Featured Articles

Do we still remember? Was it the day that changed us forever? Here are some thoughts from Mark Steyn, and Todd Bevan. My favorite contemporary pieces were this one by John Derbyshire, and a Sept. 12, 2001 piece by...

A Hurricane Exposes the Man-Made Disaster of the Welfare State

H/T to a former Navy shipmate for this article e-mailed to me. He offered it without comment, and if you check it out, you'll see that it speaks for itself. (by the way, he's in the Houston area, a lot closer to the action than the Chief is up in South Dakota.)

If this is just a natural disaster, the response for public officials is obvious: you bring in food, water, and doctors; you send transportation to evacuate refugees to temporary shelters; you send engineers to stop the flooding and rebuild the city's infrastructure. For journalists, natural disasters also have a familiar pattern: the heroism of ordinary people pulling together to survive; the hard work and dedication of doctors, nurses, and rescue workers; the steps being taken to clean up and rebuild.

Public officials did not expect that the first thing they would have to do is to send thousands of armed troops in armored vehicle, as if they are suppressing an enemy insurgency. And journalists?myself included?did not expect that the story would not be about rain, wind, and flooding, but about rape, murder, and looting.

But this is not a natural disaster. It is a man-made disaster.

The man-made disaster is not an inadequate or incompetent response by federal relief agencies, and it was not directly caused by Hurricane Katrina. This is where just about every newspaper and television channel has gotten the story wrong.

The man-made disaster we are now witnessing in New Orleans did not happen over four days last week. It happened over the past four decades. Hurricane Katrina merely exposed it to public view.

A couple of items out today that illustrate once again the fundamental importance of the appointments to the bench in determining whether or not we live subject to the whim of judicial dictators arbitrarily wreaking their will, or as Lincoln phrased it, "whether government of the people, by the people, and for the people should not perish from the earth".

Pledge of Allegiance again ruled unconstitutional

A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional Wednesday, a decision that could put the divisive issue on track for another round of Supreme Court arguments. The case was brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the words "under God" was rejected last year by the Supreme Court on procedural grounds.

This comes out of the moonbat-grade US 9th Circuit

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God." Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Jerk-it Court of Appeals Schlemiels, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

Instead of "One man, one vote" with Judicial dictatorship we get "One man, I vote"....and as far as the current quality of SCOTUS that the LibDonks are so vociferously defending against conservatives, try this:

Sen. Lindsey Graham: Justice Ginsberg OK'd Child Sex

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg once argued that girls as young as twelve should be able to have sex with adult males, Sen. Lindsey Graham said Tuesday - while pledging to make an issue out of Ginsberg's radical philosophy during John Roberts' confirmation hearings.

"She argued that the age of consent for a woman should be twelve," Graham told ABC Radio host Sean Hannity. "She wasn't representing clients," Graham noted about Ginsberg's endorsement of child sex. "She was writing an article about her own views."

It goes on from there - yes, there is more where that came from...and the hits just keep on comin':

Justice Kennedy's New Rule of Law

In the Sept. 12 New Yorker, legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin pens a profile of Kennedy, who vigorously defends his use of foreign laws and constitutions to interpret U.S. laws and our Constitution. Some in Congress believe Kennedy's position ? and those of several other Court Justices - is a clear violation of both U.S. law and the justices' own solemn oath to uphold solely the U.S. Constitution.

I tried to find this at the site for The New Yorker, but it wasn't there - I suppose it's in the print edition only, at least so far.

What does the collective set of all this stuff mean? Mark Levin in his book Men in Black is right!

Oh, Jesus Christ....

At war with an enemy of an unspoken name

Here's the third installment from Tony Blankley. Check it out, it's as good as the first two excerpts.

The Chief HAS to get this book!

Oh, that liberal media. You'd think that the oh-so-earnest Reuters could do a bit better than this: At least two major corporate clients of lobbyist Joe Allbaugh, President Bush's former campaign manager and a former head of the Federal Emergency...

Power Line: Happy Anniversary, Guys...

Since the Chief, and many otherc commented on the design for the monument in Pennsylvania to Flight 93 that was hijacked on 9-11, and which crashed as the passengers fought to regain control of the aircraft which was apparently on the way to attack D.C. There have been a couple of interesting follow-up items of interest.

Tancredo Questions Shape of 9/11 Memorial

Firstly, Colorado GOP Congressman Tom Tancredo, who is one of the few in COngress that is openly and consistantly opposing our de-facto open border policies, has expressed his own sense of concern over the approved crescent design.

A congressman is asking the U.S. government to reconsider the crescent-shaped design of the memorial to those aboard a plane hijacked on Sept. 11, 2001, because some may think it honors the terrorists.

Rep. Tom Tancredo, a Republican, says the design, called "Crescent of Embrace," could invite "controversy and criticism." In a letter sent Tuesday to National Park Service Director Fran Mainella, Tancredo said many have questioned the shape "because of the crescent's prominent use as a symbol in Islam _ and the fact that the hijackers were radical Islamists."

...and, in response, CAIR sounded off with some unhappiness. (Time for the waaambulance again: waa-waa, waa-waa, waa-waa.)

CAIR: CO Rep's 'Crescent' Comments a Ploy to Gain Publicity
GOP Leaders Urged to Repudiate Tancredo's Islamophobic Views

The Council on American-Islamic Relations Council of Angry Islamofascist Radicals (CAIR) today dismissed Rep. Tom Tancredo's (R-CO) comments on the design of a memorial to those aboard a plane that crashed in Pennsylvania on 9/11 as a cynical political ploy designed to gain national attention.

(Emphasis added.)

"...those aboard a plane that crashed..."??????? Hello? The plane just happened to crash, or something? Even knowing the Islamofascist nature of these traitorous weasels, this leaves the Cheif breathless in amazement. They truly have no shame at all, and the diversity crowd says we need to respect this? As we used to say when I was on active duty before the mast on a guided missile destroyer: "I might, but I f------g doubt it!"

A Message from tdaxp

Send feedback to danhabbott@gmail.com

Browse the Archives

What's New with the Blogs

South Dakota Blogs

American Blogs

Pro-Freedom, Anti-Terror

South Dakota Blog Alliance

RadioActive Chief, Ryen McClaren, Sibby Online, South Dakota Politics, Straight Talk

tdaxp Blog Network

Jim River Report, tdaxp, Bloglines, Cobuyitaphobia, Junk Politics

Breaking News

South Dakota Mainstream Media

American Mainstream Media

British Mainstream Media

Everyone Else

Jim River Report Archives

1. today
2. this month
3. this year

How Popular is the Jim River Report?