Featured Articles

Lou Dolinar on what went right in Katrina relief....

We have been discussing the umpire analogy used by John Roberts on Monday, and the take on the analogy by the folks at Volokh. Imagine everyone's surprise when Sen. John Cornyn referenced the Volokh blog (albeit without attribution) in his...

Nation of Islam minister Louis Farrakhan on Katrina: I heard from a very reliable source who saw a 25 foot deep crater under the levee breach. It may have been blown up to destroy the black part of town and...

Since I have absolutely nothing better to do (saddlebronc riding, jumping jacks are out of the question) on Saturday, I'm planning on watching C-SPAN's broadcast of the Hitchens-Galloway "debate." If you want a text-only run-down before catching Hitch and Galloway...

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!

Great Britain considers getting rid of National Holocaust Day because it might offend Muslims. Meanwhile, Palestinians are gleefully burning synagogues in Gaza. What an amazing world we live in....

Regular readers of this space will note that I mentioned last week, after returning from my Labor Day weekend, that I was feeling a bit under the weather. The week passed with little improvement, and over the weekend I really...

Tony Blair Pulls the Plug on Kyoto at Clinton Summit

Virtually unreported from the Clinton Global Iniative meeting in New York, was Tony Blair virtually driving the final nails into the coffin of the (at best) ill-advised Kyoto Accord. Jim Pinkerton at Tech Central Station steps in where the MSM fears to tread.

Onstage with former president Bill Clinton at a midtown Manhattan hotel ballroom, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said he was going to speak with "brutal honesty" about Kyoto and global warming, and he did. And Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had some blunt talk, too. Blair, a longtime supporter of the Kyoto treaty, further prefaced his remarks by noting, "My thinking has changed in the past three or four years." So what does he think now? "No country," he declared, "is going to cut its growth." That is, no country is going to allow the Kyoto treaty, or any other such global-warming treaty, to crimp -- some say cripple -- its economy.

Good riddance to bad rubbish! Theres more in this article worth taking a look at.

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?