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 June 06, 2015 9 Comments
From physical attacks, to vandalism, to verbal attacks on those walking while Jewish, Europe has seen a rise in anti-Semitism in recent years. So much so, that a resolution condemning the rising tide of anti-Semitism in Europe passed the Senate by unanimous vote on Thursday.
The resolution, authored by Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) and co-sponsored by 60 other senators encouraged “greater cooperation with the European governments, in the European Union, and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe in preventing and responding to antisemitism.” “In light of the rise of antisemitism in Europe, this resolution calls on European governments to not only stand against antisemitism, but to work to end it,” said Sen. Menendez, applauding the unanimous passage of the bill.
In the UK, former Prime Minister Tony Blair has been appointed to head the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation: Nicholas Watt of The Guardian reports:
Tony Blair is to take on a new role tackling antisemitism by assuming the chairmanship of a pan-European body that campaigns for stronger laws against extremism across the continent. The British former prime minister has been appointed as chairman of the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation a week after he announced that he would stand down as the envoy of the quartet on the Middle East. In an article for the Times, in which he sets out his plans for his new role, Blair says that he will campaign against the abuse of religions which has become a “mask behind which those bent on death and destruction all too often hide”.

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on June 05, 2015 20 Comments
With the media busy normalizing socialism for Bernie Sanders, it's no wonder that few are reporting on his latest plan to spend $5.5 billion to employ a million young people. Bloomberg has the details:
The Employ Young Americans Now Act is the sort of legislation that would have struggled even in a Democratic Congress. In a Capitol controlled by Republicans, it might as well propose taxing churches to pay for sex reassignment surgeries on a moon base. The legislation, introduced by Michigan Representative John Conyers, would create a $5.5 billion fund, $4 billion earmarked for the employment of people between 16 and 24, $1.5 billion for job training grants. There are no pay-fors. It would ask a Congress that is dead-set against "big government" to employ people, with the help of big government.

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on June 04, 2015 22 Comments
Earlier this year, Alabama became a focal point in the ongoing resistance in some states to legalizing gay "marriage" (read about it here and here).  Watch a PBSNewshour clip that summarizes the issue (and the professor interviewed try to downplay the unpopularity of gay "marriage" in Alabama): Much of the debate centered on the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court who was and is adamantly opposed to federal government intervention in states' rights regarding gay "marriage," but Chief Justice Moore is not the only Alabamian who is taking actual steps to address their objections. The Alabama state legislature has drafted a bill that moves to replace marriage licenses with contracts. Hot Air reports:
Assuming a pending bill in Alabama makes it all the way into law, we’re about to see an unusual test case in the marriage wars. Rather than arguing over the definition of marriage for the purposes of issuing licenses, the Heart of Dixie is moving to do away with marriage licenses entirely and replace them with contracts.

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on June 03, 2015 8 Comments
When he withdrew troops from Iraq, Obama himself proclaimed, "we are leaving behind a sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq."  That was in 2011.  Flash forward to now, and Iraq is none of those things; indeed, Iraq is now an ISIS strong-hold, part of their declared caliphate. Throughout Obama's presidency, we've heard him blame President Bush for everything from the still-flailing economy to the rise of ISIS.  His supporters within the media have ensured that this message is the one that Americans hear most often, and for (too many) years, (far too many) Americans have believed what they were told. No longer. A CNN poll found that, for the first time, more Americans blame Obama than President Bush for the instability in Iraq:

[N]early the same percent of people blame President Barack Obama's policies for the current situation in Iraq as those who hold President George W. Bush responsible, the survey showed.

Overall, 44% say they blame Obama's policies for the problems in Iraq and 43% blame Bush; 11% say both are equally responsible.

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on June 03, 2015 31 Comments
Hillary is putting the majority of her campaign eggs in one basket, and that may prove to be a mistake.  As I've noted previously, she is banking on her potentially historic role as the first woman president to clear the way for the nomination.  Indeed, when asked about her achievements, her supporters can't name any and fall back on the fact that she's a woman (and a Democrat). Running on her gender is proving more challenging than her team supposed.  Unable to attract a measly 125 women to her recent "women only" event, Team Hillary decided to allow men to attend.  The New York Post reports:
Hillary Clinton had trouble attracting high-powered women to a New York talk hosted by Silda Wall Spitzer two weeks before her campaign officially kicks off. Sources said that after ticket sales fizzled for an intimate, $2,700-per-person, “just for women” meeting on Monday, the event was thrown open to men at the 11th hour, and the deadline extended to buy tickets. The “Conversation With Hillary Clinton” event at Midtown law firm Akin Gump was originally aiming to attract 125 women. An email invitation seen by Page Six said the event is “just for women.” But by Friday, “They’d only sold 50 tickets, so they threw it open to men,” a source said. “Ticket sales were supposed to close at 10 a.m. Sunday, but the hostesses were working the phones and pushed the deadline till Monday.”

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on June 01, 2015 28 Comments
The history of the Lifeline (aka Obamaphone) program is often cited by progressives as a Republican scheme, and in some ways, it is.  As Daniel Greenfield explains:
At the same time it should be recognized that the roots of this monstrosity began under Bush when the [Universal Service Fund] USF was used to subsidize cell phones. The original purpose of the USF was to provide landline access to rural communities. That made sense because people who are 40 miles away from help need a lifeline. Then the ‘lifeline’ became a way for every housing project resident, who has a cop downstairs, to get a free cell phone. That’s why the lefty howls of “It’s a ReaganPhone” are lie. This was never supposed to mean free cell phones with every welfare check. But then it was and did.
This is one reason that I oppose almost all such federal programs; over time, they become bloated, wasteful, abused "rights" that no longer even remotely resemble the original program or its intent. Now, Obama's FCC plans to take the Obamaphone program to the next level: the internet.

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on May 31, 2015 23 Comments
Obama has famously (infamously?) long been enamored of the idea of fundamentally transforming America, and one of the foundational aspects of American culture that he has in his sights is the Second Amendment and Americans' firmly held belief in their right to keep and bear arms. His former attorney general, Eric Holder, went so far as to proclaim—back in the 1990's—that "we really need to brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way." At least he understood that it's the American people who resist infringement of this right.  The administration has tried to pass gun control legislation, most notably in the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings, but such attempts fail. Completing missing the fact that Americans are strongly supportive of their right to bear arms, Obama and his assortment of anti-Second Amendment zealots blame the NRA:
“But the power of NRA and the gun lobby in Congress is formidable,” Obama said. “And you know, we’re going to keep chipping away at this, but until you get intense public demands for this, it’s probably not going to happen because some special interests and lobbyists in Washington are really, really strong and their membership feels very intensely about the issue. Whereas the general public is concerned about it, but doesn’t make it their top priority.”
He also recognizes that Congress—even when Democrats held supermajorities in both houses—is unable to pass the sort of sweeping gun control legislation he seeks.  In his 2014 State of the Union address, he promised gun control "with or without Congress," and it seems he's working on multiple fronts to make that happen. From taxing bullets, to gun locks, to gun recalls / buyback programs, to targeting children's pop-tarts and otherwise controlling the narrative about guns, Obama and other anti-Second Amendment advocates are working overtime in their frantic bid to disarm the American people.

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on May 31, 2015 13 Comments
While presented as a means to protect drinking water and "hold[ing] polluters accountable," the Obama administration's latest EPA rule, Waters of the United States, is rather more far-reaching than many conservatives like. According to the document (full text embedded below), the rule itself is not intended as regulatory (that probably comes later), but is instead "a definitional rule that clarifies the scope of the 'waters of the United States' . . . ."  Essentially, almost all fresh water, including that in "water-filled depressions," is now under the federal government's purview and subject to government oversight and regulation. Politico reports:
On its face, the Waters of the United States rule is largely a technical document, defining which rivers, streams, lakes and marshes fall under the jurisdiction of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers. But opponents condemn it as a massive power grab by Washington, saying it will give bureaucrats carte blanche to swoop in and penalize landowners every time a cow walks through a ditch. . . . "This rule will provide the clarity and certainty businesses and industry need about which waters are protected by the Clean Water Act, and it will ensure polluters who knowingly threaten our waters can be held accountable,” Obama said in a statement after the EPA released a final version of the regulation. “My administration has made historic commitments to clean water, from restoring iconic watersheds like the Chesapeake Bay and the Great Lakes to preserving more than a thousand miles of rivers and other waters for future generations. With today’s rule, we take another step towards protecting the waters that belong to all of us.”
Obama's emphasis is on safety and clean water; the rule, however, greatly expands the definition of what waters "belong to us all," including that on privately-owned property.

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on May 30, 2015 17 Comments
Chris Christie is the first of the potential GOP presidential candidates who first embraced Common Core to distance himself from it.  According to New Jersey.com:
Navigating New Jersey interests and a likely presidential campaign, Gov. Chris Christie on Thursday proposed dropping national Common Core education standards he once supported but have since become a lightening rod issue for Republican voters. The governor, speaking at Burlington County College in Pemberton, declared Common Core is "simply not working." Christie wants to assemble a team to develop a state-based group to develop "new standards right here in New Jersey, not 200 miles away on the banks of the Potomac River."
That Common Core doesn't work—can't work—is no surprise to those of us who oppose it, but it is interesting to see that Christie has changed his tune as he struggles to rebuild his reputation with conservatives.   When he was pushing Common Core in New Jersey, Christie lashed out at its opponents:
“We are doing Common Core in New Jersey and we’re going to continue,” Christie said in 2013. “And this is one of those areas where I have agreed more with the president than not. I think part of the Republican opposition you see in some corners in Congress is a reaction, that knee-jerk reaction that is happening in Washington right now, that if the president likes something the Republicans in Congress don’t. If the Republicans in Congress like something, the president doesn’t.”
While he wasn't as insulting as Jeb Bush has been about Common Core's opponents, he was dismissive and unwilling to hear the case against Common Core.  Examples such as children failing Common Core math problems because their numbers weren't "friendly" enough, the arguments against Common Core's "dumbing down of standards," and theoretical arguments concerning problems with Common Core's "compartmental learning" fell on deaf ears.

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on May 29, 2015 36 Comments
While we await the Supreme Court decision regarding federal vs. state subsidies, Republicans can't decide if they want the subsidies upheld or struck down.  Indeed, some believe that upholding them will be best for Republicans (note, not best for America or Americans).  Sharyl Attkisson reports:
It would theoretically be a victory for Republicans who oppose Obamacare: Americans would likely find the health care law less palatable if tax money isn’t helping pay for their mandatory policies. They would suddenly be exposed to the reality faced by those who aren’t getting subsidies: insurance may cost more, come with higher deductibles, and provide less coverage. But some Congressional Republicans are more worried about winning the Supreme Court case than losing it. “There are Republicans right now scared to death that we’re going to win,” says one Republican leader who did not want to be quoted by name. “They’re in meetings right now planning ways to revive the subsidies if the [Supreme] Court strikes them down.”
They are "scared to death" because they are worried the Democratic and media narratives would place the blame on Republicans for the loss of subsidies by those who've purchased ObamaCare through the federal exchanges.  Attkisson explains:

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on May 27, 2015 30 Comments
I like a lot of what Rand Paul has to say; I'm on board with limited Constitutional government, auditing the Fed, thoughtful deregulation, and major tax reform.  When it comes to foreign policy and America's place in the world, however, I can't think of another Republican with whom I disagree more.  (Except maybe his father.) And I'm not alone.  Rand has been trying to affirm his strength on national security precisely because there are a lot GOP primary voters who do not share his isolationist leanings.  As Kemberlee noted in September of last year, Rand's "I'm neither an isolationist nor an interventionist" may not have appeal . . .  to either side. His rhetoric has changed rather dramatically from last fall, however.  Now he's going so far as to argue that Republican hawks "created" ISIS.  This statement is getting a lot of attention, and for good reason: it's an amazing and strange thing to say.  Watch:

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on May 26, 2015 21 Comments
We've recently seen riots in Ferguson and Baltimore, and there are growing concerns that Cleveland will be the next city to become embroiled in riots.  As we learn about (relatively well-) paid protesters and watch the usual parade of race grievance mongers, one thing has become quite clear:  the left has decided that violent riots are a viable tool for change. According to Jonathan Chait in New York Magazine:
The recent spate of protests against police brutality have changed the way the left thinks about rioting. The old liberal idea, which distinguished between peaceful protests (good) and rioting (bad), has given way to a more radical analysis. “Riots work,” insists George Ciccariello-Maher in Salon. “But despite the obviousness of the point, an entire chorus of media, police, and self-appointed community leaders continue to try to convince us otherwise, hammering into our heads a narrative of a nonviolence that has never worked on its own, based on a mythical understanding of the Civil Rights Movement.” Vox’s German Lopez, while acknowledging the downside of random violence, argues, “Riots can lead to real, substantial change.” In Rolling Stone, Jesse Myerson asserts, “the historical pedigree of property destruction as a tactic of resistance is long and frequently effective.” Darlena Cunha, writing in Time, asks, “Is rioting so wrong?” and proceeds to answer her own question in the negative.

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on May 24, 2015 18 Comments
A couple of interesting polls came out this week that raise some equally interesting questions about conservatism, American values, and American culture and society.  One Gallup poll states that Americans greatly overestimate the percentage of Americans who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.
The American public estimates on average that 23% of Americans are gay or lesbian, little changed from Americans' 25% estimate in 2011, and only slightly higher than separate 2002 estimates of the gay and lesbian population. These estimates are many times higher than the 3.8% of the adult population who identified themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender in Gallup Daily tracking in the first four months of this year. The stability of these estimates over time contrasts with the major shifts in Americans' attitudes about the morality and legality of gay and lesbian relations in the past two decades. Whereas 38% of Americans said gay and lesbian relations were morally acceptable in 2002, that number has risen to 63% today. And while 35% of Americans favored legalized same-sex marriage in 1999, 60% favor it today.
It might come as a surprise that only 3.8% of the American population identify as LGBT.  It did to me.  We are inundated with news stories and manufactured outrage from the left to such a degree that it really seemed that we were transforming our laws, interpretation of our Constitution, and our religious beliefs for a significant portion of the population.  But no. Not that the tiny percentage makes any real difference in our own beliefs about states' rights, gay "marriage," and the assault on Judeo-Christian values, but the difference between our perception and reality speaks volumes about the effectiveness of the progressive far left. They are so effective at both creating false impressions and pushing their ideology, in fact, that the results are measurable.  According to another Gallup poll, the number of people identifying their social values as liberal matches those who identify their social values as conservative for the first time.

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on May 24, 2015 15 Comments
As the GOP field of candidates gets larger and more ideologically diverse, conservatives work toward a defining message about their brand of conservatism.  The latest incarnation is an apparent rebranding of the "compassionate conservatism" most closely associated with President George W. Bush. Not only is the term itself objectionable in its implication that conservatism is not compassionate, but it is equally objectionable in practice.  From compassionate conservatism we notably got No Child Left Behind and (then and still unfunded) Medicare Part D.  Expanding government and increasing spending to provide, expand, and otherwise "reform" an ever-growing number of federal programs seems to undermine fundamental principles of conservatism. Rather than working to significantly shrink or even eradicate giant social welfare programs, "compassionate" conservatism worked to "reform" them at huge cost to the American tax payer. And therein lies the problem for many conservatives who might agree that a safety net is viable, even necessary, but who draw the line at a welfare state that goes well beyond being a temporary safety net for those in need to a generational morass from which few ever escape. Compassionate conservatism was, in essence, an attempt to apply conservative principles to social engineering goals, a means of reforming the welfare state and "helping the poor" via central planning.  The central planning itself, however, was supposed to be rooted in fiscally conservative principles, but the underlying precept was that big government is the answer . . . no matter the question.

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on May 16, 2015 24 Comments
The Clinton Foundation is having a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad couple of months.  There were the pay to play accusations from Haiti, the numerous other pay to play "coincidences," the rather cozy relationship with "journalist" donor (and former employee) George Stephanopoulos, reports of $30 million from books and speeches in 16 months, and even the email controversy is being linked to the Foundation as part of "one big, hairy deal." It doesn't end there.  Jonathan Allen at Vox reports that in a Friday afternoon Clinton financial disclosure "news dump" is evidence that Hillary "personally took money from companies that sought to influence her":
During Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, Corning lobbied the department on a variety of trade issues, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The company has donated between $100,000 and $250,000 to her family's foundation. And, last July, when it was clear that Clinton would again seek the presidency in 2016, Corning coughed up a $225,500 honorarium for Clinton to speak.

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on May 16, 2015 16 Comments
Every once in a while, we see stories about public schools banning the American flag from its students' bicycles and automobiles.  Every time the community pushes back against this sort of unreasonable policy, the policy suddenly changes, and the schools' representatives make a statement declaring the flag sacred, the school patriotic, and the intent of the flag ban benign or even beneficent. A South Carolina high school recently had such an epiphany after banning one of its students from flying the American and POW/MIA flags on his truck:
Peyton Robinson, a senior at York Comprehensive High School in York, S.C., has been driving his truck around our end of York County with two large flags attached to the bed – an American flag and one that honors military servicemen and women who have been taken as POWs (prisoners of war) or are MIA (missing in action). On Wednesday, May 13, he was pulled from class and sent to meet an administrator in the parking lot, where he discovered his flags had been removed and placed in the bed of his truck.  He was told by school officials, “Do not return to school with these flags.”
According to Peyton's Instagram post, the school administrators told him that "people had complained," but when the school issued its statement, they said the ban was due to "safety concerns."  Apparently, the flag was a driving hazard that the public high school was uniquely qualified to address.

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on May 10, 2015 16 Comments
Lindsey Graham is soon to join the GOP primary field that so far (officially) consists of Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, and Mike Huckabee.  According to Fox News,
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham plans to announce his presidential campaign on June 1, GOP sources tell Fox News. Graham, a three-term senator from South Carolina, is known as a foreign policy hawk in Congress. Though he is considered a long shot -- and ranks near the bottom in recent polls of declared and potential Republican presidential candidates -- Graham could help drive the debate on national security among a GOP field that includes candidates who sharply question policies ranging from drone strikes to NSA surveillance.
While it's true that Graham's views on national security are more palatable to the conservative base than (say) Rand Paul's, there are areas that may not be reconcilable.  Graham is trying to establish himself not as the squishy "RINO" (Republican in Name Only) but as the "realist" in the field who will work in bipartisan fashion to accomplish his agenda.  It seems reasonable, in that case, to recall some of his bipartisan efforts in recent years: Remember the "Year of Immigration Reform"?  That was 2013, in case you missed it.  The Gang of Eight is often evoked in discussion of Marco Rubio's amnesty flip-flop, but it's worth remembering that Rubio was not the only Republican member.  Lindsey Graham was right there, effectively leading the GOP side:   "We're going to be aggressive in marketing the bill. This is an all hands on deck approach."
Accessibility by WAH