Wednesday, December 09, 2009

Mammoth Iceberg and Australia on Collision Course

Fears are rising in Australia that the island continent, like the Titanic, may sink into the Pacific Ocean after being struck by the gigantic iceberg, B17B. The killer berg broke from an Antarctic ice shelf in 2000 and is headed directly for Oz... or maybe not.






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

Obama Disappoints... Norwegians

Not only is Obama headed to Norway to accept the Nobel Peace Prize while ordering 30,000 American warriors to the Afghanistan War, he is doing something totally unexpected and out of character. Obama has turned down an opportunity to bow before the King of Norway.
"Of all the things he is cancelling, I think the worst is cancelling the lunch with the king," said Siv Jensen, the leader of the largest party in opposition, the populist Progress party. "This is a central part of our government system. He should respect the monarchy." Guardian
Couldn't be because King Harald V is a white European and as the head of the Church of Norway, a Christian... nah, that couldn't be it.




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

Sunday, December 06, 2009

Network Climategate Silence Broken by CBS

CBS News, after 15 days, has broken the silence kept by the three major US news broadcast networks on the Climategate email release indicating collusion and fraud amongst climate researchers at East Anglia University, England. Kimberly Dozier reports:


CBS Video, You Tube
Dozier writes in her article at CBS,

The e-mails show some of the world's top experts decided to exclude or manipulate some research that didn't help prove global warming exists.

1998 was the hottest year since record-keeping began...but the temperature went down the next year, and it's only spiked a couple times since.

An e-mail exchange in 1999 shows scientists worked hard to demonstrate an upward trend. They talk of using a "trick" to "hide the decline" in global temperatures.

It worked like this: when temperature readings extrapolated from tree rings showed what looked like a decline in temperatures from the 1980s to the present, the scientists added in measurements taken later by more modern instruments, which gave them the answer they wanted.

The scientists say the e-mails are being misinterpreted.
From Betsy's Page today, Garbage in, Garbage out, the BBC investigated the base coding that was used to collate the climate data.


Eyeblast TV
Dominoes of fraud are falling faster than temperatures.



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

Thursday, December 03, 2009

Al Gore Cancels Copenhagen Lecture

Al Gore has cancelled his lecture at the UN Climate Change Conference.The Danish language e-newspaper says, "Cancellation comes with regard to unforeseen changes" to Gore's presentation for the climate summit.

Lisbeth Knudsen, CEO of Berlingske Media, said of the cancellation,
We have had a clear-cut agreement, and it is unusual with great disappointment that we have to announce that Al Gore cancels. We have welcomed us and had a huge expectation for the event. We have appreciated that we have been able to give the Danes the opportunity to get close to the Climate Summit via Al Gore. We do not yet know the detailed reasons for the cancellation.
Hmmm... what could those "unforeseen changes" have been? Could they possibly be related to the discovery and release of emails exchanged between leading climate scientists at the
University of East Anglia's Hadley Climate Research Unit (CRU), one of the world's leading climate change research centres, indicate that prominent scientists cooked the books to make the case for man-made global warming.
(...)
Misconduct at an institute as respected and influential as Hadley -- including the manipulation and deletion of data and deliberate attempts to suppress peer-reviewed papers skeptical of global warming, as the e-mails indicate-- would undermine the very basis of an issue that is driving much of the world agenda. Global warming, endorsed by the national science academies of every major industrialized nation, would not only be flawed science, it would be the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the world."
[Calgary Herald]
The data released to the public by an unnamed whistleblower revealed a nearly unrivalled world of data manipulation and invention, law evasion, and outright lying on the part of one the most respected and influential group of scientists involved in global climate change research. The blog, Watts Up With That?, gives a good summary of the issues as explained by Lord Monckton's report,"Climategate: Caught Green"Climate-Handed!"
- A tiny clique of politicized scientists, paid by unscientific politicians with whom they were financially and politically linked, were responsible for gathering and reporting data on temperatures from the palaeoclimate to today’s climate. The “Team”, as they called themselves, were bending and distorting scientific data to fit a nakedly political story-line profitable to themselves and congenial to the governments that, these days, pay the bills for 99% of all scientific research.
* The Climate Research Unit at East Anglia had profited to the tune of at least $20 million in “research” grants from the Team’s activities.

* The Team had tampered with the complex, bureaucratic processes of the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, so as to exclude inconvenient scientific results from its four Assessment Reports, and to influence the panel’s conclusions for political rather than scientific reasons.

* The Team had conspired in an attempt to redefine what is and is not peer-reviewed science for the sake of excluding results that did not fit what they and the politicians with whom they were closely linked wanted the UN’s climate panel to report.

* They had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors.

* They had emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of concealing a “decline” in temperatures in the paleoclimate.

* They had expressed dismay at the fact that, contrary to all of their predictions, global temperatures had not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years, and had been falling for nine years. They had admitted that their inability to explain it was “a travesty”. This internal doubt was in contrast to their public statements that the present decade is the warmest ever, and that “global warming” science is settled.

* They had interfered with the process of peer-review itself by leaning on journals to get their friends rather than independent scientists to review their papers.

* They had successfully leaned on friendly journal editors to reject papers reporting results inconsistent with their political viewpoint.

* They had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase and corrupt science for political purposes.

* They had mounted a venomous public campaign of disinformation and denigration of their scientific opponents via a website that they had expensively created.

* Contrary to all the rules of open, verifiable science, the Team had committed the criminal offense of conspiracy to conceal and then to destroy computer codes and data that had been legitimately requested by an external researcher who had very good reason to doubt that their “research” was either honest or competent.
The fraud has been exposed and the heat is now on Al Gore and global warming mongers. We can only hope this is the first of a long string cancellations of Al Gore and his fried-earthers.




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

Wednesday, December 02, 2009

Wind Turbines are Safe...

...and non-polluting.

A wind turbine burns near Uelzen, a town in Lower Saxony, Germany. The fire that incurred damages of €750,000 is assumed to have been caused by a technical fault near the top of the turbine, according to police reports. -- Spiegel OnLine




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

Tuesday, December 01, 2009

Great Britain Disappeared and No One Noticed

England died today. The England of freemen, the England of Magna Carta, the England that has stood against European domination for centuries, that would "defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender..." sadly, quietly, and without so much as a "by your leave" became "a satellite state of the Greater European Empire, ruled by a supreme government in Brussels" with the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty. The entirety of Great Britain - England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland - gone.
From today, as the Lisbon treaty comes into force, we are no longer masters in our own house. Our prime minister, as a member of the European Council, is obligated under this new treaty to promote the aims and objectives of the European Union, over and above those of the UK, and is bound by the rules of the Union.

Of course, this will make no immediate difference. It simply renders de jure what has been de facto for several decades, but the coming into force of the treaty marks an important symbolic turning point. We are no longer an independent country, de jure. Our prime minister and his government are now working for an alien government, based in Brussels.

In effect, that makes us an occupied country, but the alien creatures that rule us most directly are our own. We are "occupied" by our own political élites, who owe their allegiance not to the people who elected them and pay their wages, but to a more powerful, self-appointed élite in Brussels. They are sock-puppets, with less power than the Vichy government of the 1940s.

No longer will we have general elections to select our own government. All that is afforded to us now is the "privilege" of choosing an electoral college, comprised of people we still call Members of Parliament, who then go on to select the British member of the European Council, a man who is there not to represent us or serve our interests, but to participate in our supreme government.
What the Caesars and a Kaiser could not do, what kings of France and Spain could not do, what Hitler could not do, hundreds of faceless bureaucrats were able to do. England was conquered for the first time since Hastings. But, today was different. England died today.



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

Obama at West Point: This is how America will surrender

Text of Obama's Speech on Afghanistan, Dec. 1, 2009, as provided by the White House.

Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our armed services, and to my fellow Americans: I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan – the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my Administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. It is an honor for me to do so here – at West Point – where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country.

To address these issues, it is important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, nineteen men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people.

They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of the passengers on board one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.

As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda – a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban – a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.

Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them – an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to 0. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 – the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda’s terrorist network, and to protect our common security.

Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy – and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden – we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the UN, a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.

Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq War is well-known and need not be repeated here. It is enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq War drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention – and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.

Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of our men and women in uniform. Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance , we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people.

But while we have achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda’s leadership established a safe-haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it has been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient Security Forces.

Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to take control over swaths of Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating acts of terrorism against the Pakistani people.

Throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive.

That’s why, shortly after taking office, I approved a long-standing request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan, and the extremist safe-havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian effort.

Since then, we have made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we have stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda world-wide. In Pakistan, that nation’s Army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and – although it was marred by fraud – that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan’s laws and Constitution.

Yet huge challenges remain. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There is no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe-havens along the border.

And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan Security Forces and better secure the population. Our new Commander in Afghanistan – General McChrystal – has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: the status quo is not sustainable.
As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you have fought in Afghanistan. Many will deploy there.

As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. That is why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy. Let me be clear: there has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war.

Instead, the review has allowed me ask the hard questions, and to explore all of the different options along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and with our key partners. Given the stakes involved, I owed the American people – and our troops – no less.

This review is now complete. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.

I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. We have been at war for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources.

Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home.

Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you – a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens. As President, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars. I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed. I have visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed.

I have travelled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.

So no – I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror.

This danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.

Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America’s war. Since 9/11, al Qaeda’s safe-havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.

These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.

To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe-haven. We must reverse the Taliban’s momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan’s Security Forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan’s future.

We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban’s momentum and increase Afghanistan’s capacity over the next 18 months.

The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 – the fastest pace possible – so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They will increase our ability to train competent Afghan Security Forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.

Because this is an international effort, I have asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we are confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. Now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what’s at stake is not simply a test of NATO’s credibility – what’s at stake is the security of our Allies, and the common security of the world.

Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground.

We will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan’s Security Forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government – and, more importantly, to the Afghan people – that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.

Second, we will work with our partners, the UN, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.

This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai’s inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We will support Afghan Ministries, Governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas – such as agriculture – that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.

The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They have been confronted with occupation – by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand – America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country.

We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect – to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron.

Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.

We are in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That is why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.

In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who have argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani Army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.

In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interests, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe-haven for terrorists whose location is known, and whose intentions are clear.

America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan’s democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistani people must know: America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.

These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.

I recognize that there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the prominent arguments that I have heard, and which I take very seriously.

First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we are better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. Yet this argument depends upon a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action.

Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now – and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance – would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.

Second, there are those who acknowledge that we cannot leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan Security Forces and give them the space to take over.

Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a timeframe for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort – one that would commit us to a nation building project of up to a decade.

I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what we can achieve at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a timeframe for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.

As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, our or interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I do not have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I am mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who – in discussing our national security – said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs.”

Over the past several years, we have lost that balance, and failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our friends and neighbors are out of work and struggle to pay the bills, and too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we simply cannot afford to ignore the price of these wars.

All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly 30 billion dollars for the military this year, and I will work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.

But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That is why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended – because the nation that I am most interested in building is our own.

Let me be clear: none of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions and diffuse enemies.

So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict. We will have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold – whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere – they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.

And we cannot count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we cannot capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks.

We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. That is why I have made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to pursue the goal of a world without them. Because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever-more destructive weapons – true security will come for those who reject them.

We will have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I have spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships. And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim World – one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.

Finally, we must draw on the strength of our values – for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not. That is why we must promote our values by living them at home – which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom, and justice, and opportunity, and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the moral source of America’s authority.

Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions – from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank – that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.

We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades – a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, markets open, billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress, and advancing frontiers of human liberty.

For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for – and what we continue to fight for – is a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity.

As a country, we are not as young – and perhaps not as innocent – as we were when Roosevelt was President. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. Now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age.

In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people – from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people, and for the people a reality on this Earth.

This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue – nor should we. But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.

It is easy to forget that when this war began, we were united – bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. I believe with every fiber of my being that we – as Americans – can still come together behind a common purpose. For our values are not simply words written into parchment – they are a creed that calls us together, and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, one people.

America – we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes. Thank you, God Bless you, God Bless our troops, and may God Bless the United States of America.






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

Saturday, November 14, 2009

Obama Bows to Emperor - Disgraces Presidency Again

Obama stuck his ass in the air again in Japan when he bowed to the Emperor of Japan. Later, at a press conference, Obama stuck his foot in his mouth when he was unable to say the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the right thing to do.

This from Andrew Malcolm of the LA Times, "How low will he go?":

How low will the new American president go for the world's royalty?

This photo will get Democrat President Obama a lot of approving nods in Japan this weekend, especially among the older generation of Japanese who still pay attention to the royal family living in its downtown castle. Very low bows like this are a sign of great respect and deference to a superior.

To some in the United States, however, an upright handshake might have looked better. Remember Michelle Obama casually patting Britain's Queen Elizabeth on the back during their Buckingham Palace visit? America's royalty tends to make movies and get bad reviews and lots of money as a sign of respect.

Obama could receive some frowns back home as he did for his not-quite-this-low-or-maybe-about-the-same-bow to the Saudi king not so long ago.

Remember this when Obama didn't bow to the Saudi king? What will the White House say about the Japan incident? Oh, slow my beating heart!

And, the Queen of England got a hand shake, head bob, and a pat on the back.




General Douglas MacArthur demonstrated how to bow before the Emperor of Japan in 1945. The photo credits at the end of the article, the LA Times printed:
Photo: Mandel Ngan / AFP / Getty; Reuters (Obama bows to the king of Saudi Arabia earlier this year); U.S. Army Archives (Gen. Douglas MacArthur not bowing to Emperor Hirohito after World War II).




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

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Obama Job Numbers Falsified

Job stimulus results have been inflated by thousands while some jobs claimed as saved were not in jeopardy and actually received pay increases according to a data review by AP writers Brett J. Blackledge and Matt Apuzzo.

WASHINGTON – A Colorado company said it created 4,231 jobs with the help of President Barack Obama's economic recovery plan. The real number: fewer than 1,000.

A child care center in Florida said it saved 129 jobs with the help of stimulus money. Instead, it gave pay raises to its existing employees.

Elsewhere in the U.S., some jobs credited to the stimulus program were counted two, three, four or even more times.

The government has overstated by thousands the number of jobs it has created or saved with federal contracts under the president's $787 billion recovery program, according to an Associated Press review of data released in the program's first progress report.

The discrepancy raises questions about the reliability of a key benchmark the administration uses to gauge the success of the stimulus. The errors could be magnified Friday when a much larger round of reports is released. It is expected to show hundreds of thousands of jobs repairing public housing, building schools, repaving highways and keeping teachers on local payrolls.

The White House seized on an initial report from a government oversight board weeks ago that claimed federal contracts awarded to businesses under the recovery plan already had helped pay for more than 30,000 jobs. The administration said the number was evidence that the stimulus program had exceeded early expectations toward reaching the president's promise of creating or saving 3.5 million jobs by the end of next year.

But the 30,000 figure is overstated by thousands — at the very least by nearly 5,000, or one in six, based on AP's limited review of some of the contracts — because some federal agencies and recipients of the money provided incorrect job counts. The review found some counts were more than 10 times as high as the actual number of jobs; some jobs were credited to stimulus spending when, in fact, none were produced.

The White House says it is aware there are problems. Ed DeSeve, an Obama adviser helping to oversee the stimulus program, said agencies have been working with businesses that received the money to correct mistakes. Other errors discovered by the public also will be corrected, he said.
(...)

There's no evidence the White House sought to inflate job numbers in the report, but the administration embraced the flawed figures the moment they were released.
Hope and change; corruption and fraud. Doesn't seem to be any difference. Might as well be a vaudeville act - it's the same old song and dance, dog and pony show.



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

Health Care Insurance Explained - Short Form

A cogent explanation of the current health care insurance propositions comes from The Barrister at Maggie's Farm -

...With government medicine, you are a cost unless you are still paying plenty of taxes - which is around only 10% of the population, or less. If you are sick or disabled, you become even more of a burden to "the common good."

With private insurance, they want you alive to pay your premium...
I'm reminded of a long forgotten comedian in the 1970's explaining insurance -
The insurance company says you will not get hurt or sick, you think you will get hurt or sick, and you both hope they are right.




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

Saturday, October 24, 2009

YAHOO E-mail

For the most part, I like my YAHOO service. That is to say, I needn't think too much about it. I don't really know how it all works and don't really care; when I turn on the computer, it's just there like my car just starts when I turn the key.

But, somebody always has to tinker with something that is working fine and that throws a cog in the wheel of the total computer web experience. To whit, email worked well and stuff went where I wanted it to go. A month ago, YAHOO did some updating and now mail goes wherever it wants no matter what my instructions. Here is what I wrote to YAHOO service:

Since the E-Mail updates a month ago, items NOT SPAM are labeled as spam and items that ARE SPAM are allowed into the inbox.

Moments ago, I received a 1979 family with my Grandmother and my father, both deceased. The Spam Filter sent it to spam. I must check the spam file before I do anything.

No matter how many times I ID items as spam they still arrive to the inbox. Those I clearly mark SPAM over and over again, still end up in the inbox.

Also, mailings from Conservative or Republican political groups end up in Spam, but Liberal or Democrat crap always goes to inbox. Just a little YAHOO political bias?
I attempted to send the missive, but a notice told me my concern was needing the assistance of a service representative, maybe Dave in New Delhi. It got too involved after that, so I decided to post it here because YAHOO and other companies monitor blogs for reference to their company and often respond quicker than Dave in New Delhi.





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

Thursday, October 22, 2009

It's Come to This

Shameful. Just nine months into the Obama regime and it's come to this. An Orange County Register story headline announced today, "Free pet food for jobless and seniors".

Shouldn't we exhaust the supplies of people food for the unemployed and elderly before feeding then pet food? Used to be that pet food was the very last resort of the jobless and elderly. Now we give it away free right at the start.

In a related story at Gateway Pundit, Victoria University professors Brenda and Robert Vale are advising we eat our precious Fido, Fluffy, and other pets to save the planet.

Well, I suppose Obama can't be deprived of his Wagu Beef at $125 a serving.

Anyone remember "A Boy and His Dog" from 1975 starring Don Johnson?




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

Sunday, October 18, 2009

Obama Camp Spoon Fed MSM

Anita Dunn, White House Communications Director and admirer of communist murderer Mao Tse-tung admitted the Obama campaign "controlled" the media by "making" the MSM focus on the issues of particular interest to Obama thus steering the press away from covering the deceptive and controlling tactics, as if that were ever a possibility. Dunn spoke on videotape at a Dominican Republic conference January 12, 2009 during which she made these seemingly innocuous statements:

Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn't absolutely control."
(...)
"One of the reasons we did so many of the David Plouffe [chief Obama campaign manager] videos was not just for our supporters, but also because it was a way for us to get our message out without having to actually talk to reporters."
(...)
"We just put that out there and made them write what Plouffe had said as opposed to Plouffe doing an interview with a reporter. So it was very much we controlled it as opposed to the press controlled it."
(...)
"Whether it was a David Plouffe video or an Obama speech, a huge part of our press strategy was focused on making the media cover what Obama was actually saying as opposed to why the campaign was saying it, what the tactic was. … Making the press cover what we were saying."



You Tube
All of you who knew it to be true during the campaign that the MSM was suckling at the teat of Obama and his acolytes and were telling your liberal Democrat friends and family who weren't listening to you, raise your hands. Good for you; you're smarter than most voters.

If you're holding a cup of your favorite beverage - coffee, tea, Ovaltine - please put it down so you don't spew it onto the monitor. Good.

THEY'RE STILL DOING IT!! NOTHING'S CHANGED!

I know you aren't surprised, I wasn't. Now, however, we have the White House Communications Director verifying what we already knew but team Obama and the MSM were denying. And it's on videotape.




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

Friday, October 09, 2009

Natural Born or C-Section

A random observation by Thomas Sowell in today's Investor's Business Daily:

Upon learning that the Constitution requires a president to be a natural-born citizen, a college student said: "What makes a natural-born citizen any more qualified than one born by C-section?"
Can't decide if this student is really dumb or really smart as this is a question I have asked.



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

Wednesday, October 07, 2009

3 by Me

Once upon a time, I was fairly handy with a brush and a little paint.



Jugs on a Wall
Poros, Greece
Watercolor and wax

Old Man and Woman
Budapest, Hungary
Watercolor



A Walk in the Park
Intaglio





















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

Friday, October 02, 2009

Grayson Channels Saturday Night Live

Rep. Alan Grayson, idiot Democrat, but I repeat myself, declared on the House floor this past week that the Republican health care plan consisted of (1) don't get sick and (2) if you do get sick, die quickly.



You Tube
That sounds so very familiar. It sounds like one of my favorite Saturday Night Live sketches from Oct 7, 2000, Season 26, Episode 1, First Presidential Debate, Jim Lehrer: Chris Parnell, Al Gore, Democrat candidate: Darrell Hammond, George W. Bush, Republican candidate: Will Ferrell.


Jim Lehrer: Which beings us to our final question. Governor Bush, both you and the Vice-President have offered plans to provide prescription drugs for the elderly. What makes your plan superior?

Al Gore: Jim, I'd like to interrupt here and answer that question as if it were my turn to speak. Jim, let me tell about a friend of mine. [ holds up a picture of an elderly woman ] Her name is Etta Munsen. She's 94, she's a widow living on Social Security in Sparta, Tennessee. Etta was born with only one kidney. She also suffers from poilo, spinal menengitis, lung, liver, and pancreatic cancer, an enlarged heart, diabetes, and a rare form of styctic acne. Now, several recent strokes, along with an unfortunate shark attack, have left her paralyzed and missing her right leg under the knee. Just last week she woke from a coma to find that, due to a hospital mix-up, her left arm had been amputated, infected with syphillis, and then reattached.

Jim Lehrer: Mr. Vice-President, we are short of time..

Al Gore: As you can imagine, Jim.. Etta's prescription drug bills are staggering. They run to nearly $113 million a day! And she tells me that some weeks she has to choose between eating and treating her Lyme Disease. Now, under my plan, Etta's prescription drugs would be covered. Under my opponent's plan, her house would be burned to the ground. And that is wrong. That is just wrong!





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

Friday, September 25, 2009

Buy Health Insurance Or Else

That's the threat being made by Big Government - buy health insurance, or go to jail, or pay a $25,000 fine.

Senator John Ensign (R-NV) requested clarification from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold concerning penalties for non-purchase of health care at a cost of $1900. The handwritten confirmation from Barthold via Politico and Gateway Pundit:

Dear Senator Ensign,

Sec 7203 of the Code provides that if there is a willful failure to file, pay, maintain appropriate records and the like that the taxpayer may be charged with a misdemeanor with a penalty of up to $25,000 and not more than one year in jail.

Sincerely,
Thomas A. Barthold
I'm sorry, but the government I know cannot compel free citizens to buy cheese let alone health insurance. If the threat of a $25,000 penalty or one year in jail (federal prison) doesn't convince people of the nefarious nature on Lord Obama then just sing sing the praise songs and drink the kool-aid.



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

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Obama Praise Song Singalong

During Black History Month (formerly February) 2009, B. Bernice Young Elementary School in Burlington, NJ, chose to promote Barack Hussein Obama with not one, but two praise songs. Here is one on video and the lyrics follow.


You Tube

Follow the bouncing balls, if you got 'em:

Song 1:
Mm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said that all must lend a hand
To make this country strong again
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said we must be fair today
Equal work means equal pay
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said that we must take a stand
To make sure everyone gets a chance
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said red, yellow, black or white
All are equal in his sight
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

Yes!
Mmm, mmm, mm
Barack Hussein Obama

Song 2:
Hello, Mr. President we honor you today!
For all your great accomplishments, we all doth say "hooray!"

Hooray, Mr. President! You're number one!
The first black American to lead this great nation!

Hooray, Mr. President we honor your great plans
To make this country's economy number one again!

Hooray Mr. President, we're really proud of you!
And we stand for all Americans under the great Red, White, and Blue!

So continue ---- Mr. President we know you'll do the trick
So here's a hearty hip-hooray ----

Hip, hip hooray!
Hip, hip hooray!
Hip, hip hooray!
The video was made by Charisse Carney-Nunes, The Jamestown Project senior vice president. The Jamestown Project, writes Michelle Malkin, is
“the award-winning author of the children’s books, I Am Barack Obama (2009),” and according to her biography, “a graduate of Harvard Law School, where she was a schoolmate of President Obama.”

The Obama school song video that she taped shows her book featured on an easel next to the children hailing Dear Leader. She promotes her book as a tool that “allows children to see themselves through the inspirational story of President Obama growing up as an ordinary child asking, Who will change the world? Ultimately, he realizes that he will.”
Bookworm points out that "seeing a Dear Leader song is deeply, deeply disturbing. Democracies are not supposed to celebrate individuals in that way, since the worship of an individual is one of the first steps in the march to a statist system."

Wizbang's Lorie Byrd is creeped out by all this latest in Obama worship.

Worse than the fact that these kids are being told to praise "Barack Hussein Obama" or that all the time on this could have been spent learning math or science or reading or even a decent song, is this one line:

"He said red, yellow, black or white. All are equal in his sight."

Anyone who says those of us critical of this Obama worship are overreacting, read that one line that was taught to schoolchildren. I learned a remarkably similar song when I was a child, but it was in "Sunday" school in church, not in my elementary school --
"Red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in his sight. Jesus loves the little children of the world."
[Link added.]
A response, a non-apology apology really, was released by the New Jersey school district today. Via BigHollywood :

Burlington Township School District
PO Box 428
700 Jacksonville Road
Burlington, NJ 08016
Contact: Liz Scott, Public Relations Coordinator
Day Phone: 609-699-4025
Email: escott@burltwpsch.org

PRESS RELEASE

For Immediate Release

Response to Unauthorized Video of Class Activity
September 24, 2009
Today we became aware of a video that was placed on the internet which has been reported in the media. The video is of a class of students singing a song about President Obama. The activity took place during Black History Month in 2009, which is recognized each February to honor the contributions of African Americans to our country. Our curriculum studies, honors and recognizes those who serve our country. The recording and distribution of the class activity were unauthorized.
It's a strange, yet familiar, fascist world we are entering folks. As Bette Davis intoned in All About Eve, "Buckle your seatbelts, darlings, it’s going to be a bumpy night."A very long, dark and stormy night, too.



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

Wash Hands All Ye Who Enter Here

The US-Mexico border will have 384 fewer agents come October 1st. With nearly 1,300 miles of southern border still beyond effective control and easily breached, the Obama administration feels it's more important to reinforce the Canadian-American border. Nevermind the DoJ Accountability Office reported three terror linked people and 530 folks from special interest countries were intercepted at the Mexican border by Border Patrol agents.

While the rest of us will be less protected, the White House will gain protection. The White House has stepped up it's germ warfare arsenal with Purell hand sanitizer stations in Dear Leader's Executive Mansion. The most important station is just outside the Oval Office so Dear Leader does not succumb to the dread swine flu.

In place of the displaced Border Patrol agents, Purell sanitizing stations should be set up along the southern border so the illegals can enter with clean hands. But what's it matter when the Immigation Reform Act later this year will make all the illegals legal anyway?







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

Thursday, September 17, 2009

ACORN Born of Peanuts


ACORN, the criminal and corrupt community organization to which Lord Obama hitched his rising star, has been intimately involved in the mortgage crisis that led to the Global Financial Meltdown this past year.

In a penetrating article in Real Clear Markets, Steven Malanga exposes the long history of strong arm tactics, threats, and extortion since the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act became law under President Jimmy Carter.


Acorn found its way into the mortgage business through the Community Reinvestment Act, the 1977 legislation that community groups have used as a cudgel to force lenders to lower their mortgage underwriting standards in order to make more loans in low-income communities. Often the groups, after making protests under CRA, were then rewarded by banks with contracts to act as mortgage counselors in low-income areas in return for dropping their protests against the banks. In one particularly lucrative deal, 14 major banks eager to put CRA protests behind them in 1993 signed an agreement to have Acorn administer a $55 million, 11-city lending program. It was precisely such agreements that helped turn Acorn from a network of small local groups into a national player. And Acorn hasn't been alone. A U.S. senate subcommittee once estimated that CRA-related deals between banks and community groups have pumped nearly $10 billion into the nonprofit sector.
(...)

Congress passed CRA in 1977 as legislation designed to prompt banks to lend more in lower income areas which advocates claimed were being ignored. Gradually over time community groups learned they could use the law as leverage to negotiate new inner-city lending programs with banks based on lower underwriting standards, which the groups demanded when banks complained that one reason they weren't doing more lending in some neighborhoods was because few applicants in those areas qualified for loans under traditional criteria.

Acorn led the way in this movement. In 1986, for instance, it protested a potential acquisition by Louisiana Bancshares, a Southern institution, until the bank agreed to new, "flexible credit and underwriting standards" for minority borrowers which included counting public assistance and food stamps as income in mortgage applications.

Acorn also put pressure on the two quasi-government purchasers of mortgages, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to lower their standards, complaining that they were "strictly by-the-book interpreters" who stood in the way of new lending programs. Under pressure both organizations committed to backing billions of dollars in affordable housing loans under so-called "alternative qualifying" programs which approved loans to individuals who didn't qualify under traditional standards, including those who agreed to go to mortgage counseling classes run by community groups like Acorn.

The threat of CRA proved an effective tool in gathering non-bank lenders into this affordable lending maelstrom, too. In late 1993 President Clinton's Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Henry Cisneros, announced a plan to boost homeownership in the U.S. through a series of government initiatives, including having government subsidize mortgages that required no down payments. To produce more of these new, riskier loans Cisneros proposed expanding CRA to cover mortgage lenders and other financial institutions that were not chartered banks. In Congress Rep. Maxine Waters dubbed mortgage companies "egregious redliners" who needed to be corralled by CRA.

Under pressure from these threats, the trade group that represented mortgage bankers announced an agreement with HUD to sharply boost lending in low-income areas. These mortgage bankers, the so-called non-bank lenders, agreed to "voluntarily" help develop new mortgage products with laxer underwriting standards. The first member of the trade group to sign onto the new program was Countrywide Financial, which partnered with Fannie Mae to commit to $2.5 billion in lending in minority communities under new, lower standards.
(...)

Over time, the mortgage industry not only developed new products based on these lower underwriting standards but eventually allowed many borrowers to qualify for such loans under the reasonable assumption that if they were "safe" for low-income borrowers they were certainly safe for middle and upper income borrowers, too.
Read the whole story, Acorn's a Creature of the CRA.




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

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

ACORN Obama Ties Fraying

ACORN, the community organizing group, suspended operations today in the aftermath of a series of devastating videos. The organization that was instrumental in the election of Barack Obama to the office of Presidency of the United States of America is in major legal trouble after a series of investigative videos by activist filmmaker James O'Keefe.

While acting as a community organizer after law school, Lord Obama did pro-bono legal work for ACORN including teaching ACORN classes. He denied both activities, then minimized his activities to just legal advice until this photo was revealed.

Last Friday, the Census Bureau cut all ties with ACORN because of charges of voter fraud during the campaign, operating in Maryland without a license, and finally the videotapes below.

The Senate voted to withdraw all federal funding to ACORN despite Lord Obama's support for the groups activities. The White House is scrambling like mad to put as much distance between Lord Obama and the criminal organization ACORN that put him in office.

ACORN Washington, D.C. Child Prostitution Investigation, Part 1


Wash, D.C. Part 2


Big Government/You Tube
ACORN New York City Child Prostitution Investigation, Part 1




Big Government/You Tube
NYC, Part 2



Big Government/You Tube
ACORN San Bernardino, California Child Prostitution Investigation, Part 1


ACORN San Bernardino, California Child Prostitution Investigation, Part 2



ACORN San Bernardino, California Child Prostitution Investigation, Part 3



Big Government/You Tube
Franklin Roosevelt had his Brain Trust, John Kennedy his Best and Brightest. Barack Obama sold them as his Bold and Beautiful, we now see them for what they are - Criminal and Corrupt.





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

Democrats Ban Free Speech on House Floor

If that were all one were to read one would be right to be angry with House Democrats. One would also be dead wrong. The Democrats in the House of Representatives did no such thing.

Yesterday, Drudge Report linked to a Glenn Thrush story in Politico called "House guidelines for Presidential put downs" in which Thrush wrote (link on "primer" in original),
"House Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-NY) has released a helpful, updated primer for members regarding their conduct on the floor and in committees."
That's almost all true. The problem is "updated." The story provides no reference to any updates or any changes made recently. The timing of the Politico story on the same day Rep. Joe Wilson was rebuked by the House has left many believing House Democrats are on the warpath to stifle the free speech of House Republicans and, by extension, render the 1st Amendment void.

The "primer" link goes to the Slaughter memo. Rep. Louise Slaughter is Chairwoman of the House of Representatives Committee on Rules. The "Decorum in the House and in Committees" is part of her duties including notifying and reminding all members of existing rules.

That's right - EXISTING rules. Quoting from the memo, "As stated in Cannon’s Precedents, on January 27, 1909, the House adopted a report in response to improper references in debate to the President."

1909?! Good lord, that's 100 years ago. And the rules were a response to some debate concerning the President at that time. In January 1909, the president was Theodore Roosevelt, the 60th Congress was in session, and both House and Senate were Republican majorities. It stands to reason then that the rules being horsewhipped today as Democrat conniving are the result of Republican efforts. (Ed. note: the person of Indigo Red is a registered Republican who hates dishonsety from any quarter.)

The Slaughter memo goes on, and this is where the errant public anger has it's genesis as well as the apparent fact, few readers of the Thrush piece actually read the linked memo text which clearly stated,

As stated in Cannon’s Precedents, on January 27, 1909, the House adopted a report in response to improper references in debate to the President. That report read in part as follows:

"It is... the duty of the House to require its Members in speech or debate to preserve that proper restraint which will permit the House to conduct its business in an orderly manner and without unnecessarily and unduly exciting animosity among its Members or antagonism from those other branches of the Government with which the House is correlated.”

As a guide for debate, it is permissible in debate to challenge the President on matters of policy. The difference is one between political criticism and personally offensive criticism. For example, a Member may assert in debate that an incumbent President is not worthy of re-election, but in doing so should not allude to personal misconduct. By extension, a Member may assert in debate that the House should conduct an inquiry, or that a President should not remain in office.

Under section 370 of the House Rules and Manual it has been held that a Member could:

refer to the government as “something hated, something oppressive.”[a comedy tonight!]
refer to the President as “using legislative or judicial pork.”
refer to a Presidential message as a “disgrace to the country.”
refer to unnamed officials as “our half-baked nitwits handling foreign affairs.”
Likewise, it has been held that a member could not:

call the President a “liar.”
call the President a “hypocrite.”
describe the President’s veto of a bill as “cowardly.”
charge that the President has been “intellectually dishonest.”
refer to the President as “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.”
refer to alleged “sexual misconduct on the President’s part.”
This morning I contacted Rep. Slaughter's office to ask what the "updates" were and, indeed, if any changes had been made. I was informed the memo was simply a reiteration of existing 100 year old House Rules and Decorum. From time to time, members must be reminded of the rules.
I also contacted my Republican Congressman's office. Again, I was told the rules have not been updated or changed.

I am sure Glenn Thrush had no intention of leading anyone to believe House Democrats were out to limit free speech or stifle House Republicans. It was a surprise to me to verify the rules in question have stood for one hundred years and nine months nearly unchanged through several majority party changes apparently because of some inherent doctrine of mutually assured vengeance.

There were no rules changes. Both Republicans and Democrats can continue saying whatever they want within the bounds of common decency. This was a tempest in an already tempestuous Tea Party teapot.






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

Americans Should Not Be Forced to Choose Between Health Insurance and Really Cool Stuff

Lord Obama has said there are 47 million uninsured stories in the Naked City. These are some of those stories -


Reason.TV You Tube
Recently the number of uninsured stories in the Naked City has been downgraded to 30 million. Apparently, a bunch of naked folks found some clothes. More probable, they were the 17 million people here illegally, not Americans, therefore should not have been counted as "Americans" without health insurance in the first place and young people who, as we all know, are invincible.






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

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

9/12 Taxpayer March on Washington

Americans who marched in Washington, D.C. last Saturday have been called everything from teabaggers to Patriots. But, who were they really? Cranks who think Obama is Hitler, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, or just honest, hard working, tax paying Americans fed up with political dog and pony shows, Reason.TV went to find out.



Reason.TV
Best sign from 9/12 -





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

It Is About Lord Obama's Color


Not skin color. Don't give a tinker's dam about his skin color. Lord Obama is Socialist red, Communist red, Lenin red, Marx red. Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Jeremiah Wright, Van Jones, ACORN red. Obama is red through and through.

Bookworm writes,
"Things have gotten so bad when it comes to charges of racism concerning our post-racial president that we’re now told that even our lily-white American babies are racists.

Well, I have a confession to make. Here it is. All of the liberal pundits are correct. I do have a big problem, a really big problem, with Obama’s color. But my problem isn’t the color of Obama’s skin, which is completely irrelevant to me. Instead, it’s with the color of his politics. With every passing day, Obama is proving to be an old-fashioned Red – a true, bone-deep socialist.

(...)

What is relevant is the fact that everything I read about what Obama says, what Obama does, and who Obama chooses for his friends shows me that his real color, the color that transcends his skin and defines who he is, is RED, RED, RED.
Since 1775, when Samuel Johnson uttered, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel," it was assumed to be true and for 234 years it was. In the post-racial America of Lord Obama, racism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. The Lord Obama's acolytes are wearing thing the race card of last resort.




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