The State of the State of the Union

Steyn On-line ^ | January 24, 2019 | Mark Steyn

[Twotone]

The big news across America this morning is that Nancy Pelosi appears to have pulled off the cancellation of the State of the Union - by refusing the President an invite to "the people's house". I have mixed feelings about this, as longtime readers will know - first, because ersatz monarchism does not become a republic:

Strange how the monarchical urge persists even in a republic two-and-a-third centuries old. Many commentators have pointed out that the modern State of the Union is in fairly obvious mimicry of the Speech from the Throne that precedes a new legislative session in British Commonwealth countries and continental monarchies, but this is to miss the key difference. When the Queen or her viceroy reads a Throne Speech in Westminster, Ottawa, or Canberra, it's usually the work of a government with a parliamentary majority: In other words, the stuff she's announcing is actually going to happen. That's why, lest any enthusiasm for this or that legislative proposal be detected, the apolitical monarch overcompensates by reading everything in as flat and unexpressive a monotone as possible. Such excitement as can be found in the event lies elsewhere — the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod getting the door of the House of Commons slammed in his face three times. After the ancient rituals, the speech itself is actually a very workmanlike affair.

[Phil DiBasquette]

Your country has a monarch and a despot

[Moonman62]

America’s ruling class prefers undocumented subjects to freeborn citizens.

...

That’s the only way they can attain total corruption.

[reasonisfaith]

Pelosi wanted Trump to give the state of the union in her absence so the deep state could then do what would be necessary for her to be sworn in as president. Isn’t this the story in a nutshell?