3 Lines That Defined Trump’s State of the Union Address

 

There were several great moments in President Trump’s State of the Union address: the heroes in the gallery, the condemnation of socialism, the bitter tongue-sucking of Speaker Pelosi. But three excerpts stood out in particular. First up:

No issue better illustrates the divide between America’s working class and America’s political class than illegal immigration. Wealthy politicians and donors push for open borders while living their lives behind walls and gates and guards.

The political, cultural, and financial elite have spent decades mocking those they believe are beneath their station. Both parties spoke grand words on border security while their deeds undercut the very notion. Amnesty now, security later — if ever.

The two lines above better demonstrate why Trump won than ten think tanks full of campaign analysis.

No one believes that a wall or barrier will end illegal immigration or drug-running. But the only way for politicians to win back voters’ trust on the issue is this physical symbol of their seriousness.

There could be no greater contrast to the beautiful image of a mother holding her infant child than the chilling displays our Nation saw in recent days. Lawmakers in New York cheered with delight upon the passage of legislation that would allow a baby to be ripped from the mother’s womb moments before birth. These are living, feeling, beautiful babies who will never get the chance to share their love and dreams with the world. And then, we had the case of the Governor of Virginia where he basically stated he would execute a baby after birth.

To defend the dignity of every person, I am asking the Congress to pass legislation to prohibit the late-term abortion of children who can feel pain in the mother’s womb.

Let us work together to build a culture that cherishes innocent life. And let us reaffirm a fundamental truth: all children — born and unborn — are made in the holy image of God.

Has any president made a stronger denunciation of progressives’ culture of death? No political consultant or Beltway insider would have recommended this move. Too divisive, too stark, too … awkward. Nevertheless, the novice politician in the White House exposed the truth of New York and Virginia’s ghoulish late-term abortion legislation. All but the most nihilistic NARAL executives will blanch at the barbarism.

And now, for Trump’s strong close:

What will we do with this moment? How will we be remembered?

I ask the men and women of this Congress: Look at the opportunities before us! Our most thrilling achievements are still ahead. Our most exciting journeys still await. Our biggest victories are still to come. We have not yet begun to dream.

We must choose whether we are defined by our differences — or whether we dare to transcend them.

We must choose whether we will squander our inheritance — or whether we will proudly declare that we are Americans. We do the incredible. We defy the impossible. We conquer the unknown.

This is the time to re-ignite the American imagination. This is the time to search for the tallest summit, and set our sights on the brightest star. This is the time to rekindle the bonds of love and loyalty and memory that link us together as citizens, as neighbors, as patriots.

This is our future — our fate — and our choice to make. I am asking you to choose greatness.

No matter the trials we face, no matter the challenges to come, we must go forward together.

We must keep America first in our hearts. We must keep freedom alive in our souls. And we must always keep faith in America’s destiny — that one Nation, under God, must be the hope and the promise and the light and the glory among all the nations of the world!

Undoubtedly, Congress will choose to be defined by their differences and squander their inheritance. It’s all they know. But tonight, the President rose above his combative Twitter persona and chose to be the adult in the room, at least for a night.

More, please.

Published in Politics
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 85 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    PHenry (View Comment):

    With the limited cameras and selective closeups, it became hard to gauge who was sitting on their hands. We need a way to identify who stood and who did not for which statements.

    I would be very interested in the list of those who could not manage to stand and applaud for the ‘we will never be socialist’ comment. We know Bernie and AOC, of course, but what of others? Booker, Harris? I think the American people deserve to know who supports socialism in America. Especially among those who are running for president.

    Personally, I think we can stand to know less about the audience reaction. I don’t want to start judging someone’s attitude based on whether they stand or sit, whether they clap or don’t , whether they clap hard enough or without passion. Besides, we already know where all of these people stand on all of these issues. I’d rather concentrate on substantive challenges to them in the form of legislative votes. 

    • #31
  2. David Carroll Thatcher
    David Carroll
    @DavidCarroll

    DonG (View Comment):

    I hope this is a preview of the re-election effort. I like the idea of running against Congress and “Choose Greatness”. The theme of protecting our inheritance through rule of law, protecting babies, stopping socialism, and spending on research and infrastructure seems like a winner. This is close to my call for “Prosperity, Security, and the American Way”.

    Brilliant idea.  The reelection campaign could not select a better campaign slogan than “Choose Greatness.”  It harkens back to the 2016 slogan “Make America Great Again” but submarines the attempted rebuttal floated by certain black activists that America was not so great in the days of segregation. 

     

    • #32
  3. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    David Carroll (View Comment):

    After Peggy Noonan tweeted that AOC had a rarely bad night, AOC responded:

    Ocasio-Cortez – a frequent critic of Trump – took to Twitter to defend herself.

    “Why should I be “spirited and warm” for this embarrassment of a #SOTU? Tonight was an unsettling night for our country. The president failed to offer any plan, any vision at all, for our future. We’re flying without a pilot. And I‘m not here to comfort anyone about that fact,” she wrote.

    My take is that AOC did not actually listen to the SOTU.

    Or she did, but can’t break free from the mind control. She sounds exactly like some here who are allegedly on the right.

    Trump-hate does not permit rational discourse.

    When you start off with Trump as idiot, Trump as authoritarian, Trump as racist, Trump as bigot, Trump as immoral – then resistance is the only moral and even politically wise response. This is why we still have schism and emotional adherence to resistance: it’s now difficult to come off of these base assumptions about Trump especially for those who took those positions from the beginning, but most especially for those who want to stay at the forefront of the movement, any movement.

    • #33
  4. David Carroll Thatcher
    David Carroll
    @DavidCarroll

    Columbo (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    The silly twit believes her own press.

    She is definitely a media-created monster.

    But then, so is Jim Acosta:

    STUNNER: CBS/CNN Polls Say 76% Approve of President Trump’s SOTU Speech

    AOC, Bernie, Stacey, Nancy, Chuckie … hardest hit.

    Caution.  Trump-haters were not likely to be viewers of the SOTU speech, so the poll is likely skewed toward the pro-Trump folks.  

    • #34
  5. George Townsend Inactive
    George Townsend
    @GeorgeTownsend

    David Carroll (View Comment):
    My take is that AOC did not actually listen to the SOTU.

    This is typical of people who do not agree, and cannot understand others who don’t think as they do. They say that there is no plan, while the truth is that there is one. But it so befuddles those who will not hear beyond their small minds that they say there wasn’t one, because they don’t agree with it.

    • #35
  6. David Carroll Thatcher
    David Carroll
    @DavidCarroll

    George Townsend (View Comment):

    David Carroll (View Comment):
    My take is that AOC did not actually listen to the SOTU.

    This is typical of people who do not agree, and cannot understand others who don’t think as they do. They say that there is no plan, while the truth is that there is one. But it so befuddles those who will not hear beyond their small minds that they say there wasn’t one, because they don’t agree with it.

    There is a name for this.  Cognitive dissonance.  Or, more commonly, “In one ear and out the other.”

    • #36
  7. Unsk Member
    Unsk
    @Unsk

    Jon, Simply great post.

    Franco, Brilliant comment. Choose Greatness.

    • #37
  8. Vance Richards Member
    Vance Richards
    @VanceRichards

    And if you are a Lefty you had Paid Family Leave, bloated Infrastructure spending, and some sort of “government-wide initiative focused on economic empowerment for women in developing countries” (not sure what that means but it sure sounds like something the Left would support). It was not an overly divisive speech. If the Democrats can get past their love for infanticide and socialism, then I think they can find some good in the speech as well.

    • #38
  9. Hang On Member
    Hang On
    @HangOn

    David Carroll (View Comment):

    After Peggy Noonan tweeted that AOC had a rarely bad night, AOC responded:

    Ocasio-Cortez – a frequent critic of Trump – took to Twitter to defend herself.

    “Why should I be “spirited and warm” for this embarrassment of a #SOTU? Tonight was an unsettling night for our country. The president failed to offer any plan, any vision at all, for our future. We’re flying without a pilot. And I‘m not here to comfort anyone about that fact,” she wrote.

    My take is that AOC did not actually listen to the SOTU.

    AOC listen? Seriously? She only talks. Or should that be babbles.

    • #39
  10. JamesSalerno Coolidge
    JamesSalerno
    @JamesSalerno

    Since when does “you kind of, just….. pay for it” AOC care about having a plan in place?

    • #40
  11. Washington Square Member
    Washington Square
    @WashingtonSquare

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    I kept smirking at the Dems’ reactions. They couldn’t figure out when and if to applaud. They’d look at each other, then at Pelosi–isn’t this a good thing?–oh but Trump is bringing it up, so it can’t be a good thing! It was silly and bizarre. But then the Dems are often for partisanship, not the good of the country. Grow up, people.

    My wife said the “ladies in white” behaved as if they were twelve year olds at a slumber party.   I guess we’re lucky a pillow fight didn’t break out.

    • #41
  12. drlorentz Member
    drlorentz
    @drlorentz

    Jon Gabriel, Ed.:

    Undoubtedly, Congress will choose to be defined by their differences and squander their inheritance. It’s all they know. But tonight, the President rose above his combative Twitter persona and chose to be the adult in the room, at least for a night.

    More, please.

     

    • #42
  13. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    I thought the lines about America never being a socialist nation were very memorable.  I would include that as those that stuck out.  And to get the Feminist Libs to stand and applaud and actually chant “USA” was amazing.  Historic!  Overall a very good speech.  Somehow his transitions from one topic to another seemed too abrupt but the content of the speech was at the heart of American values.  At least what’s left of American values.

    • #43
  14. Wolverine Inactive
    Wolverine
    @Wolverine

    Manny (View Comment):

    I thought the lines about America never being a socialist nation were very memorable. I would include that as those that stuck out. And to get the Feminist Libs to stand and applaud and actually chant “USA” was amazing. Historic! Overall a very good speech. Somehow his transitions from one topic to another seemed too abrupt but the content of the speech was at the heart of American values. At least what’s left of American values.

    Embarrassing though that these narcissists only cheered USA when the President applauded them.

    • #44
  15. Columbo Member
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Wolverine (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    I thought the lines about America never being a socialist nation were very memorable. I would include that as those that stuck out. And to get the Feminist Libs to stand and applaud and actually chant “USA” was amazing. Historic! Overall a very good speech. Somehow his transitions from one topic to another seemed too abrupt but the content of the speech was at the heart of American values. At least what’s left of American values.

    Embarrassing though that these narcissists only cheered USA when the President applauded them.

    In no other country on the face of planet earth, could so many women reach such positions of power and influence. 

    This happened because of our freedom and the American Way. One could even say … “you didn’t build that” to these narcissists. The system, the structure and the free people of this incredible Republic placed them there. A little humility would be in order.

    And yet they want socialism?! No, they are ignorant and clueless. The free people of this great Republic should take note of this for our decisions in November, 2020. #USA

    • #45
  16. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    Columbo (View Comment):

    Wolverine (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    I thought the lines about America never being a socialist nation were very memorable. I would include that as those that stuck out. And to get the Feminist Libs to stand and applaud and actually chant “USA” was amazing. Historic! Overall a very good speech. Somehow his transitions from one topic to another seemed too abrupt but the content of the speech was at the heart of American values. At least what’s left of American values.

    Embarrassing though that these narcissists only cheered USA when the President applauded them.

    In no other country on the face of planet earth, could so many women reach such positions of power and influence.

    This happened because of our freedom and the American Way. One could even say … “you didn’t build that” to these narcissists. The system, the structure and the free people of this incredible Republic placed them there. A little humility would be in order.

    And yet they want socialism?! No, they are ignorant and clueless. The free people of this great Republic should take note of this for our decisions in November, 2020. #USA

    I hope so.  

    • #46
  17. milkchaser Member
    milkchaser
    @milkchaser

    When Obama was elected, we in the tea party called him a socialist. “OMG!”, we were chided, “He’s not a socialist!” Then they’d whip out their high school definition of socialism (gov’t owns the means of production). They would totally ignore that there are lots of versions of socialism in the world today and that Tocqueville and Bastiat spoke out against it years before our Civil War. “We know that Obama is not a socialist because he says he’s not a socialist!”

    But by the end of the Obama era, the socialists are out in force (Bernie, AOC, the unspeakable Muslim women). Democrats have been trending this way since McGovern. They should just go ahead and rename their party.

    • #47
  18. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    milkchaser (View Comment):

    When Obama was elected, we in the tea party called him a socialist. “OMG!”, we were chided, “He’s not a socialist!” Then they’d whip out their high school definition of socialism (gov’t owns the means of production). They would totally ignore that there are lots of versions of socialism in the world today and that Tocqueville and Bastiat spoke out against it years before our Civil War. “We know that Obama is not a socialist because he says he’s not a socialist!”

    But by the end of the Obama era, the socialists are out in force (Bernie, AOC, the unspeakable Muslim women). Democrats have been trending this way since McGovern. They should just go ahead and rename their party.

    Yes, I always found that interesting. They leaped to his defense as you say: “He’s not a socialist!” but it would be immediately followed by “but what’s wrong with socialism?”

    And as the years wore on, the pro-socialism narrative gained prominence, until today when we have politicians openly advocating for socialism. How quickly things changed from trying to defend a politician from charges of socialism to politicians promoting socialism for electoral success.

    I mean “roads are socialist!” is the dumbest take imaginable, but that’s the level of thinking we have on the left.

    • #48
  19. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    milkchaser (View Comment):

    When Obama was elected, we in the tea party called him a socialist. “OMG!”, we were chided, “He’s not a socialist!” Then they’d whip out their high school definition of socialism (gov’t owns the means of production). They would totally ignore that there are lots of versions of socialism in the world today and that Tocqueville and Bastiat spoke out against it years before our Civil War. “We know that Obama is not a socialist because he says he’s not a socialist!”

    But by the end of the Obama era, the socialists are out in force (Bernie, AOC, the unspeakable Muslim women). Democrats have been trending this way since McGovern. They should just go ahead and rename their party.

    Yes, I always found that interesting. They leaped to his defense as you say: “He’s not a socialist!” but it would be immediately followed by “but what’s wrong with socialism?”

    And as the years wore on, the pro-socialism narrative gained prominence, until today when we have politicians openly advocating for socialism. How quickly things changed from trying to defend a politician from charges of socialism to politicians promoting socialism for electoral success.

    I mean “roads are socialist!” is the dumbest take imaginable, but that’s the level of thinking we have on the left.

    Obama was a liar on so many things.  He was definitely a socialist, even if it was in secret.

    • #49
  20. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):
    I mean “roads are socialist!” is the dumbest take imaginable, but that’s the level of thinking we have on the left.

    I remember the line of argument that went, “Government was successful with the Interstate Highway System and the G.I. Bill; therefore, we should institute a totalitarian police state.” Or words to that effect.   

    • #50
  21. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    I got to say, there was one line I didn’t like. I didn’t like when he said he was for a record number of legal immigration. We do not need more immigration. I’m not saying zero, but we need less, not more. 

    • #51
  22. David Carroll Thatcher
    David Carroll
    @DavidCarroll

    Manny (View Comment):

    I got to say, there was one line I didn’t like. I didn’t like when he said he was for a record number of legal immigration. We do not need more immigration. I’m not saying zero, but we need less, not more.

    @manny, our current fertility rate is at record lows.  I disagree with this.  we are now averaging  1.886 children per woman.  The replacement rate is 2.1 children per woman.  Disregarding immigration, our population is shrinking dangerously.

    We need population growth so sustain, among other things, the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security.  We need population growth to sustain our economic growth, or at least, avoid decline.

    We need continued immigration.  

    Given that we need substantial immigration, isn’t it better to stop illegal (uncontrolled) immigration and have greater legal immigration?

      

    • #52
  23. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    David Carroll (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    I got to say, there was one line I didn’t like. I didn’t like when he said he was for a record number of legal immigration. We do not need more immigration. I’m not saying zero, but we need less, not more.

    @manny, our current fertility rate is at record lows. I disagree with this. we are now averaging 1.886 children per woman. The replacement rate is 2.1 children per woman. Disregarding immigration, our population is shrinking dangerously.

    We need population growth so sustain, among other things, the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security. We need population growth to sustain our economic growth, or at least, avoid decline.

    We need continued immigration.

    Given that we need substantial immigration, isn’t it better to stop illegal (uncontrolled) immigration and have greater legal immigration?

    We also need to make babies. You younger people, get to it!

    • #53
  24. David Carroll Thatcher
    David Carroll
    @DavidCarroll

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    David Carroll (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    I got to say, there was one line I didn’t like. I didn’t like when he said he was for a record number of legal immigration. We do not need more immigration. I’m not saying zero, but we need less, not more.

    @manny, our current fertility rate is at record lows. I disagree with this. we are now averaging 1.886 children per woman. The replacement rate is 2.1 children per woman. Disregarding immigration, our population is shrinking dangerously.

    We need population growth so sustain, among other things, the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security. We need population growth to sustain our economic growth, or at least, avoid decline.

    We need continued immigration.

    Given that we need substantial immigration, isn’t it better to stop illegal (uncontrolled) immigration and have greater legal immigration?

    We also need to make babies. You younger people, get to it!

    Maybe someone needs to tell them what causes babies.

    • #54
  25. Thejokewasonme Member
    Thejokewasonme
    @

    Something I’ve wondered for awhile now.  Considering the rapid advancement and broad application of technology, and with the projections of how many job it will replace or make obsolete, why is it we need to be so concerned about our population shrinking?

    • #55
  26. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Thejokewasonme (View Comment):

    Something I’ve wondered for awhile now. Considering the rapid advancement and broad application of technology, and with the projections of how many job it will replace or make obsolete, why is it we need to be so concerned about our population shrinking?

    Well, for one thing, we need more taxpayers to shoulder the ever-increasing tax burden that’s being placed on an ever-decreasing number of shoulders.

    • #56
  27. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    But also because “studies show” that marriage and family add to societal stability. Large families support each other and take up the role that some would prefer to shove off on government. Pity the man who has no children to care for him in his old age. The government will kill him off early — on purpose.

    • #57
  28. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    David Carroll (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    I got to say, there was one line I didn’t like. I didn’t like when he said he was for a record number of legal immigration. We do not need more immigration. I’m not saying zero, but we need less, not more.

    @manny, our current fertility rate is at record lows. I disagree with this. we are now averaging 1.886 children per woman. The replacement rate is 2.1 children per woman. Disregarding immigration, our population is shrinking dangerously.

    We need population growth so sustain, among other things, the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security. We need population growth to sustain our economic growth, or at least, avoid decline.

    We need continued immigration.

    Given that we need substantial immigration, isn’t it better to stop illegal (uncontrolled) immigration and have greater legal immigration?

    Make our own babies and keep American culture. I admire the Japanese who made a conscious decision to keep their own culture at the risk not affording their elderly. So far the population drop fear mongers have not been validated. Our country is at 350 million. Over populated in my opinion.

    • #58
  29. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    Thejokewasonme (View Comment):

    Something I’ve wondered for awhile now. Considering the rapid advancement and broad application of technology, and with the projections of how many job it will replace or make obsolete, why is it we need to be so concerned about our population shrinking?

    We don’t. And with broad band internet technology we can off load work over seas without the cost (and there is a cost) of immigration. 

    • #59
  30. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    The Population Bomb and related overpopulation scaremongering has done more damage to Western Civilization that we can comprehend.

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.