Featured Articles

This might be the blogosphere's best tool evah: Google Blog Search. Don't search everything, just search blogs. Nifty. More handy info on the GBS beta here, including details on the new search operators....

These people interviewed by ABC at the Astrodome must not have gotten the memo: ABC News producers probably didn't hear what they expected when they sent Dean Reynolds to the Houston Astrodome's parking lot to get reaction to President Bush's...

Daschle to Headline Jefferson-Jackson Dinner Des Moines, September 20th, 2005 -- Former South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle will help rally Iowa Democrats this fall. He'll be the main speaker at the state party's annual Jefferson-Jackson Dinner on November fifth in...

Jimmeh Peanut the Second

Emperor Misha over at the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler has his inimitable invective in fine form as he compares Bubba to his apparent mentor, the Georgia Peanut-head, and Bubba's comments complaining about President Bush for...almost everything in the Gulf of Mexico except the Aruba disappearace of Natalie Holloway.

If you can enjoy a dose of no-holds-barred, well-deserved vitriol, check him out.

I addition to the liberal newspapers Ken Blanchard mentioned, add the LA Times as endorsing john Roberts for Chief Justice. I would argue that the bellwether for the Senate Democrats is not their leader, Harry Reid, but Hillary Clinton. Clinton...

The U.N.'s terrorism gap

The feckless usefulness of the UN once again is apparent as it failed agin to come to any agreement on condemning terrorism. The opposition came primarily from the 56 OIC (Organization of Isalmic Countries)members...surprise, surprise, surprise! Who woulda ever thunk it!

A proposed U.N. convention against terrorism has been stalled since 1997. The holdup? How to define terrorism. But this is nothing more than a semantic trick. The Islamic states insist that terrorism must be defined not by the nature of the act but by its purpose. Putting a bomb in a market or train or bus is not an act of terrorism, they say, if it is done for a righteous purpose; namely national liberation or resistance to occupation. To say there is a problem of definition is to focus on a word. The real question is whether it is ever legitimate to target women, children and other noncombatants. For the Islamic states, the answer is yes.(Emphasis added)

Not only did the OIC oppose any meaningful definition of terrorism, it proposed changing the resolution to approve attacks, but it sought a refaffirmation of language in a 1970 resolution: "reaffirm[ing] ? the legitimacy of the struggle of the colonial peoples and peoples under alien domination to exercise their right to self-determination and independence by all the necessary means at their disposal."

The final phrase is euphemistic language included to implicitly approve terrorism. In the current action, the US claimed a partial victory by stopping such a reaffirmation.

If this is the best that can be hoped for from the UN, then we would be well served to bail out, and then to send them all packing off to Geneva or somewhere, anywhere away from the U.S.

Romney stands by comments about Muslims

A while back the Chief posted here about Governor Mit Romney (R-MA) calling for increased surveillance in radical mosques to nip terrorism in the bud.

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee of Massachusetts delivered a letter, which was co-signed by 21 other organizations, saying that Romney's comments characterized Muslims living in the U.S. as potential or actual terrorists.

Well, as expected the PC moonbat crowd from the ACLU to assorted Islamist groups got all hot and bothered and demanded retractions and an apology. So, what's a pol to do when faced with this sort of criticism? Back down? Waffle?

Usually so, but not in this case! In a more recent press conference:

Romney told reporters that he stood by his comments. "When it comes to protecting our citizens, there is no place for political correctness. We should be doing more in terms of intelligence and counterterrorism in the state to protect ourselves from terrorists. We spend a lot of our resources thinking about response, but response can't protect us. We have to be able to prevent attacks."

Talk about saying the unspeakable ut true!

Romney said that if U.S. intelligence officials have information that a person is "preaching messages of hate and terror," then there should be sufficient grounds to conduct surveillance on them in their places of worship. "Surely, we have to recognize that some of this has gone on in mosques in the past," Romney said. "Most mosques are teaching doctrines of love and consideration, but there have been places of extremism where certain teachers have been identified as having been involved in or led to terrorist attacks. Let's not pretend that's not the case."

This is really excellent, not only to highlight a potentially serious security issue, but then to NOT back down in the face of the usual barrage of politically correct complaints about having done so.

John Thune has responded to the Gannett/USA Today editorial that advocated the closing of Ellsworth:'Common sense' to maintain South Dakota base by Senator John Thune USA TODAY's editorial Cold War drags on ? forever ignored facts for fiction. When the...

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?