novatownhall blog

The candidacy of Barack Obama has spurred a growing dialogue within the African American pastoral community. Not everyone is entirely on board with the presidential candidate, and some are borderline critical.

This relatively non-partisan February sermon by Dr. James David Manning of ATLAH World Ministries in Harlem covers a wide range of issues, both religious and secular, and sheds light on matters which may or may not resonate with all voters but may draw interest from opposition campaign teams. Some of the criticism could be considered constructive other remarks are rather pointed.

It’s mostly safe for work, depending on where you work.

It appears that the Supreme court will clarify one of its earlier rulings. The all important swing vote on the court, spoke as follows …

Kennedy said that in his view, the amendment says “there is a general right to bear arms, quite without reference to a militia.“

One good thing the current US President did was pick a couple of improvements for the SCOTUS. In Heller v. DC the case of U.S. v. Miller will be superseded. Miller has been the basis for many of the gun bans enacted, including the one in DC. The court in Miller erred; it attempted legal jujitsu and stumbled.

A reading of the decision in Miller shows the innate mendacity of the left in its quest to ban the public from owning arms. Justice McReynolds repeatedly stated in Miller that the individual had a right to keep and bear arms. Despite his efforts, this case has been a bane upon the country and has only caused misery for lawful gun owners. The gun bans enacted under the umbrella of Miller, directly impact an individual’s inherent, natural right to self defense. Many despots in other countries enacted gun bans because such bans enable despots to terrorize the populace under their regimes. All of these bans where enacted under the banner of public safety and order. If this sounds familiar it should as these are the tactics of the left in America the past 80 years.

continue reading…

As reported in the paper of record:

Prior to the program, illegal immigrants from Mexico who did not have a criminal history were returned to their home country almost immediately, without jail time or a formal deportation order. Apprehended illegal immigrants identified as “other than Mexican,” or OTMs, were given notices to appear at a future deportation hearing. The notices were referred to by the U.S. Border Patrol as “notices to disappear,” since only about 13 percent ever showed up.

On average, about half of those caught at the Southwest border are Mexican nationals. Currently, they face formal deportation procedures only in those limited areas covered by Operation Streamline or if they have been identified as convicted criminals.

Ms. Fobbs said that during fiscal 2007, a total of 136,712 Mexican nationals were returned home — 67,793 of whom were identified as criminal illegals.

Despite the praise it has received from members of Congress, Operation Streamline is not without its drawbacks and its future expansion is in doubt without a significant increase in federal funding.

The U.S. Marshals Service, which is responsible for returning illegal immigrants to their countries of origin, is strapped for both resources and manpower to conduct the program. The Justice Department, asked to prosecute the newly charged illegals, lacks the manpower to get the job done.

Congress appropriated $22 million to hire additional prosecutors, support staff and deputy U.S. marshals, and the administration is seeking $100 million for the Southwest Border Enforcement Initiative — to hire additional people to support the increased prosecutions.

Question: If we can spend billions a month in Iraq, why can’t we spend a few million to secure our southern border?

Well you should have because it was IEATAPETA Day, “the day when we piss off the hypocrites at PETA who have the highest kill-rate out of any animal shelter in Virginia.”

Haha, thanks Ed. I was covered because I eat one just about every day of the year.

This article in the local paper of record reminds why the U.S. Supreme Court is about to provide the hottest popular discussion of judicial issues in years:

So hot, that court administrators already have agreed to release audiotapes of the seminal Second Amendment case, practically the moment the justices adjourn after what promises to be a lively debate about what the Founding Fathers were thinking more than 200 years ago with respect to the rights of individual Americans to possess firearms.

A lot of people who don’t follow the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) on a regular basis will be paying extraordinarily close attention to DC v Heller because the Court’s decision will have an impact on firearms laws throughout the country. If you live in Virginia, you are mighty interested in whether you can accidentally take a wrong turn off the GW Parkway with a gun in the car and not commit a felony. If you live in DC or New Jersey or a number of other states, you are interested in whether you might eventually be allowed to defend yourself with the same level of force the criminals have.

The NRA and other 2nd Amendment advocacy organizations will be promoting the news on this issue heavily, which will resonate around the country.

But perhaps the most immediate beneficiary of the controversy which begins next week will be John McCain, the Republican nominee for president. Because no matter how or whether the Supreme Court rules, voters will be reminded of the Supreme Court’s significance.

By extension, they will be reminded of the president’s significance in offering Supreme Court nominations in the case of vacancies, which could very well be two during the next president’s term in office.

As friend and NVTH visitor G. Stone reminded me, if you are thinking of working against McCain, be sure to think about the types of Supreme Court justices a President Obama or Clinton would offer up. Although McCain is not the best public official on the 2nd Amendment by a long shot (a refrain that would apply to him on a large number of issues) he is head and shoulders above the two Democrats.

This advice is what influenced me to mostly shut up about the presidential election this year and lay off my budding Lou Dobbs hagiography. In my case, “supporting John McCain” means “not running John McCain into the ground at every possible chance,” so the SCOTUS issue made me a “supporter.” Plus providing occasional links like this.

And obviously, on a host of other vital issues that could come up before the Supreme Court, among this troika of presidential candidates the best hope for nominating good judges – however dubious it may be – is definitely John McCain.

If the McCain camp is smart, they will be publicizing the heck out of the Supreme Court’s DC v Heller proceedings and all related media stories beginning approximately now.

Now this is interesting.

She commonly reported information about the relatives, household composition, family deaths and illnesses, etc., of members of our team, without ever having observed or been informed about them. As an example, she knew the personality and precise manner of death (i.e., the exact type of cancer) of a relative of a team member that no one could conceivably have guessed. She once spoke about the strange behavior of some inexplicably frenzied animals beyond her direct observation: Though residing in another city, she commented, “So those cats really went berserk last night, didn’t they?” the morning after two cats in a team member’s house uncharacteristically had violently attacked each other at about 2 AM….

You’re going to want to read all of that one – it leaves quite a lot to think about.

Transients. People that have no roots, and do not plan to stay in an area.

Transients that are not citizens are not as bad as those that are citizens, and know they are not going to be here in five years. Why? One reason I have some knowledge concerning people that know they will be moving out of the area in a short amount of time.

A while back, my pastor was talking with a gentleman (I use the term loosely) about the taxes and how much the education costs are for Loudoun county. In particular, he brought up bond issues. The person with whom he was speaking stated he always votes for spending for education no matter what, even if it is frivolous. When my pastor, slack jawed, asked why the gentleman replied that he did not intend on living here for long, his company would be moving him in a matter of 3 or 4 years at most, and the single most important factor for housing price increase is “what are the schools like”. If the schools are excellent, then the housing is in high demand, and supply/demand dictates an increase in price. He stated he would not be here for more than a couple of years for paying on the bonds, so it made perfect sense for him to vote for every bond issue related to schools that comes up. While “past performance is no predictor of future value” this guy had figured that the highest probability of him getting a capital appreciation of the house he bought was to plunge the county in debt. It wouldn’t hurt him — he’d be long gone when the debt came due.

In a sense, this guy was a bigger drag on the taxes than illegal aliens. He knew that the county would pay 3 times as much for the capital improvements, but he also knew he would not be paying it himself. Those that were staying would pay (with those that move in later) while he had long since moved out. Don’t even ask me what I think of the people that vote with that as their mindset — matter of fact I’ll tell you anyway. They are bigger thieves than the politicians. They figured a way to scam the system and take money from others through the use of their vote.

The only way around such a scam is to pay up front on all projects. Don’t allow the government to borrow for anything, but only to allow the government to tax based on voting. In other words, have funding questions stated “Do you support a $.05 cent per hundred increase in the tax rate for construction of a school ….” The tax bill would be assessed at the time of the vote. You vote for a tax increase, you pay the tax.

Is it going to happen? I doubt it seriously. Would it be fair? Yes.