step from not being required to attend someone else's trial and not being required to attend your own. Clinton was required to give a deposition in a mere civil matter, and then he was required to give Grand Jury testimony. If the Burr precedent has been so weakened, it cannot be used as an argument against indictment.

They then argue that the President is simply too busy to be bothered with a criminal trial. This argument loses to the 25th Amendment response given above. Perhaps the President should not be bothered with minor matters, but he most certainly should have to answer to felonies. If that means that he "is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office," then the 25th Amendment applies.

The argument that the President is too busy was attempted by Clinton. The argument was rejected by the courts.

In the ultimate example of confusing the Office of the President with the person who holds the office, they argue that "the President is the symbolic head of the Nation. To wound him by a criminal proceeding is to hamstring the operation of the whole governmental apparatus, both in foreign and domestic affairs." Nonsense. Clinton was wounded by the sex scandal, and the Presidency survived. Nixon resigned in disgrace, and the Presidency survived.

They argue that the House and Senate are a more appropriate place for a necessarily political trial of the President, but they ignore the fact that the Constitution explicitly states that impeachment does not preclude indictment. The Founders were apparently not impressed with an argument that Congress and only Congress could be involved in such a matter.

The papers also express the concern that "A criminal trial of a sitting President, however, would confer upon a jury of twelve the power, in effect, to overturn this national election." Of course, we have already had a Court of nine judges overturn a national election. In Bush v. Gore, the Court was clear in claiming jurisdiction over choosing the President. It is inconsistent to claim that a court cannot take jurisdiction over determining whether the President has committed a crime.

The papers also consider that the Framers may have expected the President to be immune from Prosecution while in office. Some statements made at the time support such an argument (while others refute it). They seem to have felt that the President's job was too important to allow such a distraction. While this argument may have applied to the original Constitution, it is knocked down by the 25th Amendment. Anything the Framers may have said is made irrelevant when in conflict with later changes. The 25th Amendment expressly provides for the temporary replacement of the President. The Framers had not considered this, so their opinions on the matter cannot be determined.

The main argument that indictment of the President should not be allowed is that it would impair a government function. Yet if it did impair a government function, namely that the President "is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office," then the 25th Amendment's requirements are satisfied.

Bork argues that the 25th Amendment shows the importance of the President because it is the only example in the Constitution of providing for the temporary replacement of an Officer. He completely misses that by providing for that replacement, the 25th Amendment puts the protection of the Office over the protection of the individual. By protecting the Office, the need to protect the individual from indictment is eliminated.

Next, the papers turn to more court cases that they claim shed light on this issue. Since no court has ever made a relevant ruling, these arguments rely on extrapolating from dicta found in these cases. The arguments are admitted to be very thin.

The 2000 paper oddly claims that U.S. v. Nixon supports these claims of immunity. Nixon lost that case. It was found that he did not have sufficient immunity to protect him from a subpoena. It is hard to extend that into an argument that he was immune from indictment.

It is noted that U.S. v. Nixon stated that the lack of an explicit immunity clause for the Executive in the face of an explicit immunity clause for Congress is not necessarily dispositive on whether the Framers intended the President to have some exclusion for confidentiality, but that is because confidentiality is a separate issue from arrest. Arrest is restricted for members of Congress but not for the President. Furthermore, the Court eventually found that the President did not even have a sufficient exemption for confidentiality to block the subpoena.

Ultimately, the Nixon Court found that "the legitimate needs of the judicial process may outweigh Presidential privilege" and that "[N]either the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality . . . without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances." Such is certainly the case for a felony indictment related to official acts and abuse of power.

In Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982) and Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), the court found limited immunity from civil prosecution. The argument that this immunity extends to criminal matters is defeated by the plain language of both cases. Both cases explicitly called out that this immunity applied to civil cases onlys. In Fitzgerald, the Court concluded, "When judicial action is needed to serve broad public interests - as when the Court acts, not in derogation of the separation of powers, but to maintain their proper balance, cf. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, supra, or to vindicate the public interest in an ongoing criminal prosecution, see United States v. Nixon, supra - the exercise of jurisdiction has been held warranted. In the case of this merely private suit for damages based on a President's official acts, we hold it is not."

It is also worth noting that the dissent in Fitzgerald called out that giving immunity in a civil case could mean that " criminal laws of the United States are wholly inapplicable to the President." The dissent (signed by four Justices) states that "I find this approach completely unacceptable." Justice Burger responded that "It strains the meaning of the words used to say this places a President 'above the law.' The dissents are wide of the mark to the extent that they imply that the Court today recognizes sweeping immunity for a President for all acts. The Court does no such thing. The immunity is limited to civil damages claims." Together, these five Justices stand as a majority insisting that the President is not above the law.

If Fitzgerald did not give the President immunity from criminal prosecution, the Clinton case most certainly did not. In Clinton, the court weakened the immunity in Fitzgerald. The majority opinion that the "President is not above the law" still stands.


Those who claim Presidential immunity from indictment base their claim on admitted weak arguments that are not supported by the plain text of the Constitution. The Constitution as it now stands, with the 25th Amendment, provides little to no protection for a President in the case of a felony indictment.


"Impeachment: An Overview of Constitutional Provisions, Procedure, and Practice"

Hearing: Impeachment or Indictment: Is a Sitting President Subject to the Compulsory Criminal Process? September 9, 1998. S.Hrg. 105-969. Serial No. J-105-119. GPO Stock No. 552-070-23918-9. $11.00.

A Sitting President's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution

Memorandum from Robert G. Dixon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Amenability of the President, Vice President and other Civil Officers to Federal Criminal Prosecution while in Office (Sept. 24, 1973)

Memorandum for the United States Concerning the Vice President's Claim of Constitutional Immunity (filed Oct. 5, 1973), In re Proceedings of the Grand Jury Impaneled December 5, 1972: Application of Spiro T. Agnew, Vice President of the United States (D. Md. 1973) (No. 73-965)
Liberal Democrats, when and if, assuming Obama can fool enough of the people enough of the time, formal criminal charges against President Barack Obama are filed, just try to argue against the constitutionality of the arguement that your own Kossacks have made.

The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.

Sunday, October 12, 2008

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Obama

Benjamin Disraeli said, and was popularized by Mark Twain, "There are three kids of lies - lies, damned lies, and statistics." Now we have four - Barack Obama.

It is quite true that Barack Obama is outspending John McCain in every state. Ratios vary with reports of 8:1, 5:3, 3:1, and it cannot be denied that Obama has more money, a lot more money. Much of it has been donated illegally by persons dead or non-existent. Much of the money has come from real people who are not citizens and citizens exceeding the contribution caps.

John McCain, however, is severly limited under the public campaign financing law, McCain-Feingold. Barack Obama had pledged early on to abide by McCain-Feingold, but renegged after the primaries. As a co-author of the law, McCain was stuck, hoisted on his own petard.

The polls show Obama leading McCain by 3, 4, 5, and up to 8 percentage points. In a presidential campaign year in which the Democrats should be winning by 20-30 points, why is Obama so far behind expectations? A few months ago, McCain was trailing Obama by 15%. A few weeks ago, Obama had an 8% lead over McCain that was reduced to 3% very quickly. Next thing we heard was that Obama had "surged" ahead with a 4% lead. And today, SkyNews is reporting Obama still with a 4% lead. That's surging? Where is the ground swell of support, where is the landslide that has the Democrat leadership already picking out new drapes and carpet for the Oval Office?

The media, particularly MSNBC, is in the tank with Obama. Hillbuzz opines the media has
risked all its credibility betting on an Obama win, will not report any of this because when Obama falls, he will take America’s faith in journalism with him. Democrats, especially, will never trust the media again, since they will come to realize they lost a sure shot at taking back the White House with Hillary Clinton, because the media wanted to run an Obama campaign, and Howard Dean and Donna Brazile were all too pleased to oblige. Republicans never trusted the media to begin with — so chalk that up, surprisingly, to yet another thing centrist Democrats now agree with Republicans on.
Hillbuzz goes on to say there is a storm brewing, a political storm that some recognize and some don't and it's reflected in the poll numbers which are being cooked.

Whenever a storm brews for Obama, the media ratchets up its cheerleading, and those in the tank for him do whatever they can to protect him. That’s why we’ve also noticed the polling companies changing their party ID samples in the last two or three weeks, upping Democrats’ party ID to 50% in some polls, and dropping Republicans down to just 20%, with 30% Independent. If you look at this critically, you’d see that Democrats have never enjoyed more than a 4% historical party ID advantage. In 2006, a year that Democrats RAGED against both Bush and the sex-scandal plagued GOP (Mark Foley, Larry Craig, and other characters), Democrats had just a 3% party ID advantage. All of this means polls should be using samples with 39% Democrats, 35% Republican, and 26% Independent.

The polling samples are manipulated to give Obama higher poll numbers than he really in fact has, as reflective of support in the electorate. Some people believe this is all being done as cover for the voter fraud — so that Obama polls higher than he should in states where ACORN’s activities are meant to pump illegal votes in to push him much higher than he would be in an actual, legitimate election. The polls, in essence, are thus showing that ACORN is expected to deliver that 11% party ID advantage to Democrats, by bringing the dead, ineligible felons, and homeless multi-voters to the voting booths. The polls thus seem rigged to produce the results Obama wants…and ACORN is the muscle to make sure results are delivered to match the established polls.
Obviously, if more Obama supporters and fewer McCain supporters are asked who they will be voting for in November, the poll results will favor Obama. And when the enormous out-spending is factored in, one must wonder if Obama really is winning in the polls or anywhere else. Everything indicates that Barack Obama is in a one candidate race, but McCain's polling numbers are within, or very near, the margin of error to tell a different story.

This campaign will, I think, come down to solitary votes on election day. Obama's campaign news releases cannot be trusted, the work of ACORN cannot be trusted, MSNBC can't be trusted on anything. Oddly, it's the doubt that can be trusted. So much money spent by Obama to buy the presidency and he is still only 3-4 points ahead.

I hate that Race is even a factor, but it is and about 6% of voters say they cannot vote for a Black man - and those are Democrats! How many of the undecided voters will go that direction in the privacy of the voting booth? How many who say they are committed to Obama publicly, but privately cannot vote for a Black man?

For the rest, Obama just can't make his case stick with Americans who take a moment to think about what Obama says and realize it's all nonsense and a Socialist Utopian pipe dream from the get go. It is hard sometimes, we get discouraged by the 'we are doomed' rhetoric and the constant stupidity of Obama's crowds. But, there is something else at play in this election that just will not support Barack Obama and will put John McCain in the White House. Expect another 'DEWEY BEATS TRUMAN!' type headline on November 5.

The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.

Barney Frank in Bed with Gay Lover Fannie Mae Exec

Straight or gay, it's still wrong and unethical to sit on the House Banking Committee that oversees Fannie Mae when you're schtupping an executive of Fannie Mae.

Critics are crying “conflict of interest” over Democratic Rep. Barney Frank’s live-in relationship with Fannie Mae executive Herb Moses while Frank was on the House Banking Committee.

Moses was Fannie Mae’s assistant director for product initiatives from 1991 to 1998.

He was also openly gay Frank’s live-in boyfriend during that time, while the Massachusetts lawmaker was on the committee that had jurisdiction over government-sponsored Fannie Mae, Fox News’ Bill Sammon reported.

Now that Fannie Mae is at the center of the recent financial meltdown, the relationship is coming under increased scrutiny.

“It’s absolutely a conflict,” said Dan Gainor, vice president of the Business & Media Institute.

“He was voting on Fannie Mae at a time when he was involved with a Fannie Mae executive. How is that not germane?

“But everyone wants to avoid it because he’s gay. It’s the quintessential double standard.”

A top Republican House aide told Fox News: “He writes housing and banking laws and his boyfriend is a top exec at a firm that stands to gain from those laws? No media ever take note?”

Frank and Moses met in 1987 and lived together in Washington, D.C., until they split up in 1998.

National Mortgage News disclosed that Moses “helped develop many of Fannie Mae’s affordable housing and home improvement lending programs.”

Critics charge that such programs led to the mortgage meltdown and the recent government takeover of Fannie Mae, according to Fox News, which noted that Fannie Mae and its financial cousin Freddie Mac “are blamed for spreading bad mortgages throughout the private financial sector.”

In 1994, Frank thwarted efforts by President Clinton’s Department of Housing and Urban development to impose new regulations on Fannie Mae.
Insider Report from

Bloggers have been reporting this for quite a while now and the MSM remain out to lunch on the story. Business & Media Institute wrote a good review Sep 24 in which writer Jeff Poor points out the obvious double standard of the media.

Are journalists playing favorites with some of the key political figures involved with regulatory oversight of U.S. financial markets?

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews launched several vitriolic attacks on the Republican Party on his Sept. 17, 2008, show, suggesting blame for Wall Street problems should be focused in a partisan way. However, he and other media have failed to thoroughly examine the Democratic side of the blame game.

Prominent Democrats ran Fannie Mae, the same government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) that donated campaign cash to top Democrats. And one of Fannie Mae’s main defenders in the House – Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., a recipient of more than $40,000 in campaign donations from Fannie since 1989 – was once romantically involved with a Fannie Mae executive.
Barney is very lucky he's a gay Democrat. Otherwise, as a fat cat white political dude, he would have been attacked like a big purple dinosaur at a kids birthday party. And justifiably, too. Maybe Barney needed was a "wide stance" to get press attention.

The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.