Image 01 Image 03

Author: Fuzzy Slippers

Profile photo

Fuzzy Slippers

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

Follow me on Twitter @fuzislippers

The failure of the Occupy movement was epic in its crash-and-burn in the wake of "occupiers" pooping on cop cars, establishing rape safety tents, displaying food privilege, and being infested with rats and disease.  As amusing as the "up and down twinkles" and mindless, robotic repetition of speakers were, the failure of the Occupy movement is worth revisiting in light of its offshoot the #BlackLivesMatter movement. One of the reasons the left was so incensed by the TEA Party, and worried enough to come after us by any means necessary, is that we are a genuine grassroots, populist movement.  While they publicly railed against our successes and worked to ridicule and bully us into submission, they were always working away at trying to duplicate (i.e. manufacture) our efforts.

Occupy is still touted as "populist," an astonishing claim that is easily refuted in that it was a clearly top-down movement funded and organized by the usual suspects.  Likewise, we know that Ferguson was another crisis the left couldn't let go to waste, so the usual suspects hired and bused in race agitators, union members, communists, anarchists, et al.   These are all the same big players in the background, pulling the strings, and they have one goal in mind, a goal that Andrew Breitbart saw for what it was:

https://twitter.com/AndrewBreitbart/status/120953881818701824

Just when you thought the Democrat presidential primary couldn't get any more entertaining, the folks over at Salon are trying to kick off a "draft Al Gore" campaign. Seriously. From Salon's article It's time to draft Al Gore, with the subheading, "Hillary's flailing. Biden's grieving. Bernie's a longshot. Gore bridges the party's establishment, progressives":
Sure, the GOP field is studded with unserious candidates, but they still have a relatively deep bench of big-state governors and prominent senators. To win, therefore, the Democrats need a nationally viable candidate. Enter Al Gore: the one person on the left, apart from Clinton and Biden, with the cachet to bridge the establishment and progressive wings of the party. Here are 10 reasons why a Gore candidacy makes sense, both for the Democratic Party and the country.
Let's look at these ten reasons:

The Family Leadership Summit in Iowa on Saturday was a veritable who's who of 2016 GOP presidential candidates including Dr. Ben Carson, Senator Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, Governor Mike Huckabee, Governor Bobby Jindal, Senator Marco Rubio, Governor Rick Perry, Senator Rick Santorum, Donald Trump, and Governor Scott Walker. I like the one-on-one sit down interview format, and I think Frank Luntz does a great job both interacting with the audience and asking key questions.  According to Luntz, the candidates were "unable to rely on a Teleprompter or note cards" and as such "the presidential hopefuls display their impromptu speaking skills."  Not only did Luntz ask questions of the candidates, but the audience did, as well. Donald Trump's comments about John McCain have taken center stage, but there were many great moments throughout the day.  You can catch all ten full interviews of the attending presidential candidates here.

Following the Chattanooga terror attack, the media seems confused about what had happened or at least why it had happened. Ted Cruz, however, experiences no such confusion and issued a powerful statement.
“In the wake of this vicious attack on our nation we need to rid ourselves of two dangerous delusions, first and foremost that a ‘lone gunman’–as President Obama described the shooter–is somehow isolated from the larger threat of radical Islamic terrorism. In the modern world, no one acts in isolation. Through social media ISIS, al Qaida, and other groups are infiltrating our nation with impunity while our government will not even admit that radical Islamic terrorism is a problem. “The second delusion is that this attack is somehow isolated from previous episodes, notably those in Little Rock, Arkansas and Fort Hood, Texas, in 2009—both of which were attacks on American military facilities. The Obama administration was woefully reluctant to call either an act of radical Islamic terrorism, instead suggesting ‘workplace violence’ as a justification for the killings. Finally, after years of effort, the victims of Fort Hood were properly recognized as victims of attacks by foreign terrorists when they received Purple Hearts on April 15, 2015. Likewise, the victim of the Little Rock attack received a Purple Heart on July 1, 2015.

With news this morning of a fifth victim of the Chattanooga terror attack, we mourn four fallen Marines and one fallen Sailor: Lance Cpl. Squire "Skip" K. Wells, Gunnery Sgt. Thomas J. Sullivan, Staff Sgt. David A. Wyatt, Sgt. Carson A. Homquist, and Petty Officer 2nd Class Randall Smith. While we mourn, the media is puzzling over what the motive might possibly be for Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, a Muslim from Kuwait who became a naturalized American citizen and has recently made trips to the Middle East from which he came back "changed," to attack a military recruitment center. If this type of thing hadn't happened before, we might be more willing to think this a mystery.  But as Streiff points out, this type of thing has happened before:

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.”

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:

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.

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.

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;

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.