Featured Articles

Two sides prepare for abortion fight

As was expected, the recently passed SD law regulating abortion has generated legal challenges and may well end up before the SCOTUS. From the sound of this, it sounds like both sides are pulling out all the stops.

Professionals with impressive credentials and experience in medicine and ethics are being lined up on both sides of a court case that will decide if doctors in South Dakota must tell women that abortions end lives.

In spite of having a sort of neo-libertarian orientation, the Chief, as a biologist, cannot see the logic in legalized pre-natal infanticide, absent a threat to the life of the mother - oh, yeah - also in cases of rape and incest. In THOSE cases, the scum who committed the crimes should not have the right to have their genes passed on as the result of these brutally coercive acts. (To quote SciFi writer Larry Niven: "Just think of it as evolution in action.")

Another aspect of the abortion debate sometimes results in rather indiscriminate use of the concept of "pro-life" as being the touchstone for determining ultimate morality. This citation takes the commandment which in English reads "Thou shalt not kill" as a moral absolute.

The Chief notes the original Hebrew would be closer to "Thou shalt not murder" - or take INNOCENT life. What could be more innocent than an unborn infant. Likewise, what innocence is left in an individual who HAS shed innocent blood by murder, or committed that ultimate social betrayal known as treason. In those cases, hang 'em high...but save the babies!

I wish to add to the discussion of the umpire/judge analogy. Of course the analogy is imperfect, but it is effective as far as it goes. I would simply add this. If there was an umpire who said, Some are...

In her questioning of John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Diane Feinstein used the phrase the hard-earned autonomy of women and approvingly cited Planned Parenthood vs. Casey in saying woman should have the ability to control...

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!

In blaming FEMA and POTUS for the disasterous response to Katrina, the Press seems altogether uninterested in how these relief efforts compare to past Hurricaines. Here's Jack Kelly from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Jason van Steenwyk is a Florida Army National...

'An Islamist threat like the Nazis'

Except for radio talker Michael Savage, the Chief has seen no one else in the media with as much situational awareness as Tony Blankley does with this article, and apparently this book.

The threat of the radical Islamists taking over Europe is every bit as great to the United States as was the threat of the Nazis taking over Europe in the 1940s.

We cannot afford to lose Europe. We cannot afford to see Europe transformed into a launching pad for Islamist jihad.

While we in the United States and Europe have vast resources for protecting ourselves, we have thought ourselves into a position of near impotence.

This is the first of a three-part series in the Washington Times - it looks to be well worth following. Blankley also has a new book out on the same topic. Looks to be a "must-read" for the Chief...and if you can't figure it out, I concur entirely with the premise and significance of this view.

UPDATE: Here's part 2 of the series just posted:
Needed: Old war spirit in a new war

ESPN has a marvelous story about former Steeler wide receiver Lynn Swan's potential run for governor of Pennsylvania as a Republican....

Al-Qaeda group says chemical arms fired in Baghdad

An Al-Qaeda linked Sunni group in Iraq said it used chemical weapons to attack targets in Baghdad, in a statement on an Islamist website. Jaish al-Taefa al-Mansura (Army of the Victorious Community) said its fighters fired shells filled with chemical agents at the interior ministry, foreign ministry, the "green zone" and Baghdad's security academy.

Did anyone else notice all the MSM coverage of this? No? you didn;t either? Hmmmm. How about our own government's response? No? Me neither. Like the old Sherlock Holmes story - what's interesting was the dog that didn't bark.

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?