• First Amendment Issues
• Secure Borders/Combating Illegal Immigration 
• The Growing Threat of Radical Islam 
• Re-Imposing Fiscal Integrity on Congress
• Supporting a Positive and Life Affirming Culture  
• Virginia Local and State Politics

There is a growing pattern of hostility to free speech emerging in the land. Usually from the Left—although the Right is not without blame—there is a temptation to criminalize differences of opinion and belief.

McCain Feingold
The McCain-Feingold bill banned ads within 60 days of a general election that are paid for by outside groups and identify a particular candidate. Since 2003, when the Supreme Court upheld it, McCain-Feingold has failed spectacularly in its stated goal of reining in fat-cat donors. Yet its uncompromising language has helped to gag practically every other politically active entity–from advocacy groups to labor unions.

Hate Crime Legislation
Generally the forces of Secularism are out to muzzle conservative Christianity until we are a quiet lapdog; hate crime legislation being the best example of this. Christians must become aroused as to their eroding freedoms, and begin to say "no" to further attempts at equating Biblical values with "hate speech". Examples of using hate speech legislation to imprison Christians abound not only internationally but right here in America!

Arguments against hate crime legislation include the following:

• Perpetrators of the same criminal act should not be treated differently because they hold different beliefs or motives.
• Over time, these provisions might be disregarded and hate crime laws and associated case law could evolve to the point where speaking out strongly against a particular group or its actions could be construed as a libelous hate crime, violating rights to freedom of expression, thought, religion (among others).
• Penalities that do not include hate-crimes enhancement are already sufficient, in that vandalism, assault and murder have always been illegal and subject to prosecution. The fact that they still occur does not justify infringing on the freedoms of speech and religion.
• It brings the law into disrepute and further divides society, as groups apply to have their critics silenced.
• Religious practices will become subject to government regulation, violating the separation of church and state.
• Allowing a self-declared victim to decide if a crime has occurred violates the principle of objective justice.

Reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine (adapted from an article by Adam Theirer)

The doctrine's supporters seem not to appreciate just how much the broadcast world has changed since 1949. With the proliferation of informational resources and technology, the number of broadcast outlets available to the public has increased steadily. In such an environment, it is hard to understand why the federal government must police the airwaves to ensure that differing views are heard. The result of a reinstituted fairness doctrine would not be fair at all. In practice, much controversial speech heard today would be stifled as the threat of random investigations and warnings discouraged broadcasters from airing what FCC bureaucrats might refer to as "unbalanced" views.

Tested in Court

The fairness doctrine's constitutionality was tested and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in a landmark 1969 case, Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC (395 U.S. 367). Although the Court then ruled that it did not violate a broadcaster's First Amendment rights, the Court cautioned that if the doctrine ever began to restrain speech, then the rule's constitutionality should be reconsidered. Just five years later, without ruling the doctrine unconstitutional, the Court concluded in another case that the doctrine "inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate" (Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241). In 1984, the Court concluded that the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine was flawed and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate (FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364). This ruling set the stage for the FCC's action in 1987. An attempt by Congress to reinstate the rule by statute was vetoed by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, and later attempts failed even to pass Congress.

If the fairness standard is reinstituted, the result will not be easier access for controversial views. It will instead be self-censorship, as stations seek to avoid requirements that they broadcast specific opposing views. With the wide diversity of views available today in the expanding broadcast system, there is a simple solution for any family seeking an alternative viewpoint or for any lawmaker irritated by a pugnacious talk-show host. Turn the dial.

Securing our borders must be our top priority and has reached the level of a national emergency.

In this age of terror, immigration is not only an economic issue, but also a national security issue.  Those caught trying to enter illegally must be detained, processed, and deported.  We must never allow amnesty.  It is not right to reward those who are here illegally, while penalizing those who played by the rules.  We oppose the amnesty President Bush and Senator McCain tried to ram through Congress in the summer of 2007. 

We support stepped up efforts to fine employers illegally hiring aliens.

We must end the practice of rogue cities that willfully undermine our economy and national security by self proclaiming themselves as "sanctuary cities".

We oppose giving driver's licenses to illegals and support legislation to prevent states from doing so. 

The oft used statement, "we cannot deport 12 million people" is a canard.  Stricter enforcement in the ways enumerated above will cause a slow but steady attrition of illegals who will self-deport over time. 

The following are much needed clarifications of the nature of the threat posed by global, Radical Islam:

• It is misleading to think of the problem as a "War on Terror", which is a tactic, not an enemy. Some believe the practitioners of terror, are simply criminals – psycho, deranged types who are merely acting out some form of personal grievance. The reality is that 99% of all terrorist acts are perpetrated by followers of Islam –radical, and a minority of that religion, though they may be.
• There are those who think of the "war on terror" as "our fault" and if we would only stop defending ourselves we would stop inciting their actions against us. The reality is that the jihadists are self motivated; viewing Western secular society, Jews, and Christians as infidels worthy only of destruction.
• Radical Islam is global in nature and the same symptoms of an Islamic takeover, such as the proliferation of mosques, radical Imams preaching hate and calling for the destruction of America and Israel, and Sharia Law, are showing up all over the world as well as right in our own backyard. Radical Islam terror has struck in all continents, against all forms of societies and religions.
• We need to carefully ask whether we can peacefully co-exist with Islam. It seems wherever they get a foothold they keep taking more. Islam does not seem to respect the rule of law or the host country's traditional values or culture; the more the hosts attempts to accede to their demands the stronger and more aggressive they become.
• There are those who don't see how close we are to losing Europe and Pakistan- the latter being most at risk and has nukes. We must see the dominoes, internationally, as a Big Picture, and that they are related.

We need to become more knowledgeable about this growing danger, and advocate more responsible actions which will preserve our nation as we have always known it.

Getting a grip on the explosion of lobbyists, the scandals of earmarks, employing Congressional family members as lobbyists and with campaign funds, and the irresponsible over-spending by Congress in the form of the coming entitlement crisis.  In short, the urgent need to re-impose fiscal responsibility in Washington.  We must demand Congress work for the American people, not the highest bidder.

It is time we return our pop culture back towards entertainment and art which affirms life, honors God, and is family friendly. America is the most invincible when she is morally strong. The silent majority of moral Americans have had their culture and their entertainment hijacked for a vapid and unworthy counterfeit of four letter words, double entendres, and mocking of traditional values.

Local politics are so often overlooked, and ignored by citizens, yet much of the policy that affects are daily life are formed at this level. In addition, the state and local politicians are often future Congressmen and Senators, and they need to see that citizens are paying attention.