Tag Archives: Legal

If you are looking for a good charity, try the Alliance Defense Fund

The Alliance Defense Fund secured a matching grant of 1.25 MILLION dollars. These guys do more for religious liberty in the world than anybody. A great organization. It’s all about getting a return for your investment, and these guys provide a huge return on investment.

Watch the video:

What they’ve done:

Christian attorneys trained at the ADF Legal Academy are on the frontlines fighting for religious freedom in communities like yours every day. These faithful allied attorneys are protecting the Body of Christ from legal attacks – and by God’s grace, are winning case after crucial case.

Some ADF victories:

  • Charles LiMandri achieved an important victory for four San Diego firefighters who were forced to endure sexual harassment during a lewd city-sponsored parade celebrating homosexual behavior.
  • Natalie Decker successfully defended a Christian couple in Colorado who were criminally charged for disciplining their child in accordance with church teaching.
  • Steven O’Ban helped the Christian non-profit organization, World Vision, win an important victory after the ministry was sued by two former employees who were dismissed after admitting that they didn’t believe in the Holy Trinity.

What they’re doing:

ADF Legal Academy-trained attorneys are in communities across America defending the constitutionally protected rights of Christians who have been censored and punished for expressing their faith. Please be in prayer for these and so many other important allied attorney cases being fought to protect Our First Liberty – religious freedom – and to keep the door open for the spread of the Gospel.

Some current ADF cases:

  • Randall Wenger is representing a 5th-grade public school student in Pennsylvania who was prohibited from distributing fliers that invited classmates to a Christmas party at her church because the school district has a policy that bars speech “promoting Christianity.”
  • Karen Mueller is defending a nurse-practitioner in Wisconsin who was fired for sharing her faith with the patients for whom she cared.
  • Daniel Cox is assisting with the defense of three young women who were arrested, shackled, strip-searched, and detained overnight by Maryland state police after peacefully expressing their pro-life views.

Religious liberty is what I would call my “core value”. The freedom to be who I really am, and to say what I really think in public, whether people like it or not. The ADF defends my religious liberty, and no one does it better.

I never give money to charities that don’t promote my worldview. My goal is not to alleviate people’s suffering, primarily. My goal is to persuade others about the truth of the gospel. And that takes legal work, policy work and research on arguments and evidence. I want to defend God’s existence and character, and to promote the social conditions (e.g. – protection of unborn children, traditional marriage, low taxes, free trade, school choice, security from terrorism, etc.) that maximize the opportunities of non-Christians to investigate the gospel for themselves.

Yes, arguments and evidence are very important, but arguments and evidence are not weighed in a vacuum. Every person on the planet was created to know God, and my job is to make sure they get their best opportunity to do that. Part of that opportunity is letting Christians have the freedom to be who they are in public, in front of non-Christians. It’s also important for me to be able to find a job, to keep what I earn, and to spend my earnings on the causes that I think are important – not to let someone else take my money and spend it buying votes from special interest groups with wasteful government spending.

My favorite charities are Reasonable Faith, Stand to Reason, Please Convince Me, CrossExamined, Faith Beyond Belief, Heritage Foundation, Family Research Council, Access Research Network, Discovery Institute Center for Science & Culture, and Alliance Defense Fund. These are charities that move the ball forward effectively.

How much does it cost to enforce immigration law?

Story here from Byron York. (H/T ECM)

Excerpt:

On April 19, the same day the Arizona Legislature passed the immigration measure, the state’s two Republican senators, John McCain and Jon Kyl, unveiled a new plan to secure the U.S. border with Mexico. It’s a combination of completing and improving the border fence, adding new Border Patrol agents, expanding a policy of briefly jailing illegal border crossers, and several other programs already in existence. Although there is not yet an estimate of how much it would cost, the price would be vastly less than the sums going to bailouts, the stimulus, and the planned national health care system.

[…]Start with the fence. The Secure Fence Act, passed by Congress in 2006, specified 700 miles of the Southwest border to be secured with double-layered, reinforced fencing and other physical barriers.

[…]How much would it cost? Given that much of the basic structure already exists, perhaps $1 million per mile. Revamp the whole 700 miles and it’s $700 million.

[…]Kyl and McCain would add 3,000 new Border Patrol agents. A back-of-the-envelope cost estimate is about $100 million per 1,000 new agents, so the plan would cost about $300 million. The proposal also calls for hiring more U.S. marshals, clerks, and administrative staff, which would mean more costs.

[…]Then there is the jailing program, called Operation Streamline, which sends all illegal crossers to jail for a period of 15 to 60 days. When it has been tried selected areas, it has caused the illegal crossing rates to plummet.

[…]There are other expenses. For example, McCain and Kyl want to send a few thousand National Guard troops to the border. When this was done in 2007 and 2008, it cost a total of $1 billion.

The article is a nice little primer on border security measures and associated costs. Don’t forget that illegal immigration actually costs states money for things like increased emergency room usage, increased education costs, increased crime, increased prisons, etc.

We can recover a lot of the costs for border security measures by opening up the country to highly-skilled immigrant workers who pay more in taxes than they use in services, since they are (I think) not even eligible for unemployment, medicare, medicaid or social security – they have to leave when their work term ends.

It’s a national security issue. We have enemies, we need a secure border. Particularly with a naive, weak President whose policies of moral equivalence and appeasement have encourage several attacks on US soil in the past few months.

What does Arizona’s immigration enforcement bill really say?

Byron York writes about the law in the Washington Examiner. (H/T ECM)

Excerpt:

Contrary to the talk, it is a reasonable, limited, carefully-crafted measure designed to help law enforcement deal with a serious problem in Arizona. Its authors anticipated criticism and went to great lengths to make sure it is constitutional and will hold up in court.

[…]The law requires police to check with federal authorities on a person’s immigration status, if officers have stopped that person for some legitimate reason and come to suspect that he or she might be in the U.S. illegally.

[…]Critics have focused on the term “reasonable suspicion” to suggest that the law would give police the power to pick anyone out of a crowd for any reason and force them to prove they are in the U.S. legally. Some foresee mass civil rights violations targeting Hispanics.

What fewer people have noticed is the phrase “lawful contact,” which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. “That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he’s violated some other law,” says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. “The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop.”

Why was this bill passed? Here’s a hint.

Excerpt:

Three Border Patrol agents are assaulted on the average day at or near the U.S. border. Someone is kidnapped every 35 hours in Phoenix, Ariz., often by agents of alien smuggling organizations. And one-in-five American teenagers last year used some type of illegal drug, many of which were imported across the unsecured U.S.-Mexico border.

These facts are reported in the recently released National Drug Threat Assessment for 2010, published by the National Drug Intelligence Center, a division of the U.S. Justice Department.

Mexico has been complaining about the tough bill, but the bill is much, much less tough than Mexico’s own harsh anti-illegal-immigration laws.