THE FEBRUARY 8TH EDITION OF THE CUCCINELLI COMPASS
What follows below is the February 8th Edition of the Cuccinelli Compass from from our new Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli. This is funny one! Apparently, one of the advertisements at the Super Bowl caused some people to do a double take. I am one of the few who did not watch the Super Bowl, but I have been hearing about it anyway.
This Compass also contains a sad story. When the men and women we elect are guilty of trying to subvert the laws we supposedly elected them to defend, we have a serious moral problem.
February 8, 2010
Dear Fellow Virginians,
As I look out the window at 30+ inches of global snowing, I have been thinking back to our campaign.
Remember when we were attacked for not “believing” (that’s the word they used) in man-made global warming? It’s too bad climate-gate didn’t break before our campaign ended. It would have been interesting watching all the “believers” on the other side explain their “beliefs” in light of those strange and flinty things that John Adams called “facts.”
That’s just somewhat amusing (more amusement below). How about this one…
Do you remember when they said that we would interpret or apply the laws however we wanted to regardless of what the law really said? Let’s take a closer look at this attack in light of just the first few weeks of our tenure.
Eco-funny … or not-so-funny…
For those of you that missed the Super Bowl, you need to watch the following Audi ad. I know that they meant it to be funny, but I think it’s causing quite a different stir than was anticipated.
Take a look:
I don’t even think I need to say anything about that one…
p.s., the incandescent bulb infraction? That’s coming your way in 2012 thanks to the U.S. Congress, as they have made incandescent light bulbs illegal. So, stock up now!
Reflecting Back On Three Weeks + On the Campaign
You will recall that during the campaign one of the many baseless attacks – though perhaps one of the most consistent on the other side – was the notion that a Cuccinelli AG’s office would interpret the law to mean whatever we wanted it to mean.
Now, before I go too far analyzing this, I will also remind all of you that in the very same breath, my opponent also ‘accused’ me of being a – gasp – originalist!
In case you’re not a lawyer or you’re not seeing the irony of the last paragraph, an originalist interprets the Constitution (and the laws) based on the original intent of the provision at issue at the time it was passed. If I were to actually interpret and apply the law in such a way, it would preclude me from ever simply concluding that the law means whatever I would like it to mean. Whoops.
Now, to the last few weeks. At the end of January, my office was asked by the Governor’s office to review a proposed regulation being advanced by the Kaine administration that would have nominally allowed anyone who lived in a household with a state employee to be put on their state health insurance.
Then-Governor Kaine knew very well that such a proposal flies in the face of Virginia law and policy, but he pressed ahead anyway.
To ‘ease’ his way, Kaine REMOVED the AG’s office from having any responsibilities for reviewing proposed regulations. There are several problems with this maneuver by Kaine. First and foremost, it is specifically contrary to the law (Va. Code §2.2-4013). Second, the maneuver was undertaken because they knew exactly what the legal advice that either of my predecessors would have provided and they didn’t like it, so they didn’t ask for it. Third, the reason Kaine removed the AG from the regulatory review process is because he knew full well that what he was doing was illegal, but he pressed ahead with his own desired view of what he wanted the law to say. Does that sound familiar?
That was the attack against us, i.e., that we would apply the law in whatever way we wanted to. Ironically, it was the Democrats that were making that attack that were – in fact – trying to enact a regulation based solely on what they wanted the law to be.
Rank hypocrisy. And by the way, does anyone seriously think that had my opponent won the AG’s race, that he would have done anything to question Kaine’s single-handed regulatory re-write of Virginia law?
I’ll leave you with that thought to ponder, though it probably won’t take much pondering…
See you soon!
Sincerely,
Ken Cuccinelli II
HOW TO LOSE A WAR?
Today on the Sean Hannity Show, I heard the host mention new “rules of engagement” for our troops. Such rules are necessary, but they can easily become a hindrance. What is going on?
Last September, we reduced the number of airstrikes.
Airstrikes by coalition forces in Afghanistan have dropped dramatically in the three months Gen. Stanley McChrystal has led the war effort there, reflecting his new emphasis on avoiding civilian casualties and protecting the population. (continued here)
Last November the Washington Times published an article on the rules of engagement. Here are some of the rules.
The Times compiled an informal list of the new rules from interviews with U.S. forces (from here). Among them:
• No night or surprise searches.
• Villagers have to be warned prior to searches.
• ANA or ANP must accompany U.S. units on searches.
• U.S. soldiers may not fire at the enemy unless the enemy is preparing to fire first.
• U.S. forces cannot engage the enemy if civilians are present.
• Only women can search women.
• Troops can fire at an insurgent if they catch him placing an IED but not if insurgents are walking away from an area where explosives have been laid.
Are all these constraints necessary and wise? I have my doubts, but I am not in Afghanistan. From my perspective, only time will tell. This LA Times article, Marines focus on civilian safety in Afghanistan, is noncommittal. This Christian Science Monitor article, Afghanistan war: US troops’ new push into ‘heart of darkness’, and this Voice of America article, Thousands Flee Ahead of NATO Offensive in Southern Afghanistan, speak of a canny enemy resisting US soldiers on the assault. Too often, this enemy succeeds in killing our dedicated and carefully restrained young men, US troops killed in Afghanistan and Africa.
When we ask our soldiers to take on such a difficult mission with severe self-imposed constraints, we have an obligation to back them and give them every chance of success. Of one thing I am certain. If we make the commitment, we can and will win. Nonetheless, President Barack Obama has already set a date to begin a withdrawal, July 2011. Is Obama just going through the motions and then planning to blame Bush — again? I hope not.
I AM A WINNER? — PART 3
With this post, we have our first winner, the winner in the Democrat Category. However, before I get into that, I would like to mention a post at the SkepticalObservor, In The WaPo?!?!?! Jim cites an article in the Washington Post that purports to describe in detail the characteristics of Liberal condescension towards Conservatives. It begins thus:
Every political community includes some members who insist that their side has all the answers and that their adversaries are idiots. But American liberals, to a degree far surpassing conservatives, appear committed to the proposition that their views are correct, self-evident, and based on fact and reason, while conservative positions are not just wrong but illegitimate, ideological and unworthy of serious consideration. Indeed, all the appeals to bipartisanship notwithstanding, President Obama and other leading liberal voices have joined in a chorus of intellectual condescension. (continued here)
There is nothing new about someone being proud and arrogant. Most of us do in fact have too high an opinion of our own wisdom. Because our pride is so often a stumbling block, one that trips us headlong into sin, the Bible calls upon us to be humble. Yet few recognize their own pride and arrogance. We easily see only the pride of others. Thus, we can even pray pridefully. Consider this passage.
Luke 18:9-14 (Today’s New International Version)
The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector
To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: ”Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’
“But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’
“I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”
The frightening thing about this parable is that Jesus intended that each of us see our self in the Pharisee, not the tax collector. For example, when we say, “I am a good person,” we are that Pharisee. Compared to example we should follow, none of us are good.
The Winner in the Democrat Category
The blog Blue Virginia wins in the Democrat Category. This post, I AM A WINNER? — PART 2, describes the criteria.
Why Blue Virginia?
Politics involves debate. Because Blue Virginia is a diehard, adamantine Democrat blog, that blog often serves as a foil to my own arguments. I don’t have to invent a strawman. I just visit Blue Virginia and use the real thing, a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat.
Lowell leaves little doubt that he is a true believer. Lowell, the resident blogger, makes his party affiliation abundantly clear in his welcome statement. Here is an excerpt.
Along those lines, I want to state categorically that, even more than a Democrat, I consider myself a Progressive in the tradition of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Tom Paine, Teddy Roosevelt, JFK, RFK, and Jim Webb. As such, I believe in expanding opportunities to all, utilizing government as a tool to promote the general welfare and the common good, protecting the environment for ourselves and for future generations, and expanding the rights promised in our Constitution and Bill of Rights to all Americans.
Tradition of Thomas Jefferson? I read that statement in wonder. Does he really think all of these men believed in a “Living Constitution” or in the huge expansion of Federal powers he advocates? I can only guess. All I know is that he and others advocate a ”Living Constitution” and a huge expansion of Federal powers. So wishing I did not have this “better alternative,” I contrast Blue Virginia’s “Progressivism” with Conservatism.
What Blue Virginia too well illustrates is the naiveté that underlies the Democratic Party. Because Democrats believe in the perfectability of men by a man, they feel it is proper to peddle Utopian solutions at the polls. Their noble end justifies the means. If the right leader can make all well — make earth heavenly — then we should give the right man enough power to make the earth heavenly. We should give the right man enough power to run our lives “for us.”
The Founders; including Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Paine; knew better. The knew enough to fear any man so proud he demanded the right to run the lives of his fellows. That is why they wrote the Constitution. They had no intention of giving anyone such power to run either their own lives or the lives of their fellow citizens.
Because of its “Progressivism,” Blue Virginia provides a brilliant contrast for plain and seemingly dour Conservatism. Conservatism makes no bold claims for “government solutions.” Because mere men lead us, Conservatives believe we must insist upon humble government. That is, we should use government just to keep us from interfering in each other’s lives.
Conservatives uphold the belief that no man has the right or the wisdom to run the lives of others. No mere man can make of government anything other than a clumsy instrument that too often employs force with excessive brutality. We should seek our salvation in God, not government. Government is best used only when we can find no other alternative.
A Review of a Blue Virginia Post
Which post? Since the winners of this contest are restricted to Virginia, it seemed appropriate to pick a post about Virginia politics. So here we have a post about our new governor, Bob McDonnell, making fun of a Democrat sacred cow, Bob McDonnell Jokes About Global Warming. How does Lowell respond?
McDonnell is from the same bunch of know nothings – the Republican Party of Virginia – that has a video out right now implying that one snowstorm in one specific location in the middle of winter negates the vast amount of scientific/empirical evidence that’s been collected for decades in support of climate change science.
Side note: Here is that RPV video Lowell mentioned: 12 inches of Global Warming.
Our new governor is a “know nothing”? The snow is setting out there on the ground.
Left unchallenged, Democrats will use the theory of global warming, now called climate change, as an excuse for another huge government expansion and power grab. The evidence for global climate change is paltry, but let us give Lowell credit. He does attempt to cite a credible source that supports the case for global warming. Here is how that source begins.
2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. The analysis, conducted by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, also shows that in the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year since modern records began in 1880.
Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade, due to strong cooling of the tropical Pacific Ocean, 2009 saw a return to near-record global temperatures. The past year was only a fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest year on record, and tied with a cluster of other years — 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007 1998 and 2007 — as the second warmest year since recordkeeping began. (continued here)
Is this global warming thing something we need to take seriously? Do we actually have global weather data that goes back to 1880? No. (See also A COLD DAY FOR OUR NEW PRESIDENT. That post also deals with this sort of “science.”). Even the article Lowell cited admits that the instrumentation needed to monitor temperatures precisely did not become available until 1880. Nonetheless, the article still fails to mention two pertinent facts.
- Even with the instrumentation, we did not have a system to collect reliable data until very recently.
- We have no baseline. We do not know what constitutes ”normal.” Fossil data and geologic data indicate that the earth has had both cold and warm periods. These obviously occurred before we started burning fossil fuels. Without man’s “interference” in the environment, what would the global average temperature be now? Would it be warmer or colder? Nobody really knows.
What we do know is that lots of money and politics are involved and that some people have already been caught fiddling with their data. See THE STRANGE BUSINESS OF “CLIMATEGATE”.
LIBERTY AND TYRANNY BY MARK R. LEVIN — PART 1
Mark Levin gained most of his acclaim as the host of the Mark Levin Show. Here is his biography. As a constitutional lawyer and the head of the Landmark Legal Foundation, he clearly has the expertise required to write Liberty and Tyranny. What is this book about? Here is how the publisher describes it.
Conservative talk radio’s fastest-growing superstar is also a New York Times bestselling phenomenon: the author of the groundbreaking critique of the Supreme Court, Men in Black, and the deeply personal dog lover’s memoir Rescuing Sprite, Mark R. Levin now delivers the book that characterizes both his devotion to his more than 5 million listeners and his love of our country and the legacy of our Founding Fathers: Liberty and Tyranny is Mark R. Levin’s clarion call to conservative America, a new manifesto for the conservative movement for the 21st century. (continued here)
Is the book worth reading? I think the answer is an emphatic YES. What Levin’s book does is to concisely characterize our nation’s greatest political problem and the solution.
- The problem? Statists seek to undermine foundations our political system. What is a Statist? The Statist is “an advocate of statism” (see here). Levin never explicitly defines the term “statism.” He relies upon the existing definition (see here, for example). Instead, Levin characterizes America’s Statists and explains how statism threatens our republic.
- The solution? Conservatives must come to grips with the significance of the current drift towards statism, oppose it, and reverse the direction. Levin begins his book with a chapter on what Conservatives believe. In fact, the book exist primarily to explain and justify Conservative Philosophy. And no — I will not link to answers.com for a definition.
What is Conservatism? There is no simple definition. Thus, Levin begins his book with this statement.
There is simply no scientific or mathematical formula that defines Conservatism.
Levin does not try to define Conservatism. Instead, he advocates a movement to revive and restore our Constitution to the purpose envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
The Founders believed, and the Conservative agrees, in the dignity of the individual; that we, as human beings, have a right to live, live freely, and pursue that which motivates us not because man or some government says so, but because these are God-given natural rights. (from page 2 of Chapter 1)
What ultimately concerns Levin is that “the Conservative must become more engaged in public matters” (from the Epilogue, page 195).
Parents and grandparents must take it upon themselves to teach their children and grandchildren to believe in and appreciate the principles of American society and stress the import of preserving and improving society. They will need to teach their offspring that the Statist threatens the generation’s liberty and prosperity, and to resist ideologically alluring trends and fads. Parents and grandparents by the millions can counteract the Statist’s indoctrination of their children and grandchildren in government schools and by other Statist institutions simply by conferring their knowledge, beliefs, and ideals on them over the dinner table, in the car, or at bedtime. If undertaken on an intimate, purposeful, and consistent basis, it will shape a generation of new conservatives. (from the Epilogue, page 195)
Are you a parent or grandparent who wants to combat the Statist’s indoctrination of your child or grandchild? Your instruction of your child or grandchild will be well served if you read Levin’s book.
Other Views
In “Is It Really Bias If Most Of The MSM Is This Stupid?”, Moneyrunner at The Virginian offers Liberty and Tyranny as a book recommendation.
Rick Moran of The Next Right reviews a review of Liberty and Tyranny in Angry Ideologues vs. The Statists. Moran expresses his concern about “enemy identification.” He takes issue with Levin’s characterization of Liberals.
It is also mis-leading (though not entirely inaccurate) to say that liberals favor the “supremacy of the state.” It is more accurate to say that the modern left favors promoting “the collective good” at the expense of “selfish” individuality. They do not dismiss individual rights. They simply believe that in some instances – more than is healthy for liberty’s sake – those rights should be trumped by what is best for all.
Consider also how Moran ends his post.
And on a related note, I would argue with Mark Levin that liberty does not exist in a vacuum, nor can free people exist apart from the community that bred them. There are responsibilities that go along with enjoying liberty that includes the recognition that we are not islands unto ourselves, and that government, however imperfect it can be, is nevertheless not the implacable enemy of liberty some conservatives believe.
A danger at times? Yes. But if conservatism is to triumph again, we must demonstrate that conservative principles can be applied to running government better than the those of the opposition. That is the essence of politics and we would do well to remember it.
Moran appears to have a common misunderstanding; he emphasizes government as a means at the expense of its ultimate objective. Government exists first and foremost to protect our rights (see the Declaration of Independence). When we see government as the means for bettering our lives, government cannot fail to become the implacable enemy of liberty. Consider this quote.
-”if we can but prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy.” – Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 29 November 1802 (from here)
Unfortunately, too many of us do not understand that government exists first and foremost to protect our rights. They think government exists to take care of us. As a result, when our leaders swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution, too many obviously do not mean a word of it. When such liars runs our government — and seek to run our lives — they become implacable enemies to our liberty.
At United Conservatives of Virginia, Concrete Bob tells us what Palin has been reading in Sarah Palin Will Pick Her Battles.
In Books – “Liberty and Tyranny”, Cato of Delmarva Dealings enthusiastically recommends Levin’s book.
Since I liked the book, I intend to do a few more posts on it. So this will be continued.
I AM A WINNER? — PART 2
As we found out last week, I am a winner (see I AM A WINNER? — PART 1). So I now get to pick seven other winners. Since there are lots of blogs out there, how do I do that?
The Criteria
How am I going to choose seven winners?
- Each blog I choose will be a Virginia blog.
- I will consider only political blogs. That is what I know about.
- Picking (or picking on
) the blog in some way furthers the Conservative agenda. - The blogger(s) must post regularly (at least once per week).
- The blogger must have posted recently.
- One of winner’s posts gets subjected to an intense review.
- There will be one pick in each of the following categories: Conservative, Liberal, Republican, Democrat, Third Party, News Summary blog, and Editiorial Content blog.
- Starting Monday, February 8th, I will pick one winner each week.
Recent Comments