Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Author: Fuzzy Slippers

Profile photo

Fuzzy Slippers

I am a constitutional conservative, a writer, and an editor.

Follow me on Twitter @fuzislippers

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on July 12, 2015 14 Comments
The Obama EPA's "Waters of the U. S." power grab has come under a lot of scrutiny and resistance, and rightly so. In addition to citizen outrage and push back from Congress, the EPA is now facing two lawsuits filed by the Attorneys General of 16 states. Rod Kackley reports:
Texas and 15 other states filed suit to block the new “navigable waters” rule as soon as it was published. The EPA legal eagles have not one lawsuit to worry about, but two. Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi have filed suit in Houston. Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming have filed suit in a separate case to have the rule overturned. “The EPA’s new water rule is not about clean water — it’s about power,” Paxton said. “This sweeping new rule is a blatant overstep of federal authority and could have a devastating effect on virtually any property owner, from farmers to ranchers to small businesses.” Paxton said the rule violates the U.S. Constitution, federal law and U.S. Supreme Court precedent, and places costly burdens on landowners in Texas.

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on July 12, 2015 4 Comments
New York's unpopular SAFE Act takes another hit this week as Cuomo suspends a plan to require background checks for the purchase of ammunition.  The New York Times reports:

The decision, which the administration did not publicize, was the result of an unusual deal the governor’s office reached with the State Senate’s Republican majority. The Senate’s Democratic minority and the speaker of the State Assembly condemned the move.

The background-check system was approved as part of the Safe Act, the set of tough gun control measures that Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat, persuaded lawmakers to pass in January 2013, shortly after the mass school shooting in Newtown, Conn.

Apparently, the suspension is based on the lack of an acceptable database:

On Friday, a top aide to Mr. Cuomo signed a memorandum of understanding suspending the portion of the Safe Act related to the background checks. The memorandum, citing “the lack of adequate technology,” said the database “cannot be established and/or function in the manner originally intended at this time.”

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on July 12, 2015 31 Comments
With transgender issues in the spotlight following the recent revelation by Caitlyn (formerly Bruce) Jenner, it's unsurprising to learn that a state like Oregon would support state-subsidized sex change operations. What is surprising to many, including to Oregon voters who did not get a chance to vote on this measure, is that these subsidized sex change operations are now available to 15-year-olds . . . without parental knowledge or consent. From Fox News:
The list of things 15-year-olds are not legally allowed to do in Oregon is long: Drive, smoke, donate blood, get a tattoo -- even go to a tanning bed. But, under a first-in-the-nation policy quietly enacted in January that many parents are only now finding out about, 15-year-olds are now allowed to get a sex-change operation. Many residents are stunned to learn they can do it without parental notification -- and the state will even pay for it through its Medicaid program, the Oregon Health Plan.

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on July 11, 2015 17 Comments
Constitutional carry is the means by which Americans are pushing back against government interference with their right to bear arms.  By eliminating the permitting process, Maine has passed a constitutional carry law that makes it legal for residents to carry concealed without a permit. Reuters reports:
Maine will allow gun owners to carry concealed weapons without a permit, a practice called "constitutional carry" by Second Amendment advocates, under a bill signed into law on Wednesday by Republican Governor Paul LePage. The measure will make Maine the fifth state to pass a law legalizing the carrying of a handgun, either openly or concealed, without the requirement of a government permit. Maine joins Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming and Kansas in voting to allow the practice, according to National Rifle Association spokesman Lars Dalseide. Vermont has never required a permit. Arkansas and Montana also allow more limited forms of constitutional carry.

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on July 04, 2015 20 Comments
Obama's USDA is urging Americans to grill fruit this July Fourth instead of the traditional hamburgers, hotdogs, and other assorted meats.  It is estimated that Americans consume about 150 million hotdogs, 700 million pounds of chicken, and 190 million pounds of red meat and pork on the Fourth of July; your government would like to change that. From The Washington Examiner:
Forget hamburgers and hotdogs — the U.S. Department of Agriculture is pushing people to grill up pineapple slices, peaches, nectarines and other fruit for their big July 4th feast. . . .  If pineapples aren't your thing, you can try other fruit. "For something sweet, toss halved peaches or nectarines on the grill and sprinkle with cinnamon," USDA suggested. If you don't want to mess with big, sloppy pieces of fruit, you can cut them into smaller pieces. "Try grilled fruit kabobs!" USDA ventured. USDA hosted a "Twitter party" this week to talk about creative, healthy ways to use their grills. "Have you tried grilled romaine, avocado, or pineapple?" USDA asked.

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on July 04, 2015 5 Comments
Today marks not only United States' independence but also the anniversary of the 1976 Israeli special forces raid that freed more than 100 Israeli hostages held by the PLO in Entebbe, Uganda. As Professor Jacobson noted in 2010, it was in this raid that Prime Minister Netanyhu, then a graduate student studying in the US, lost his brother Yonatan who had led the raid and secured the safety of all but three of the hostages and all of the Israeli operatives under his command.  A truly astonishing accomplishment.  Be sure to check out the video of the heroes of Entebbe 35 years later included in the prof's 2011 post. Following is the Military Channel's documentary on the Entebbe raid and is well worth watching all the way through:

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on June 28, 2015 20 Comments
I don't know about you, but I need some good news this week.  And there is a happy crumb to report: the House Appropriations Committee has rejected an amendment that would allow the CDC to "study the underlying causes of gun violence" (not that guns are violent in and of themselves, but you know the drill). In doing so, House Republicans stopped Democrats from funding Obama-directed CDC research designed as subterfuge for laying the foundation of an attack on our Second Amendment rights.  Instead of turning gun control into a national health issue, Obama and his bureaucrat cronies are back to having to fight the Second Amendment on emotional pleas and using victims as political pawns. Politico reports:
The House Appropriations Committee on Tuesday rejected, 19-32, an amendment from top Democratic appropriator Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) that would allow the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to study the underlying causes of gun violence.
The CDC hasn’t done any such research since 1996, when the National Rifle Association accused it of trying to use science to promote gun control. Congress threatened to totally defund the agency if the work continued, and appropriators ever since have included a prohibition on funding that kind of research with spending bills.
A House GOP staffer said the existing provision technically doesn’t bar gun-violence research. Rather, it blocks any gun-control advocacy by the CDC. However, Republicans would consider any CDC findings that recommend limitations on guns to be gun-control advocacy.

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on June 28, 2015 22 Comments
Ted Cruz is not at all happy with the recent Supreme Court decisions regarding ObamaCare subsidies and gay marriage, and  his solution is bound to be controversial. He's proposing a constitutional amendment that would make the Supreme Court justices subject to judicial-retention elections. Here's his tweet about it: He also wrote a lengthy piece for The National Review in which he argues that the Supreme Court has rendered decisions that are lawless examples of judicial activism and that undermine the Court's very legitimacy.  Cruz writes:
The Framers of our Constitution, despite their foresight and wisdom, did not anticipate judicial tyranny on this scale. The Constitution explicitly provides that justices “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,” and this is a standard they are not remotely meeting. The Framers thought Congress’s “power of instituting impeachments,” as Alexander Hamilton argued in the Federalist Papers, would be an “important constitutional check” on the judicial branch and would provide “a complete security” against the justices’ “deliberate usurpations of the authority of the legislature.”

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on June 27, 2015 14 Comments
Following the surreal decision of the Supreme Court regarding ObamaCare subsidies, Texas Representative Brian Babin (R) wants to ensure that the justices take full advantage of the law they just contorted in order to save it.  Picking up Justice Scalia's comment that the decision effectively turns ObamaCare into SCOTUScare, Babin has introduced a bill that requires Supreme Court justices to sign up for ObamaCare. Watch: From Babin's website:
U.S. Representative Brian Babin (TX-36) issued the following statement today after introducing the SCOTUScare Act (H.R. 2905), which finally eliminates their exemption and requires all U.S. Supreme Court Justices and their employees to sign up for Obamacare:

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on June 22, 2015 14 Comments
Self-described socialist and Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has a record of being remarkably supportive of the Second Amendment.  (Remarkable because he's a favorite among progressives.)   Considering the leftward movement of the Democratic party and their avid support for all sorts of gun control, this could be a potential problem for Sanders. In the wake of the Charleston shootings, Sanders was asked about gun control, and despite the president's latest push, he was very cautious in his response.  CNN reports:

Two days after a white man walked into a historically black church in Charleston, South Carolina, and killed nine people, the Vermont senator and presidential candidate took a cautious approach on gun control Friday when speaking with reporters after an event in Las Vegas.

"I think the people of Vermont understand that guns in Vermont are different than guns in Chicago or guns in Los Angeles," Sanders said, telling the assembled journalists that he thinks "it is wrong" when people are "in some cases suicidal and in some cases homicidal" are "still being able to purchase guns."

Sanders, saying his home state of Vermont has "zero gun control," acknowledged that different parts of the country have different outlooks on guns.

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on June 21, 2015 49 Comments
The question of whether or not the Charleston shooting was an act of terrorism is an intriguing one.  Typically, we think of terrorism as it relates to clear terrorist attacks perpetrated by known terrorist groups like al Qaeda:  9/11, the Boston bombing, and the Fort Hood terrorist attack.  Or we think of it as it relates to nationalist groups who have engaged in violent acts against civilians such as the IRA, PLO, or FALN. When mass violent acts occur on our own soil by our own citizens—those unaffiliated with accepted terrorist groups, we don't tend to label them terrorism.  I'm thinking here of school shootings, abortion bombings, movie theater shootings, and the like.  Only when homegrown terrorists engage in acts against the government do most of us agree that it's terrorism (I'm thinking here of Timothy McVeigh and the Weather Underground). So why are we now considering whether or not the Charleston shooter was a terrorist?  If we don't think of the Sandy Hook shooter as a terrorist, why would we think of this shooter as a terrorist?  Does it become terrorism because of the race of the shooter and his victims?  That seems to be the argument.

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on June 20, 2015 19 Comments
Earlier this year, Rasmussen released a poll showing that only 31% of Americans trust the IRS to enforce tax laws fairly.  Given the targeting of conservatives, reports of refunds going to illegals who didn't pay taxes, and the sharing of confidential tax payer information with the White House, it's surprising the percentage is that high. It seems clear that there is growing dissatisfaction with the IRS and with the nation's ridiculously complex tax laws.  At 74,608 pages, the U. S. tax code is both ponderous and confusing. With all of the new taxes buried in ObamaCare alone, the tax code has grown by nearly 3,000 pages since 2010. In response to all of this, Americans are more ready than ever for substantial tax reform, and hearing the call, Rand Paul released a new video outlining his new tax plan that appears to be a hybrid of the fair tax and the flat tax. Here's the statement from his website:
I stand with Rand in his fight to defeat the Washington Machine and drive a stake through the heart of the IRS by: Ending the workers tax: This plan will end the FICA payroll tax, the largest tax for many working Americans. It goes to zero. Eliminating the headaches and complications in filing federal taxes by allowing every taxpayer to file a simple, one-page return with a low and fair tax rate of 14.5%, saving American families over $2 TRILLION in the first 10 years;

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on June 20, 2015 24 Comments
There has been a lot of speculation, including by me, about what the Republican-controlled Congress will do should the Supreme Court rule against Obama in King v. Burwell.  Should the Court strike down federal subsidies, Republicans will need to have a plan in place to address this decision as it impacts those who are currently receiving subsidies for ObamaCare from the federal exchange because their state did not set up a state exchange. Republicans are still talking about a "fix" but are now stressing that it is to be "transitional" rather than permanent.  According to Bloomberg:
[Representative Dennis Ross of Florida] added, “There’s a strong consensus in that room” that the subsidies must be continued in some form “until Republicans can substantively change the law.” Participants at Wednesday’s closed-door meeting said key aspects of a transition plan were presented to lawmakers by Ryan, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price of Georgia and Education and Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline of Minnesota. Along with immediate repeal of the law’s individual and employer mandates, the plan would give states the option to build their own insurance exchanges and offer subsidies, using federal money. Alternatively, people in states affected by the ruling would receive a subsidy to purchase an insurance plan either from healthcare.gov or on the open market.

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on June 15, 2015 22 Comments
Here at LI, we've covered numerous aspects of ObamaCare from its questionable passage to legal challenges to various executive branch "tweaks" and shady exemptions to the devastating effects the law has had on millions of Americans. Now, apparently, the executive branch is going above and beyond the law in its efforts to keep the unpopular law afloat despite ample evidence that it's a disaster. Obama has repeatedly shown that he doesn't think he needs Congress' approval to change the law, and now he's being accused of funding parts of it without Congressional appropriations.  Funds set aside specifically for tax refunds owed to hard-working Americans are being used to subsidize the Basic Health Program associated with ObamaCare.  According to Paige Winfield Cunningham:
Leading Republicans are charging that the Obama administration is illegally funding yet another part of Obamacare, in addition to the part of the healthcare law over which House Republicans are already suing. Their latest criticism centers on the Affordable Care Act's basic health program, an optional program for states that started this year, in which low-income residents can get subsidized, state-contracted health plans instead of buying them through the new online marketplaces. The administration is funding the program illegally by using a pot of IRS money used for tax refunds, says Rep. Peter Roskam, R-Ill., who leads oversight efforts on the House Ways and Means Committee.

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on June 14, 2015 18 Comments
Love him, hate him, or feel ambivalent toward him, Mitt Romney was "right about everything," and that is standing him in good stead with the GOP.  Indeed, Politico is reporting that Romney is "working to rid the GOP presidential primary of the mayhem that marked his own race":
Mitt Romney is working with an unlikely collaborator — Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire casino mogul who bankrolled Newt Gingrich’s 2012 campaign — in the hopes of ensuring that the GOP primary produces a mainstream conservative without any of the mayhem that marked his own race. The two, who speak monthly, aim to convince the wealthy contributors bankrolling various candidates to work together to avoid the kind of primary election chaos that Romney believes laid the seeds for his defeat in 2012. The former Massachusetts governor is also considering endorsing a candidate to achieve his goal. They’re unmistakable signs of Romney’s newly assertive role in the Republican Party but also of his determination to guarantee the GOP an unbloodied nominee with broad-based appeal.

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on June 14, 2015 17 Comments
As conservatives, we have a wide selection of candidates to consider in the 2016 Republican primary, and sometimes, these candidates say things that either they (and we) wish they hadn't said or that leave us scratching our head in wonder.  I thought I'd post a few of the things that I've read about over the past week or so that made me go "hmmm." Lindsey Graham, noted bachelor, promises a "rotating First Lady."  From the Daily Mail interview with Graham:

There's an important question nagging Lindsey Graham as [he] tries to become the first bachelor in White House since Woodrow Wilson.

Who would be his first lady?

Thinking it over, the Republican senator told Daily Mail Online: 'Well, I've got a sister, she could play that role if necessary.'

Chuckling, he added: 'I've got a lot of friends. We'll have a rotating first lady.'

According to Politico, Graham further claims that he is "not defective" before (rightly) noting that marriage is not a Constitutional prerequisite to the presidency.

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on June 13, 2015 43 Comments
In July 2013, Obama's "Department of Housing and Urban Development [created a] regulation broadening the obligation of recipients of federal aid to 'affirmatively further fair housing'."  Translation: in order for cities and states to continue receiving federal aid, they must begin diversification of their wealthier suburbs and neighborhoods by building Section 8 government housing in these areas.
Stanley Kurtz at The Corner compared the HUD regulation proposal to San Francisco's "Plan Bay Area" initiative:
In the face of heated public protest, on July 18, two local agencies in metropolitan San Francisco approved “Plan Bay Area,” a region-wide blueprint designed to control development in the nine-county, 101-town region around San Francisco for the next 30 years. The creation of a region-wide development plan–although it flies in the face of America’s core democratic commitment to local control–is mandated by California’s SB 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008. The ostensible purpose of this law is to combat global warming through the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. That is supposedly why California’s legislature empowered regional planning commissions to override local governments and press development away from suburbs into densely-packed urban areas. In fact, the reduction of greenhouse gases (which Plan Bay Area does little to secure) largely serves as a pretext for undercutting the political and economic independence of California suburbs.

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on June 13, 2015 9 Comments
As a direct result of Obama's amateurish, quasi-idealistic, and completely ideological failings in Iraq, we will almost certainly end up sending ground troops back in order to undo the damage wrought by the failed Obama doctrine. Obama knows this, of course, and his plan is to run out the clock rather than make the decision that needs to be—and will be—made by the next president.  The National Journal reports:
On using U.S. combat troops? In a detailed interview with The Atlantic, Obama made his view clear. "If they are not willing to fight for the security of their country, we cannot do that for them," he said, but added that he's committed to training Iraqis over a "multi-year" period. How many, exactly, is "multi?" State Department official and ISIS expert Brett McGurk laid that out on NPR: "It's a three-year campaign to degrade the organization." Three years marked from mid-2014, of course, falls after Jan. 20, 2017, the date Obama leaves office. Translation: The strategy is to avoid sending ground troops for the remainder of his term. So stop asking.
Accessibility by WAH