constitution1.pngAs one of Virginia’s most respected Conservatives and a legal scholar of note, Ken Cuccinelli opinion on a Convention of the States should carry some weight.  So here it is from the Cuccinelli Compass dated 02/01/2015.

The Controversial Convention of States‏

Dear Friend and Fellow Virginian,

One of the most unique and important discussions among constitutional conservatives is taking place right now in Virginia’s General Assembly.  It is the debate about whether the states (including Virginia) should exercise their rights to call an Article V Convention of States for the purpose of proposing amendments to the U.S. Constitution to limit the power of the federal government.

While I have good friends whom I respect on the other side of this debate, I support the effort of the states to call such a convention and I wanted to share my reasons with you.

I would note that there is a body that sits for nine months every year, “defining” our constitution, and sadly it seems to regularly undermine the original meaning of that sacred document… always seeming to grow the power of the central, federal government.  We call this body The Supreme Court of the United States.

We can continue to idly watch the Supreme Court and the federal government eat away at the constitutional foundation of this country, or the states that founded it can make an effort to limit the runaway growth in the power of the federal government.  Frankly, I don’t see – nor has anyone suggested to me – a viable alternative to the Convention of States.

The usual argument: ‘we just have to elect people who will rein in the federal government’ has not worked.  I would note that the Founding Fathers expected to be disappointed, and they tried to design a governmental system with checks and balances to curb the natural excesses of mankind, including a way to rein in the federal government when it got out of control.

Virginia’s General Assembly will vote to take the first step to rein in our runaway federal government in the next few days.  Your support is urgently needed!  The vote looks like it’s going to be very close.

Our Founding Fathers gave the states a method of proposing amendments to our Constitution to rein in the power and jurisdiction of the federal government.  Proud Virginian George Mason insisted that one day the federal government would outgrow its bounds, and when that day came, the states would need to have the ability to amend the Constitution to limit the power of the federal government.  An Article V Convention of States is the specific recourse he and our Founders put in the Constitution for that purpose.

I’d like to ask you to stand with George Mason and our Founding Fathers and tell your Virginia legislators to support HJ 497, HJ 499, and SJ 269!

Here are 3 Simple Facts that I Think Opponents are Getting Wrong:

  1. The States Control the Convention Process

A Convention of States was put in the Constitution for the express purpose of giving the states a way of limiting the federal government.  Under Article V it takes 34 states to start the convention process.  Then the states appoint the delegates to the convention.

No matter what Congress would like to do to influence or attempt to ‘control’ the convention, they have no authority to do so.  The convention can ignore anything Congress ‘says’ about the convention.

Finally on this point, and in my mind critically, 38 states have to ratify any proposals coming out of the convention before they become part of the Constitution – this is our ultimate ‘backstop.’  Put another way, at a time when Republicans control more state legislative chambers than ever before in my lifetime, only 13 legislative bodies (e.g., only the House of Delegates, even without the Senate, on behalf of Virginia) may block ANY proposed amendment.  Blocking votes are the most important, and there are more conservative states than liberal states; additionally, Republicans control approximately double the number of state legislative chambers across the country as Democrats right now.  That’s as good a backstop as we’re going to get – and don’t forget, the Supreme Court is out there whittling away our constitution and increasing the power of the federal government even as we debate this question.

The process is state-driven from beginning to end, and has numerous checks and balances to ensure its safety.  Our Founders knew what they were doing.

  1. Virginia is focusing on Amendments that Limit the Power of the Federal Government.

HJR 497 only allows a convention to consider amendments that will limit the power of the federal government.  HJR 499 only allows a convention to consider a balanced budget amendment.  This can be reflected in the qualifications of Virginia’s delegates. Your rights under the First, Second, or any other Amendment are not ‘up for grabs’ (compare that to the Supreme Court)!  The only people who need to fear a convention are the politicians and bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.

Remember, Virginia’s General Assembly will decide how delegates to a convention are selected, and while there are no absolute guarantees here, Virginia does have significant control of its delegates and a solid backstop in place.

  1. Who does and who does NOT support a Convention of States:

Opponents often accuse us of being supported by the likes of George Soros and  This is not the case.  Have you ever heard any of them back it (I mean quotes from THEM, not someone who opposes it telling you ‘George Soros wants it’)?  Go look at their websites.  You will not find such support anywhere.

I’ve even heard things like ‘the NRA opposes it.’  If so, my understanding is that their lobbyist in Richmond is unaware of that fact… draw your own conclusions.

A wide range of conservatives support this effort, including people like Governor Bobby Jindal, Prof. Randy Barnett – the leading academic in the opposition to Obamacare, Mike Farris, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, David Barton, Colonel Allen West, Senator Ron Johnson, and Retired Senator Tom Coburn, just to name a few.  Countless other conservative leaders also support this effort.

I should note that I have never seen an issue that sees so many good conservatives on both sides.  But I want to ask you to stand with our Founders and the countless conservatives who have joined this cause.  Please contact your state legislators in the Virginia House and Senate and tell them to vote in favor of HJ 497, HJ 499, and SJ 269.

You can find out who your state legislators are here:

For liberty,

Ken Cuccinelli, II

News and Blog Articles


English: The state seal of Virginia. Српски / ...
English: The state seal of Virginia. Српски / Srpski: Застава америчке савезне државе Вирџиније. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Here is my belated commentary on a post at The Mason Conservative.

I CANNOT STAND The Primary vs. Convention Debate


Elections aren’t won or lost by the means of nomination but rather by the quality of the candidate, their campaigns, and the mood of the electorate.  Whether its 15,000 activists are a paltry 1% of the electorate in a primary, there is no guarantee one way or another.  Let me go back to 2001 and work our way forward:

  • 2001 (convention):  Earley (loss), Katzen (loss), Kilgore (win)
  • 2002 (primary):  Warner (win, unopposed)
  • 2005 (primary):  Kilgore (loss), Bolling (win), McDonnell (win)
  • 2006 (primary):  Allen (loss, unoppsoed)
  • 2008 (convention):  Gilmore (loss)
  • 2009 (convention):  McDonnell (win), Bolling (win), Cuccinelli (win)
  • 2012 (primary):  Allen (loss)
  • 2013 (convention):  Cuccinelli (loss), Jackson (loss), Obenshain (undecided)

(continued here)

Note that The Mason Conservative‘s post links to The Virginia “establishment” picks a fight with the tea party (Updated x2) at Bearing Drift: Virginia Politics On Demand.

So what’s my comment about?

In one respect, the The Mason Conservative is spot on. That is, if the argument is solely about selecting which Republican nominee can win, then it makes sense to look at the statistics and see what works. However, it is not the viewpoint of the Republican Party that matters. When we speak about politics and the political process, we need to first look at which processes best protect the liberty of our people. Which method of nomination comports best with a constitutional republic and best protects our rights?

Why do Establishment Republicans like primary elections? Primary elections favor the status quo, the people already in power. Effectively, when we have primary elections, we put The Establishment in charge of how political parties select their nominees.

Consider that Democrats and Republican politicians control the government. Establishment Democrats and Republicans like primary elections because they help to ensure their reelection and make third party movements next to impossible. Thus, primary elections help to make it difficult to throw the bums out, and that makes primary elections decidedly unhealthy for a constitutional republic.

On the other hand, when we have a convention, political activists retain full control of the process, and that is the way it should be. Why? Anybody can be a political activist. If we don’t like what the political activists in one political party are doing, we can always join a different party — so long as the government permits it.

Political parties exist to implement this part of the First Amendment: “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” That’s why government should have no say in how a political party selects its nominees. To protect those in power — if allowed to interfere — government can and will only corrupt the process.

Instead of holding primaries, we should allow for the possibility of at least two rounds in the general election. Why two rounds? Consider what can happen in an election with more than two candidates on the ballot. What if no candidate gets 50 percent or more of the vote? Do we actually know which candidate is the most popular? No. However, if we have a runoff between the two top vote getters, we can solve that problem.

With a runoff election, we could have avoided the mess we had in Virginia’s last gubernatorial election. Without a third party candidate in this race, the Republican candidate may have won, but without a runoff election we have no certain way of knowing. We just know that many Republicans feel cheated because they believe that the third party candidate, Robert Sarvis, pealed off votes that might have gone to Ken Cuccinelli, the Republican candidate.

In addition, with the possibility of a runoff election, more people would risk giving third party candidates a second look. Thus, the Republicans and the Democrats might have to pay more serious attention to voters and party activists and less attention to their campaign donors.


elephantgop.pngIn Part 2 of this series, we considered the consequences of not fearing God. Until we learn to fear God, we risk living in a bit of Hell. In this post, we will consider our electoral choices.

To Fear God

As if we could be gods, we too often find ourselves seeking to shape the world to suit our own desires. When Adolf Hitler‘s Propaganda Minister in Nazi Germany attempted to help Hitler bend the world to his will, here is how he explained to himself.

What does Christianity mean today? National Socialism is a religion. All we lack is a religious genius capable of uprooting outmoded religious practices and putting new ones in their place. We lack traditions and ritual. One day soon National Socialism will be the religion of all Germans. My Party is my church, and I believe I serve the Lord best if I do his will, and liberate my oppressed people from the fetters of slavery. That is my gospel. —Paul Joseph Goebbels (29 October 1897 – 1 May 1945) (Diary entry for October 16, 1928; from here)

How did Goebbels “new” religion work out? He discovered the same fate that all who put their trust in a man have found.

Psalm 146:3-4 Good News Translation (GNT)

Don’t put your trust in human leaders;
no human being can save you.
When they die, they return to the dust;
on that day all their plans come to an end.

After Hitler killed himself, “Goebbels along with his wife Magda killed their six young children, and then committed suicide” (from here). Fortunately, there is an alternative.

Psalm 118:5-9 English Standard Version (ESV)

Out of my distress I called on the Lord;
the Lord answered me and set me free.
The Lord is on my side; I will not fear.
What can man do to me?
The Lord is on my side as my helper;
I shall look in triumph on those who hate me.

It is better to take refuge in the Lord
than to trust in man.
It is better to take refuge in the Lord
than to trust in princes.

Instead of seeking leaders who insist upon transforming us to their liking, we need leaders with more modest ambitions. We need leaders who respect our right to make our own choices. Instead of ambitious men who can only pose as being powerful, we need to rely upon the reality of an Almighty God.

Which Candidates Have Modest Objectives In This Election?

On Tuesday, November 5, 2013, we will have a choice. Here are the candidates I will vote for.

Why these candidates?

  • Are Democrats evil Nazis? No. Democrats are not Nazis, but they are Socialists. Moreover, this generation of Democrats lies without shame, and they unconstitutionally grab for power. When we know our constitutional republic will work just fine if we allow it to do so, why would we even want to start a journey down a road that can only lead to tyranny?
  • The gentlemen I support are Republicans, but they are not part of The Establishment (see WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO CHALLENGE THE ESTABLISHMENT — PART 1). Because each strongly defends our Constitution, those benefiting from the status quo (Big Government spending and regulation) consider them a threat. If you are a greedy beneficiary of Big Government, the last thing you want is a restoral of constitutional government. However, the average citizen would do far better with lower taxes and less government regulation.

The Distinguishing Issues?

What are the main issues in this election? The depends upon whether or not you are a low information voter.  Consider the ad on the right. To the Democrats, the main issues are: abortion, the environment, and “gay rights.” anti Cuccinelli adSupposedly, with respect to these issues, Cuccinelli and his fellow Republicans are monsters, but that’s nonsense.


Since we addressed this issue in HAVE YOU CONSIDERED HOW PATHETIC WE HAVE BECOME?, I see little reason for going over it again. If you need further reassurance, check out Women Sick of Stupid Lies.


We have an ongoing debate in this nation. Is Global Warming real? What proof exists that it is? We have repeated assertions that Global Warming is real, but we have no proof. That’s propaganda (see BEFORE YOU VOTE, INVESTIGATE), not proof. Meanwhile, In tight Virginia governor’s race, McAuliffe backs Obama’s new coal regs. What does that mean for us?

The regulations would limit the amount of carbon that new gas- and coal-firing electric power plants can put into the air, which would make opening one almost financially impossible.

Republican nominee Ken Cuccinelli swiftly characterized his opponent’s position as a show of support for the Obama administration’s so-called “war on coal.”

“The war on coal in Virginia is a war on our poor,” he said Saturday night at a fundraiser he and Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz attended for the nonprofit Family Foundation, the state’s best-known lobby for socially conservative legislation. (from here)

Cuccinelli states his position in Cuccinelli Statement On McAuliffe-Obama War On Coal.


Here is what Cuccinelli has on his facebook site.

I have always been a supporter of Virginia’s Marriage Amendment. You will never have to guess where I stand on defending it. (from here)

Is that position anti-LGBT or pro-children? Is marriage about protecting the right of each child to a mother and a father, or is marriage about approving a relationship between two sex-crazed adults who can’t figure out which end is which? Does government exist to protect the rights of the innocent, or does government exist to force people to sanction an unhealthy “lifestyle” choice?

If two people of the same sex want to have sex, that is their business. They have NO RIGHT to force their stubborn stupidity on everyone else.

Have You Heard About Obamacare?

What do we have in Washington D.C. right now? Don’t we have a bunch of undisciplined leaders who cannot resist the urge to spend other people’s money? Look at Obamacare. The Obama administration cannot even get a website to work, but they insist upon running (ruining really) everyone’s healthcare? Why would we want them to do that?

Cuccinelli fought Obamacare Day 1.

Indeed, Mr. Cuccinelli was the first attorney general in the country to sue over the law after it was passed in March 2010, and has gone all in recently on highlighting the botched roll-out and issues with as a key difference between he and Democrat Terry McAuliffe.

“This is a referendum on Obamacare, and to help us clarify that point, the president is coming tomorrow,” he told a crowd outside of a GOP office in Prince William, drawing scattered boos. (from here)

On the other hand, McAuliffe is gung-ho for Big Government.

Under the new law, the federal government would pick up 100 percent of the cost of expanding health care for poor people and the disabled until 2016. Then Virginia would be required to pay for 10 percent of the program. But what happens after that? Cuccinelli says he doesn’t want to find out.

Democrat Terry McAuliffe says it would be irresponsible not to take advantage of the money, which will be taken from Virginia taxpayers whether the commonwealth participates or not.

“We are going to bring back to Virginia over the course of the next seven years, $21 billion of our money that we are paying in,” he says. (from here)

Why doesn’t Cuccinelli want to find out? Consider what we are already spending.  Cantor says states are spending more on Medicaid than on public schools.

What About School Choice?

Cuccinelli’s Education Plan includes strong provisions for school choice in section 9.

Enact Parent Empowerment And Choice Act Legislation For Parents In Failing Schools

This legislation provides a bottom-up solution instead of a top-down fix to authorize a majority of parents of students attending a public elementary or secondary school that has been determined by the Virginia Board of Education to be a failing school to petition to have one of four reform options:

  • Closure: Allow students to attend better performing public schools.
  • Restart: Convert to a charter school.
  • Reform: Replace leadership at the school and provide flexibility for reforms or change.
  • School Choice: provide opportunity scholarships to allow parents to enroll students in the public schools of their choice, or tax credits to enroll in the private schools of their choice.

In addition, in section 12 of his Education Plan Cuccinelli advocates constitutional amendments that would allow school choice to take off in Virginia. Can you imagine Democrats supporting school choice? In an era when the government threatens to stifle freedom in our country, we must elect people willing to push back or suffer the loss of our freedom. Please vote for advocates for limited, constitutional government.

Vote for:



When I got this email below, I found myself filled more with dread than anger. Because of the power and prestige it provides them, men and women have always fought ferociously for high office. Nonetheless, I dread knowing what God thinks of the accusations that politicians make against each other in these days.

Devoid of frills, here is today’s Cuccinelli Compass.  In it, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli refutes Terry McAuliffe’s lies.


Dear Fellow Virginians,

I am going to make this Compass very short and straightforward.

Terry McAuliffe is lying about, among other things, contraception.

In T.V. ads, mail and during debates and forums, McAuliffe is telling two lies:

1) He is saying that personhood legislation that I have supported in the past would have outlawed contraception, which is false; and

2) He is also saying – without citing much of anything – that I want to ban contraception in the future.

Look, this is not one of those topics that anyone particularly enjoys discussing, so let me be short and blunt.

No legislation I have ever supported would have – or even could have – “outlawed contraception” as McAuliffe asserts.

And I do not support legislation banning contraception.  Could I be any clearer?

Yes, as a matter of fact, I can.

You’ll note that I said above that we couldn’t have “outlawed contraception,” even if someone had wanted to.  The reason for this is simple.

The U.S. Supreme Court held in two cases, Griswold and Eisenstadt, that the government can’t ban contraception.  Those cases are decades old.  This is a long-settled area of law.

And Terry McAuliffe is a Washington, D.C. lawyer, so he is well aware that what he is saying is false.

You got that right.  He is knowingly lying to try and scare women to vote against me.

This is only one of the lies he is quite intentionally telling.  I’ve never seen anything like it in a campaign before, and I need your help to fight back.

I need you to forward this email to all the women you know in Virginia, and point out to them that McAuliffe is telling a blatant lie and they need to know about it for two reasons: first, if the issue is of concern to them, knowing the truth will put their mind at rest; and second, they need to know that McAuliffe isn’t making a simple mistake.  Rather, he’s intentionally lying to the women of Virginia.

When you forward this email, please ask each woman you forward it to to send it on to the other women they know in Virginia too.

Remember, there’s two reasons this email is important: first, Terry is lying about me and contraception; and second, this is not a mistake on his part, it is absolutely part of his strategy.  He is lying about numerous other issues as well, and I know you will be shocked, but the media isn’t doing much about it.

At, on the front page, is a big button called the truth about Ken.  It addresses this and other issues that Terry McAuliffe is not being truthful about. Please use this resource as you work to win last minute voters for us!  Thank you!



Consider the nature of the accusations. Cuccinelli opposes abortion, and he has never made a secret of that. On the other hand, Democrats treat abortion and any form of birth control as some sort of sacred rite. Doesn’t that make you wonder about their priorities? When Virginia’s governor has almost no power to make either abortion or birth control illegal, how foolish — how warped and sick — do we have to be to allow McAuliffe and Virginia’s Democrats to make such a thing the centerpiece of their campaign for public office?

Once upon time Democrats suggested they thought aborting a baby distasteful. So they said things like this.

Abortion should not only be safe and legal, it should be rare.

BILL CLINTON, speech at DNC, Aug. 29, 1996 (from here)

Now we cannot trust them not to make taxpayers and employers complicit in what many believe murder. In addition to permitting abortions, Democrats would force all of us to violate our religious beliefs. Democrats would use taxpayer funds to pay for abortions, and Democrats would make employers purchase insurance that provide abortion coverage for their employees.