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 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.

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on June 07, 2015 31 Comments
Ron Fournier at National Journal has written an extraordinary article, "Republicans Are Wrong About Obama's American Exceptionalism," defending Obama's vision of America as "modern and honest," as "Reagan-plus." We, of course, are neither modern nor honest; indeed, we're frightened because the country is "becoming browner and more accepting of gays and lesbians":
That is a scary thought for some people. I get it: Life is changing so quickly and the future is so uncertain that the past is a pacifier—and so politicians cling to the founding myths of the nation. And yet, Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, and other GOP presidential candidates critical of Obama's formulation are making a mistake with their retro pitch to a populace that has always looked to the future.
Setting aside his disdain for and condescension at our (bitter?) clinging, Mr. Fournier misses the fact that we don't ignore our nation's past nor do we cringe in fear at the thought of a diverse demographic make up or of some scary future (unless it's the one Obama has planned for us).  Indeed, as Americans who believe in American exceptionalism (not Obama's vision of it), we embrace these things as part of the very fabric of our great nation. I wrote the following (with revisions) back in 2010, but the basic premise remains just as true today as it was then. What do you think of when you think of America?

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on June 07, 2015 20 Comments
As conservatives, we've long claimed that Democrat policies disproportionately harm black communities and families.  And we've long been ridiculed for making such claims.  Now, however, a black pastor from Chicago's South Side is inviting Republican, as well as Democrat, presidential candidates to talk to his congregation because he feels that Democrats have not been as loyal to African Americans as they have been to Democrats. The Daily Beast reports:
[Pastor Corey] Brooks isn’t the only person to believe a great change must occur for inner cities across the country to be able to break free from the poverty and crime that envelope them. But the pastor is looking to a different source than others for that change, one that doesn’t usually count O Block among its campaign stops: Republicans. Look around the neighborhood that contains O Block—Woodlawn—and you’ll see why, Brooks said. “We have a large, disproportionate number of people who are impoverished. We have a disproportionate number of people who are incarcerated, we have a disproportionate number of people who are unemployed, the educational system has totally failed, and all of this primarily has been under Democratic regimes in our neighborhoods,” Brooks said from the office of New Beginnings Church of Chicago, his own, Wednesday morning. “So, the question for me becomes, how can our neighborhoods be doing so awful and so bad when we’re so loyal to this party who is in power? It’s a matter of them taking complete advantage of our vote.”

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on June 06, 2015 14 Comments
I saw this story earlier this week, and it's been nagging at the back of mind ever since.  Dennis Hastert allegedly engaged in serious sexual misconduct and then paid the victim millions to remain silent; that's not really defensible on a moral level, and the crimes with which he's been charged are not related to the sexual misconduct. Instead, he's "been indicted for two alleged felonies: 1) withdrawing cash from his bank accounts in amounts and patterns designed to hide the payments; and 2) lying to the FBI about the purpose of those withdrawals once they detected them and then inquired with him." As Conor Friedersdorf explains:
It isn’t illegal to withdraw money from the bank, nor to compensate someone in recognition of past harms, nor to be the victim of a blackmail scheme. So why should it be a crime to hide those actions from the U.S. government? The alarming aspect of this case is the fact that an American is ultimately being prosecuted for the crime of evading federal government surveillance. That has implications for all of us. By way of background, financial institutions are required to report all transactions of $10,000 or more to the federal government. This is meant to make it harder to commit racketeering, tax fraud, drug crimes, and other serious offenses. Hastert began paying off the person he allegedly wronged years before by withdrawing large amounts of cash. But once he realized that this was generating activity reports, he allegedly started making more withdrawals, each one less than $10,000, to avoid drawing attention to the fact that he was paying someone for his silence. Again, the payments weren’t illegal. But as it turns out, structuring financial transactions “to evade currency transaction reporting requirements” is a violation of federal law.
Although initially designed to identify criminal behavior such as drug cartel transactions, racketeering, and terrorist's money trails, the law is willfully abused by the IRS to confiscate the bank accounts of small business owners without any evidence of a crime.  The small business owner has the responsibility (and with now empty bank accounts) to prove that they are not engaged in any criminal activity.  According to Hot Air,  "the IRS used this tactic 639 in 2012 alone, with only 20% of those cases ever being prosecuted."

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:
Accessibility by WAH