Help Block Obama's Lawsuit Against Arizona
by Ann Shibler
A very important and worthy amendment was just defeated in the Senate by a 55-43 vote. Senators Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and David Vitter (R-La.) introduced an amendment designed to stop the Obama Administration’s lawsuit against the State of Arizona and its taxpayers for SB 1070, the immigration bill that was recently passed and goes into effect July 29.
DeMint understands the situation in Arizona: "States like Arizona shouldn't be prosecuted for protecting their citizens when the federal government fails to do so. The federal government is rewarding illegal behavior and encouraging many more to enter our nation illegally when they refuse to enforce our laws. States along the border are facing kidnappings, drug trafficking, human trafficking and gang violence and they have a duty to keep their residents safe."
And Vitter hit the nail on the head when he stated: "The state of Arizona is simply taking responsibility for a problem that the federal government has neglected for years, but Washington’s only response is to oppose these new enforcement efforts and take them to court. The Obama administration should not use taxpayers' money to pay for these lawsuits that the American people overwhelmingly oppose."
Amendment #4464 would have prohibited President Obama, the Department of Justice, and other agencies from participating in lawsuits seeking to invalidate the Arizona law by defunding those efforts. DeMint sought to attach the amendment to legislation extending unemployment benefits, a measure that was certain to pass, but the amendment was rejected. The pertinent but simple part of the text reads:
No funds made available in any provision of law may be used to participate in any lawsuit that seeks to invalidate those provisions of the Arizona Revised Statutes amended by Arizona Senate Bill 1070, 49th Leg., 2nd. Reg. Sess., Ch. 113 (Az 6 2010) (as amended by Arizona House bill 2162, 49th 7 Leg., 2nd Reg. Sess, Ch. 211 (Az. 2010)).
Read On For Complete Essay»
"The Citizens of the United States are now slaves working to support a bloated, overpaid, and inefficient Mandarin Government controlled by Neo-Communists from Chicago." — Errol Phillips
The Case for Racial Profiling
by Robert J. Meadows
Arizona's new immigration law has pushed the issue of racial profiling to the forefront. Detaining someone based solely on race is ethically wrong and a potential civil rights violation. There is no argument about that. But profiling is not based on race alone. Behavior, dress, geography, age, sex and other factors are also considered.
Crime analysis units in police departments profile crimes based on a number of variables. The FBI profiles serial killers, most of whom are white males, and other violent offenders to aid in their investigations. Airport security officers use profiling. In the professional world, profiles are used, either subjectively or objectively, to meet employment objectives, admissions standards at schools and other goals.
One of the arguments against the new Arizona immigration law is that it will promote racial profiling. However, the law makes it clear that race is not the sole criteria for detaining someone.
The law states that a violation, such as a traffic offense, must occur before someone is detained. Yet, despite the wording of the law, opponents, including Attorney General Eric Holder, who admitted he had not read the law when he first denounced it, argue it will promote profiling.
Many are on a campaign to boycott anything to do with Arizona. Many politically correct naïve politicians pandering for votes are predicting that the law, which hasn't gone into effect yet, will somehow lead to mass discrimination by Gestapo-type Arizona cops. Maybe the popular North Rim of Grand Canyon National Park should be closed in protest, or possibly relocated to a more politically correct state.
Read On For Complete Essay»
Nourishment from the Word: Select Studies in Reformed Doctrine
by Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.
This book is for the serious Christian following the Biblical encouragement to “be a good servant of Jesus Christ, constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of sound doctrine” (1 Tim. 4:6). In a world of malnourished Christians, Dr. Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., leads hungry believers to solid food so that they might grow in grace. He provides a banquet of nourishing entrees too seldom found on the menu of the modern evangelical church.
Paperback, 188 pages
The Death Penalty on Trial
Taking a Life for a Life Taken
by Dr. Ron Gleason PhD
This book rigorously examines the controversy over the death penalty with clarity and cogency.
After Dr. Ron Gleason lays a thorough groundwork in history and law, he defines ethics philosophically, and then presents the Biblical mandate.
Proponents on both sides will find the issues in focus and the arguments framed for more meaningful discussion.
Paperback 152 pages
The Making of American California
(A Providential Approach)
by Dorothy Dimmick
Well-researched text and a must for those wanting to truly understand the hand of God in the discovery, exploration and settlement of California. This is an excellent resource, with wonderful character sketches on all the main persons affecting the history of the state.
Hardback, 318 pages
by Sen. H.L. Richardson, Retired
What's the matter with the Republicans? Gun Owners of America founder and chairman Richardson answers that question in Confrontational Politics. During 22 years of legislative experience, Sen. Richardson found that the only thing that got things done was confrontation. Democrats typically understand confrontation, like it and use it. Conversely, Conservatives do not understand confrontation, don't like it and flee from it. Many who have already read the book have reported that "Now I understand why Conservatives keep losing." Readers of Confrontational Politics will also learn about the lobbying philosophy that has earned GOA's reputation as the only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington.
Paperback, 124 pages