Did you watch it? If you didn’t, you missed an amazing speech. I remember Reagan, and I don’t think I’ve ever seen one as good. If you did miss it, here’s the text – but you’ll want to find a video of it. Worth every minute of your time.
Wow and wow and just more wow. It was a grand and glorious thing – hitting on the massive accomplishments of Trump’s term but also bringing everyone to tears several times…if you didn’t get misty eyed over Brigadier General McGee and his grandson, then you’re just a dirty commmie.
How in heck are these Democrats going to beat this guy? I guess we’ll see what they do – but Nancy tearing up her copy of the speech as Trump stepped down is an indicator of how bad this is going for them.
Blogs For Victory 
The Democrats provided a wealth of campaign ad material, sitting on their hands whenever Trump touted an accomplishment that was good for the majority of Americans. Nancy tearing up her copy of the speech at the end ought to be worth several million votes come November.
Nancy’s expressions and tearing up the speech at the end was a display that won’t be soon forgotten. She was the pouty teenager at the adult table throwing a tantrum egged on by her equally dour friends looking on from the gallery. At one point Trump was celebrating America and all of it’s historical achievements when the camera panned to Omar and Tlaib who were sharing an inside joke, laughing and ignoring the speech. After last nights Democrat debacle in Iowa you’d think that they would try a show a little professionalism but I guess that’s also above their ability.
How could you not like the speech? It was tremendous. Trump sent a lower income black student to the school of her choice away from a failing “government school”, reunited a military family, and honored the sacrifice of Kayla’s parents (Kayla was brutally killed by Baghdadi). It was moving, all the while touting the many domestic successes and not once bringing up impeachment or Russia. It was well written, well delivered, and impactful … at least to those of us who love this country and want to see it thrive and be respected. Many in that gallery do not share that same sentiment.
You have to wonder how many Independents watched the Democrats pathetic antics at the SOTU and said, “yeah, those are the people I want running the country.” I’d venture to say, not too many.
That, and “Yeah, that’s the club I want to join.”
I just heard the Romney will vote to convict and remove. Let’s make sure this POS loses his seat in his next election. I despise the man and am so thankful he lost his POTUS bid. I can’t imagine some squish like him leading our party
When I see the posturing and preening of those voting to convict, I realize they can fall into only one of two categories: The hate-driven unprincipled who will do anything to get rid of Trump, no matter how low they have to go, and the ditsy nincompoops listening to the voices in their heads. Because if they listened to the words of the president and everyone who was supposedly testifying against him they would have heard that his efforts to uncover corruption in a nation that had its hand out for American dollars was not related to any effort to damage a political opponent. Only the voices in their heads whisper to them the “real” motive that just isn’t stated.
We have always had corrupt people in Congress. What worries me is the number of people who—giving them the benefit of the doubt, that they are not corrupt—-seem to feel quite comfortable making a huge decision like removing a president from office because some inner voice has read a crystal ball or the entrails of a chicken and discerned a secret hidden intent in spite of the facts. These people scare me. It’s a toxic combination of the inability to accurately process information and the inability to tell fact from fantasy that makes them dangerous when we give them power, such as the power to pass laws or declare war. This includes Sinema, who smugly pronounced her appraisal of Trump’s true motive and then voted to remove him from office based on her speculation and attribution of intent. That is just wrong.
Every single vote to convict has been based on the statement that the president used his position to try to harm a political opponent. This in spite of the fact that this is a conviction based, as I said, on the voices in their heads.
Add to this the blatant hypocrisy of defending, or at least ignoring, those in power who used not just the voice of one head of state to another but the vast power of federal agencies to try to destroy not just a political opponent but anyone who was associated with him.
As for Mittens, I will be sending a letter to the Utah GOP promising a thousand dollar donation to a good Republican opponent in the next election—if he lasts that long. I have read that Utahns are trying to find out if a Senator can be impeached, and in any case putting pressure on him to resign. I hope Simena has to answer for her decision, which was, if you are honest about it, one to use the power of her office to benefit her in her next bid for election.
In a similar vein—-haven’t we just seen a full-blown example of abuse of power? That is, people elected to legislate using the power of impeachment to try to unseat a president or at the very least taint his reelection prospects?
It’s blatant abuse of power, for solely political purposes, and it is shameful.
This includes Sinema, who smugly pronounced her appraisal of Trump’s true motive and then voted to remove him from office based on her speculation and attribution of intent. That is just wrong.
Yes it is. And I too will be calling for my Senator Sinema’s defeat. This is election interference on steroids, and none of them get the hypocrisy. It’s also abuse of power on steroids. Adam Schiff essentially claimed that the “sole power” to impeach gave him “sole power” to ignore Constitutional powers and checks and balances. Executive privilege is not “nonsense” as Nadler stated, and the Courts have the final say when disagreements arise between the Executive and legislative branch. The Democrats do not have the right to circumvent that Constitutional protocol regardless of how loud they scream and stomp their feet.
I pray the Democrats pay the price this November for their attempted coup of trying to nullify 2016 and to interfere in 2020. GO BERNIE!!
Maybe the Democrats ought to “learn to code” once they get voted from office. But then we’d have more of the same as we did in Iowa.
I wonder if it was the same guys (in Iowa) who did the original ObamaCare website.
I wonder if it was the same guys (in Iowa) who did the original ObamaCare website.
Well, there are some similarities. The Obama fiasco was put together by buddies of Michelle, who got paid millions (which they did not have to return) for creating a dysfunctional mess. The Iowa fiasco was put together by buddies of Hillary, who fortunately did not get paid millions but created a dysfunctional mess.
People fuss about Crony Capitalism, but I think it’s probably not as bad as Crony Politics playing at capitalism. There is a reason the Left hates a meritocracy—they could never make any money.
jdge1—–funny but oh so true
Trump did a brilliant job recognizing numerous special guests from different walks of life, who’s story had to resonate with most of the voting public (unless you’re a hardcore leftist). Several of them were black Americans which had to hit home to the black community. Trump’s message, while intended largely for US citizens, also played well with the people from several other countries such as Venezuela. Without question, Trump is a gifted speaker and can deliver a message. More importantly, he can and has delivered on promises, in spite of the relentless opposition. Both of those things are something people remember.
he can and has delivered on promises which, in the toxic stew of Democrat hysteria, is enough to get him impeached. All they need is some more reading of the tea leaves, some more conviction that they know WHY he has done this or some more attribution of malignant intent and they are off to the races with Impeachment Redux.
Why did he keep a promise? Why, to get reelected, of course! Why is he doing things that make Americans glad he is president? It could only be using the power of his office to win the next election, of course!
In the meantime, we have to look the other way and pretend we don’t realize that the votes against him were uses of Congressional power to appeal to Trump haters to—you guessed it—GET REELECTED! In the meantime we are supposed to ignore the fact that this was a massive, taxpayer-funded, Deep State conspiracy to either unseat a legally elected president or to influence the next election, whichever comes first.
Interesting take from a Democrat law professor on Pelosi’s ripping up Trump’s speech. This part says a lot: “If Trump made the State of the Union look like Oprah, then Pelosi made it look like Jerry Springer.”
As for Mittens, hiding his anger at Trump and desire for vengeance behind a pious claim of having to vote against Trump because he is so, you know, profoundly religious that God made him do it is simply revolting and disgusting. I think he “choked up” because it was so hard to get that pompous and self-serving lie out of his mouth.
A truly religious man would acknowledge the power of his internal filters and dismiss them to look at the simple, unbiased facts.
Matt Margolis has an excellent article:
https://pjmedia.com/trending/barack-obama-awarded-the-medal-of-freedom-to-a-sex-predator-but-liberals-are-triggered-about-rush-limbaughs/
It’s one thing to read a piece from a conservative writer who tells it straight without negative bias against Trump. It’s certainly different when a democrat writer does it.
This author made some really good points, particularly about Trump brilliantly creating one no-win situation after another for the Dems—–applaud his various presentations of his successes, or sit there sulky and glowering for the nation to see them refuse to applaud for a child, a black child, an old black airman, etc.
Who knows? We may find out that Mitt is a Republican, after all, and told Nancy he would vote for removal from office if she would stand up and rip up her copy of the speech while the President was still standing there.
A comment from a different article mentions one of Trump’s great moves. By awarding Rush the Medal of Freedom Award at the SOTU, he essentially forced the dems to attend the Rush’s award ceremony. It’s rather amusing to watch them seethe while there’s nothing they can say or do about it.
So I heard just a great quote today on the radio and I am not sure who it is attributed too …
Socialism is for people who read Marx and Lenin
Capitalism is for people who understand Marx and Lenin
Has anyone noticed that Trump’s “main political rival” is in 4th place in the Democrat primary?
And did you notice that Mayor Pete has the most delegates but Bernie has the most votes. WTF! This from the party that wants to do away with the Electoral College.
BREAKING: Alexander Vindman Is Escorted Out of the White House and Pearls Are Clutched
https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/2020/02/07/breaking-alexander-vindman-is-escorted-out-of-the-white-house/
The radio commentary on this pointed out he is “a decorated veteran”. Awww.
Now some speculation about a court-martial. About time……
Just saw that …. poetic justice how beautiful
BREAKING: U.S. Amb. to the EU Gordon Sondland tells NBC News that he has been informed that President Trump is recalling him from his post “immediately.”
And now the Vindman spin begins.
“There is no question in the mind of any American why this man’s job is over, why this country now has one less soldier serving it at the White House,” David Pressman, Colonel Vindman’s lawyer, said in a statement. “Lt. Col. Vindman was asked to leave for telling the truth. His honor, his commitment to right, frightened the powerful.”
Uh, no, Dave. He was NOT “asked to leave for telling the truth”. He was kicked out because he violated the trust placed in him by the president and by his security clearance, and improperly and possibly illegally ran to someone not cleared to hear details of a presidential phone call to another head of state, misstated what was said in that call, and set in motion a train of events destructive to the nation.
He did tell the truth in his testimony—when pushed to the point where he had no alternative, either blatantly lie or admit the truth—and that truth did no harm to the president. He testified that he never heard the president say what he had formerly claimed he had said, and merely speculated about the secret motive of the president not present in his actual words.
No, his testimony did not get him canned. It was his sneaky, conniving and unethical behavior that led to him being called as a witness that did.
Ditto for his brother, who was also kicked out of the White House.
The NYT, in typical weasel fashion, lies again:
“Lt. Col. Vindman’s testimony in the House impeachment hearings infuriated President Trump and his allies.”
No, his testimony did not “infuriate” anyone associated with or supporting Trump. It was his sneaky, unethical and possibly illegal effort to damage the president by reporting an altered and inaccurate account of the president’s phone conversation to someone not cleared to hear it that got Vindman in trouble.
The only people “infuriated” by the testimony were Schiff and the others in the howling impeachment mob, because when push came to shove Vindman admitted that Trump had not really said what Vindman had claimed he said.
” A federal appeals court on Friday morning tossed a lawsuit brought by congressional Democrats alleging that President Donald Trump violated the Constitution’s emoluments clause by using the White House to profit from the presidency.”
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/02/07/appeals-court-throws-out-democrats-emoluments-lawsuit-against-trump/
Are you effing kidding me? How many of those dem congress critters could truthfully say they did not profit outside of their salary from their position? How many of them have made massive amounts of money, far beyond their salaries, since they started in political life? Hope they’re counter sued for wasting the courts time. That might make them think twice about their continuous, blatant misuse of their position.
Actor James Woods was banned from twitter about 10 months ago. Apparently he’s been reinstated. Some recent quotes.
I was on vacation awhile, avoiding the news. How’d the #Mueller thing work out? The #impeachment scam? Who won the #Iowa caucuses? Is #MichaelAvenatti still a contender for the Democratic nomination for President? How’s #JeffreyEpstein doing?
Not enough room in the Warren TeePee for women of color? Not a surprise, considering what a liar and hypocrite she has been since, well, forever…
The #Democrats have cheated elections for so long, they can’t even elect themselves…
Both James Woods and John Voight have been outspoken in recent weeks in support for President Trump. It’s rather rare in tinseltown but I wonder if there aren’t a lot more in the entertainment world who feel the same but tend to stay under the radar. We live in a world where the left is pulling out all stops to destroy anything that stands in its path. We can no longer stand quietly aside. Our voices must be heard or our nation will fall.
it is obvious that the Democrat-Media Complex, which is totally subsuming FoxNews Sunday under the woke NeverTrumper Chris Wallace, is interested in pimping Pete Buttigieg as an alternative to Joe Biden. They are also interested in trying to erase the stench of incompetence from the Democrats after impeachment and the Iowa Caucuses. What they are not interested in is giving the Administration any coverage that does not involve the latest manufactured scandal.
Great title. I thought “Complicit Agenda Media”, or just “Agenda Media” was pretty accurate, but “Democrat-Media Complex” might be easier for the sheeple to understand.
https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2020/02/09/why-did-the-sunday-shows-this-week-blacklist-trump-administration-officials/
We finally gave up on Fox News Sunday last year and started watching Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo. If she has a bias she doesn’t let it show, and she’s a much better interviewer than Chris Wallace.
Chris Wallace is so blatant, I wonder why Fox keeps him on. When he hears something he doesn’t like he starts to hyperventilate in his eagerness to jump in and “correct” what he heard. He doesn’t even pretend to be objective—except when he is explaining how objective he is.
Another typical NYT slur:
Emboldened by his victory and determined to strike back, Mr. Trump fired Mr. Sondland within hours of the White House dismissing Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, a decorated Iraq war veteran who was a Ukraine expert on the National Security Council. Both officials testified to a House committee about the president’s efforts to pressure Ukraine to help him against his domestic political rivals.
Aside from the claim that being acquitted of non-crimes in a sham impeachment effort has for some reason “emboldened” the president to “strike back”—two falsehoods within a handful of words—-the Times goes on to imply that the firings were based on testimony by those fired, when that testimony did nothing to harm the president and in fact supported his defense. Then the writer tosses in two additional lies—-that both men testified about “…efforts to pressure Ukraine to help him against his domestic political rivals..” when their actual testimony was that there was no such pressure, and that there WAS pressure on Ukraine “…to help him against his domestic political rivals..”
It’s a short paragraph yet it is packed with falsehood and innuendo. Sadly, this kind of vicious propaganda is par for the course for the Times., or, as Mark Levin calls the paper, “the Slimes”.
Vindman was fired for yet another of his abuses of his position in being allowed to listen to a classified conversation and then not just relating it to someone not cleared to hear it but lying about its content, in a clear effort to stir up trouble for the president. He was fired for his role in initiating a coup effort by the Dems to unseat a duly elected president or, if failing in that, to influence the upcoming election.
Sondman was fired for not understanding that his role required discretion in what he told people about private conversations with his boss, the President of the United States, and for gossiping about those conversations as well as making false statements about what was said based on his own assumptions and attributions of their intent and motive.
More on Vindman. In a discussion with Dinesh D’Souza, on the Laura Ingraham show, some interesting information was highlighted.
In the segment, Laura (play(ed) a video in which Vindman’s boss confirmed that he had reservations about Vindman’s judgment and who Vindman was talking with, including not always adhering to the chain of command and leaking information) ….. so he could have been removed and frankly should have been removed were it not for his testimony for cause because he went right to Zelensky. He as a junior staffer on the NSC when (sic) to a foreign president and started waving him off on what he thought was inappropriate conduct.
D’Souza: Vindman was actually telling the Ukrainians that they could ignore what Trump was saying and indicating on the grounds that Trump was somehow contradicting US policy. Think about this. According to Vindman, there is a thing called US policy that he, Vindman, is the spokesman for, and Trump is sort of out of synch – he’s marching out of tune. In reality, Trump MAKES policy … Vindman should be advising Trump. If Vindman disagrees with Trump, he should tell Trump. So this is a rogue officer, and no wonder he became such a useful idiot for impeachment because after all, this was a guy that always thought that he knew better than the President.
The fact that Vindman had personally gone to Zelensky to blatantly tell him to ignore the president kind of fell beneath the radar in the rest of the noise and chaos of the impeachment charade, but it’s the kind of thing that should be made public in more venues than a show with a mostly-conservative audience.
I was lucky enough to catch a Mark Levin show tonight that was so brilliant I looked up his guest and believe the show can be seen here:
https://www.theblaze.com/news/constitutional-law-expert-flips-the-script-on-democrats-explains
Randy Barnett is not only stunningly knowledgeable about the Constitution, he is articulate and easy to listen to as he lays out important principle after important principle. So many of these “experts” are excruciating to listen to, as they “uh” and “ah” and mumble and stumble. Barnett is a great speaker who makes the information interesting and accessible.