So how was your week, Mr. Romney?

David Limbaugh: President Trump Isn’t the Enemy, Mr. Romney  . . . "Why Now?

"Why did Romney believe he needed to write this now — as his first volley — instead of first expressing his intention of trying to work with Trump to move his agenda forward in what promises to be a very tumultuous time, with militant, partisan Democrats about to assume control of the House? 

"Why the Washington Post? "Why would Romney choose to publish his piece in the overtly liberal Washington Post? Are political liberals and the mainstream media his constituency now? It would be one thing for a newly minted GOP senator to take on Democrats in that publication, but it’s quite another for him to harshly criticize his party’s president in a paper that exclusively speaks for the opposition party — a party that will doubtlessly leverage this op-ed against the president and in favor of the Democrats’ policy agenda, which Romney has been telling us for years he abhors.

"Divisive Statements or Actions Does Romney mean to undermine and demonize GOP border enforcement hawks and other Republicans at this critical time when he piously proclaims that he “will speak out against significant statements or actions that are divisive, racist, sexist, anti-immigrant, dishonest or destructive to democratic institutions”?" . . .

It is not President Trump who threatens the nation’s interest, Mr. Romney, but the Democratic Party, which you have just gone out of your way to assist — whether you realize it or not.

Mitt Romney Is A Bitter Loser Hoping The Socialist Media Can Make Him Relevant Again  . . . "President Trump has slashed job-killing regulations, lowered unemployment to historic levels, returned prosperity to the U.S. economy—particularly to long-depressed minority communities, greatly strengthened the military, all but wiped out ISIS, is on the brink of a historic trade agreement with China while already reaching similar deals with Mexico and Canada, and has brought the North Korean dictatorship into the world community more than any other president before him.

"But, according to Mitt Romney and so much of Washington D.C. who thinks like him,  those things are not “presidential” because how a president talks is far more important than the things he does on behalf of the American people and the world."   Source.

Wile E. Romney retreats  . . . "The president laughed in his face. Romney now heads the Republicans Against Trump caucus, population 1.

"Romney just reminded Republicans that in the past they have tried civility and lost. Then they nominated a candidate who punched back twice as hard and won, and once in office he did not stop fighting back and he has accomplished many things.
"Oh Warren is still running for president. She has a large staff to feed and donors are begging to be misled. But she has a 1/1,024th chance of winning.
"Which is better than Romney's chances." . . .

When Do Legal Immigrants Get to ‘Speak Out’?

DC Whispers  AT: I went to El Salvador last year.  This commentary explains how the experience finally reconciled me with the conservative position on immigration.  I emphasize the pain caused to a beautiful people, the Salvadorans, by their living in a state not like Jesus in Egypt, but more like the Babylonian captivity of the Old Testament.  Sometimes history presents lose-lose scenarios where a trend has no winners. Illegal immigration belongs in such a category.

"Since the Washington Post and the New York Times will never cover what I learned, I will “speak out” here.  I hope it does some good.

"In the Los Angeles Civic Center, my wife took an oath to become a citizen.  After sixteen years together, fourteen years of marriage, and over a decade with a green card, she had finally cleared all the hurdles, made her decision, and decided to become American.

"Few experiences can rival such a scene.  Masses of people from every corner of the globe, dressed in their finest, carry bouquets and snap photographs.  This happened before the homelessness crisis caused tents and human waste to cover the sidewalks downtown.

"I recall waiting with Iranians, Mexicans, Filipinos, Germans, British, Nigerians, Indians, Israelis, Russians, Poles, Cubans, Venezuelans, and Guatemalans, wiping the sweat from our multicolored brows, as we waited for our people to emerge with envelopes full of all-important papers.

"Papers, papers, papers.  I grew up knowing that documents really mattered.  Because before my wife became a citizen, my mother and father were immigrants.  more here ". . . 

Homosexuality is to BLAME For Sexual ABUSE, Not Church, Claims German Cardinal

Socio-Political-Journal  "A German cardinal on Friday provoked anger and controversy when he claimed the Catholic church was not responsible for sexual abuse by its clerics, and instead sought to pin the blame on homosexuality.

“What has happened in the church is no different from what is happening in society as a whole,” Cardinal Walter Brandmüller said. “The real scandal is that the Catholic church hasn’t distinguished itself from the rest of society.”

A study commissioned by the German Bishops Conference and published last year found that more than 3,600 children were sexually abused by Catholic clergy in Germany between 1946 and 2014.

But Cardinal Brandmüller claimed that only a “vanishingly small number” of clergy had committed abuses. He said the real problem was homosexuality and claimed it is “statistically proven” that there is a link between homosexuality and abuse.

Society “forgets or covers up the fact that 80 per cent of cases of sexual assault in the church involved male youths not children,” he told Germany’s DPA news agency in an interview a few days ahead of his 90th birthday.

Cardinal Brandmüller’s outburst comes days after the Pope urged Catholic bishops in the US to confront the “sins and crimes” of sexual abuse by the clergy and “the efforts made to deny or conceal them”.

“Everything we do risks being tainted by self-referentiality, self-preservation and defensiveness, and thus doomed from the start,” Pope Francis wrote in a letter to American bishops ahead of a spiritual retreat to reflect on the issue.

Democrats have big ideas for scrapping republican democracy

"Now they want the electoral college to go, and tyranny of the majority to take precedence"

I have little confidence that today's voters are aware of the import of this. After all, they did vote for Bernie Sanders and Alexandria O-C, didn't they?

Monica Showalter  "Not content with just raising taxes and calling it 'good for us,' Democrats are arriving in this new Congress with big ideas. Big, big, very big, ideas.

"No more of that Clintonian reform around the edges, the small-fry midnight basketball thing, Democrat plans today are bigger. They'd like to start by remodeling the Constitution, for one.

"Because, after all, it always seemed to get in the way of their big plans to create a New Soviet, err, American Man, err, Myn, or whatever they call it, so now they're effectively admitting they've never liked it and now they want to get rid of it.

"One of them, incoming Rep. Steve Cohen of Tennessee, has put out a bill to eradicate the entire electoral college.

"According to CNN:

Washington (CNN)Rep. Steve Cohen has proposed two constitutional amendments, one that would abolish the Electoral College and another that would prohibit presidents from pardoning themselves, their families, members of their administration or their campaign staffs.

"The idea of course, is to institute "direct democracy" over the current republican form of government, and ultimately, tyranny of the majority. They'd very much like to rub out the votes of all those people who live in red states who voted for Trump, those bothersome places as Wisconsin, which take so much time and effort to travel to. That way, they can focus solely on coastal blue states and enable their lording it over the red states with no say-so from the latter. Writer Nick Nolte at Breitbart exposes the issue very well:" . . .

Remember these are Democrat voters they're trying um, their "best" to stop

Rich Terrell

Didn't we see something like this in "Blazing Saddles"?

Trump: Heck, maybe I'll just call a national emergency to fund the wall
. . . "Republicans could have pulled similar results out of Obama's shutdown in 2013, wherein the Light-Bringer blocked World War II veterans from their own open-air memorial in order to preserve massive forced taxpayer subsidies for the dismemberment of human children.  But they didn't have the stones, and the media ran roughshod over them.

"Trump's departure from the spineless, bland, pinkies-out Republican status quo is a delight to watch.  It's also a national emergency for once-complacent Democrats." . . .

One possibility for President Trump:  Mr. President: Sit down with the 31!
. . . "Today, I would advise the White House to remember that "it's the number 31 that counts."  The path to many goals is through these 31 members of the U.S. House." . . .

. . . "This is an opportunity, as an old boss used to say whenever I brought a problem to his attention.

"Every one of these 31 is likely facing a tough re-election in 2020.  They all will have to go back to those districts and face questions about border security and raising taxes to pay for health care" . . .

None of these new faces was elected to impeach President Trump or focus on mindless investigations.
The path to border wall funding is through these districts.  The Democrats will lose their thin majority if they lose these seats!

Enough with the Joke Killing, Already!

American Greatness

"An online publication that few people read recently published an article headlined “These 13 Jokes From ‘Seinfeld’ Are Super Offensive Now.” It predictably follows the latest fashion of taking something from the past and finding reasons to be outraged at it—evidently, these voracious outrage whores have run out of targets for their rage in the present.

"One of the striking qualities of the article is how lazy it is. Discussing a joke in which Jerry asks how he can be racist to Chinese women if he “likes their race,” the aggrieved author says, “hopefully the issues with that exchange don’t require further explanation for anyone in 2018.” Responding to another joke in which Kramer mistakes a “fat little mental patient” as a “pig man,” the author simply writes “yikes.”"These types of responses are all too typical in such “think pieces.” Authors of such pieces often entirely gloss over what exactly they find offensive. They simply assume that all good people will agree with them. They do not even attempt to engage with readers who may differ or who may be bewildered at their moral outrage. Instead, they assume that these people are beneath reason and beyond the pale. Be that as it may, it is by no means clear whether they themselves have a good explanation for why the joke they’ve attacked is offensive.

"The intellectual laziness demonstrated by these think pieces frees the professionally outraged from having actually to examine the joke or understand the nuances of what makes it funny." . . .