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

Protesters at President Trump's inauguration became violent, setting fires, vandalizing property, and antagonizing—even injuring—law enforcement officers.  The indictments of 146 additional rioters were handed down this week. The total of those indicted on felony rioting charges is now 209.  A total of 230 persons were arrested in conjunction with the rioting, and twelve of those cases have been dismissed.

While I'm enjoying the progressive meltdown as much as the next person, it may be time to think about countering the "resistance."  We would do well to think about the impact the pressure from the raging "resistance" is likely to have not on their own party but on Republicans in Congress and, perhaps to a lesser extent, on the Trump administration. From the "women's march" to airport protests to flooding into GOP town halls, the progressive left is making itself heard among the very Republicans President Trump will need to keep his agenda moving forward.  These are the McCains, the Grahams, the Collins', the Murkowskis, and others whose votes do matter (even if we close our eyes and wish really really hard that they don't). Republicans who loved the Gang of Eight amnesty plan, who are foreign policy hawks, and who want to keep ObamaCare and Common Core—i.e. those who believed that the only way to win elections was to become more like Democrats—are looking at all this, and what they see is not what we see.

If you're among the "oceans of white folk" agonizing over centuries of white privilege and the systemic oppression of black people, Michael Eric Dyson has the solution to your anguish.  This sociology professor from Georgetown thinks that white people who find themselves consumed by this anxiety should set up "individual reparations accounts." The New York Times interviewed Dyson last month about this "benediction" section.

The Congressional Black Caucus is facing an existential quandary: to allow a Dominican-American to join or not to allow it?  Is a Dominican-American black?  Hispanic?  Afro-Latino?  Who decides?  And what if that person tried to unseat Charlie Rangel (twice)? We might think, based on the Rachael Dolezal case that one can just identify as whatever race one wants, just as progressives expect people to pick their gender from a long (long) list of choices.  And we might be right.  Or we might be wrong.  Who knows?  Certainly not the CBC.

Yesterday, President Trump signed three new executive actions: reshuffling the Principals Committee of the National Security Council (NSC), restricting administration officials from lobbying, and calling for a comprehensive plan to defeat ISIS. The first memorandum removes the Director of National Intelligence (Dan Coats has yet to be confirmed, no hearing set) and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (currently Marine Corps General Joseph Dunford) from and adds Steve Bannon to the NSC Principals Committee.

It doesn't seem that long ago that Chris Christie was a serious contender for the presidency, and here we are, four or five years later, and he's counting his lucky stars that the prosecutor decided against filing criminal misconduct charges against him regarding Bridgegate. Reuters reports:
New Jersey prosecutors on Friday said they would not pursue criminal misconduct charges against Governor Chris Christie in connection with the "Bridgegate" scandal.

As the prof so clearly explained, the progressive outrage at President Trump's refugee executive order is rooted in lies, more lies, and . . . yes, still more lies (the partial stay not withstanding as most of the EO stands).  Not content with their failed Occupy, BLM, and "women's march," they are now organizing to disrupt travel and otherwise make complete . . . erm, spectacles of themselves.  After all, nothing turns public opinion quite as quickly as loud, obnoxious, mis- and ill-informed lefties clogging up one's travel plans. The protesters, protesting President Trump's non-existent "Muslim ban," swarmed airports in Democrat strongholds on the coasts.

As President Trump moves forward on his campaign promises regarding illegal immigration, the progressive left is (delightfully) apoplectic. Sanctuary cities, in particular, are of special significance to them as Democrat mayors across the nation insist that they will resist Trump's efforts. Boston mayor, Marty Walsh, is taking his "resist we much" stance one step further and has declared that Boston's City Hall is now one big "safe space" for illegal aliens.  He asserts that illegals can move in and live right there at City Hall, presumably "safe" from deportation. It is not clear how far Walsh intends to go in harboring and protecting Massachusetts' illegal aliens from ICE.

The New York Times editorial board entitled their traditional post-inaugural address commentary, "What President Trump Doesn't Get About America."  What it reveals, however, is quite different.  While one can reasonably expect an op-ed to lean in a particular direction and address policy differences, the editorial board's main criticism of President Trump's inauguration speech is centered on his, to their minds, unflattering portrait of America. Seemingly still reeling from "their" loss in November, the board focuses on the parts of Trump's speech that Obama could have easily read in his own first inauguration.  Former president Obama's 2009 inaugural address, however, was met with gushing enthusiasm for his unflattering portrait of America as "in decline" and "in crisis."

Predictably, the "grassroots" and "spontaneous" women's march wasn't so grassroots, after all.  It may have started as such, but things changed rather quickly.  Ultimately, more than 50 groups, PACs, and assorted organizations backed by billionaire agitator George Soros were deeply involved in the march.

A self-declared "life-long liberal Democrat who voted for Trump" uncovered the tangled web of the money trail for the New York Times.  Asra Q. Nomani explains that "the march really isn’t a 'women’s march.' It’s a march for women who are anti-Trump.   As someone who voted for Trump, I don’t feel welcome . . . ."