The Log Cabin Republican Club of Virginia is proud to announce that Senator John Warner, ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, will be the special guest of honor at our annual Political Action Committee fundraiser, to be held on Tuesday, June 12 at Gadsby’s Tavern Museum in Old Town Alexandria.   The event will be held from 6:30 PM until 9:00 PM at 134 North Royal Street in Old Town Alexandria.

Senator Warner recently was in the news when General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, opined that the military’s don’t ask, don’t tell policy, which was crafted under President Bill Clinton, should be maintained.  Pace told the Chicago Tribune that “I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts.”  Senator Warner’s response was immediate and clear: “I respectfully but strongly disagree with the chairman’s view that homosexuality is immoral.  In keeping with my longstanding respect for the Armed Services committee hearing process, I will decline to comment on the current policy until after such hearings are held.”  The Log Cabin Republican Club of Virginia applauded Senator Warner’s condemnation of bigotry then, and we look forward to hearing his views on the future of the Republican Party, tolerance, and inclusion, on June 12.

This annual PAC fundraiser is one of the most important events on our Club’s calendar.  The Log Cabin Republican Club of Virginia is celebrating its 10^th anniversary this year and has held an annual PAC fundraiser for the past six.  During that time, the PAC has raised over $30,000 for inclusive state and local Republican candidates who share the Club’s ideals of equal treatment for all. 

This year, the entire Virginia House of Delegates and State Senate are up for reelection.  It is vital that Log Cabin Republicans have the resources to participate in this important election, and to support those Republicans who share our ideals. 

The PAC fundraiser will be held on the same day as our regularly-scheduled June meeting, and we urge every friend and member to make attendance at this important event a priority.  Business attire is suggested, and a minimum requested donation of $50 includes light fare and a cash bar.

Other levels of support are Bronze ($100), Silver ($250), and Gold ($500 or more).  Contributors at these three levels are invited to bring two guests at no charge.  For directions to Gadsby’s Tavern, visit http://oha.alexandriava.gov/plan-your-visit/gt-py-visit.html.  

Your RSVP for this important event is requested, by mail to LCR/VA,

May Meeting Recap – What Would HR-1592 Really Do?
The “thought police,” federal power grabs, the 10^th and 14^th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and reasonable police priorities were all discussed and debated at our May meeting under the guise of HR-1592, the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, recently introduced in Congress and which passed the House with 25 Republican votes.   The lively discussion was headed by Tim Lynch from the Cato Institute, who argued against the legality and need for federal hate crimes legislation, and Chris Barron, former political director for Log Cabin National, who argued that the law is not a penalty-enhancement act but merely federal assistance to local law enforcement authorities who may see their budgets stretched too thin.  The debate clearly demonstrated the range of political views that Club members have on the subject.

In arguing in favor of passage of the law, Chris stated clearly that HR-1592 would only provide local law enforcement agencies access to federal resources if needed; the law does not enhance penalties for those convicted of hate crimes.  Under the law, the federal government may provide forensic assistance to local authorities, and the Attorney General may provide grants to local governments for extraordinary expenses.  Furthermore, Chris argued that in the 1990s, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of hate-crimes legislation.  To protect against charges of federal incursions into state and local matters, the law has a certification requirement.  The law would apply when: 1) states/localities do not have jurisdiction, 2) the state requests federal assistance, and 3) the state does not object to federal involvement. 

In opposing the law, Tim argued that it is fundamentally unconstitutional under the 10^th Amendment, since “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people,” and hate-crimes legislation is merely a federal incursion into the realm of local law-enforcement.  Furthermore, he stated that such legislation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14^th Amendment since it makes enforcement subject to extraneous factors and treats the same crime differently for different victims.  He added that crimes covered by the act are already covered by state and local laws, stated that the law is counter-productive in that federal resources should be focused on foreign threats, not local ones, and warned that it adds layers of inefficiencies to law enforcement.  He predicted that the legislation will not reduce crime but exacerbate it.  Finally, Tim argued against “thought crimes” because prosecution and sentencing under hate crimes legislation would be dependent on knowing what the criminal was thinking or would be thinking during the commission of a crime. 

In the end, the discussion veered toward the desirability of hate-crimes legislation in the context of both today and in a hypothetical perfect world.  While no clear consensus was reached, it was a very thoughtful discussion, and we thank the panelists for their insightful observations on behalf of their respective positions.