As Lincoln understood about slavery back in the 1850s, the eventual political consequences of tolerating abortion in some states will be the acceptance of it in all the states. (We’ve already seen this with the abortion referendums in Kansas and Ohio, with more referendums on the way.) Moral neutrality on abortion — Trump’s “popular sovereignty” approach — will weaken the foundation for legal prohibition and open the way to tolerance and eventually political acceptance. //

Because of the first principles at stake here, the logic of America’s antebellum slavery debate applies entirely to the abortion debate of our time. Indeed, the two issues are closer than even most pro-lifers realize. Today’s Democrats view abortion just as antebellum Democrats viewed slavery. They think the constitutional rights of an entire class of people (women) depend for their vindication on the denial of all rights to another class of people (the unborn). This is precisely what southern Democrats believed about blacks and slavery, and why they were so adamantly against emancipation.

But the two issues are alike in another way as well: They both represent a grave danger to freedom itself and the survival of our republic. //

Abortion is more than that, though. It cuts right to the heart of our understanding of democracy and self-government — which, as Lincoln said, must have limits, or it becomes despotism. If one person can snuff out the life of another, and no third person is allowed to object, then in what sense do we have self-government? Democratic practice, after all, must be rooted in the principle of human equality. There are some things even a majority cannot justly decide to do, and to deny that is to open the way to tyranny. //

Trump, using the same flawed logic, thinks he can compromise with the pro-abortion power.

He’d be better off following Lincoln, who knew that America could not continue forever divided between slave states and free states, that we would “become all one thing or all the other.”

Throughout American history, abortion was regulated by the states, and it was not the province of the federal government until the Supreme Court announced its Jan. 22, 1973, Roe v. Wade decision, which preempted state abortion laws.

Because pro-abortion forces focused on the federal courts, leading to the high court, rather than through the state legislatures or Congress, the best way to judge a president's pro-life record is to examine their Supreme Court appointees and how they dealt with abortion rights.

For this piece, the focus is on Republican presidents, which puts Trump in context with other GOP chief executives. //

Beginning in 1969 and ending in 2020, Republican presidents have put 15 justices on the Supreme Court. Eight have been pro-abortion, and seven have been pro-life—three of them put on the high court by Trump.

In the same time frame, Republican presidents have nominated all three chief justices, Warren E. Burger, William H. Rehnquist, and John G. Roberts Jr.—both Burger and Roberts were pro-abortion. //

After Griswold, conservative legal scholars and jurists recognized that if they accepted the concept of unenumerated constitutional rights, the Constitution would be dethroned, and liberals on the high court would have a blank check to do whatever they wanted.

The response to the advocates for unenumerated rights was the strict constructionist movement, which was committed to the text as it was written and understood as it was written. //

The action is now in the states after 50 years in Washington, generally, at the Supreme Court, specifically.

Some people in the pro-life movement sound like Cold War veterans complaining that the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union fell, but the fact remains that Roe and Casey are gone — and Trump made it happen.

For all the recent triumphalism of the pro-abortion movement, none of them like what Trump did to them — and for the unborn.

The Court's abortion decision two years ago said it was up to the individual states to restrict or permit the gruesome end-of-pregnancy operation.

Now, Donald Trump has said that is his position, too, that there should not be a one-size-fits-all policy on abortion in the form of a national ban. That is basically the same states-rights position that the Founding Fathers sought so hard to enshrine across the new government at the very beginning of our national history.

And it has also been the Republican Party's position for all these years.

Some pro-lifers want all or nothing. Now, even Trump is signaling a willingness to take the win and move on to other matters.

We got what we wanted. And that’s what some members of our party are mad about. They want a federal law controlling abortion. Except that’s not what we promised.

It’s hard to understand how one justifies dishonesty as a political strategy. That’s what this is. They are asking that we conduct a bait and switch. We promised that every state would decide for itself, and now it’s, “No, now we’re going to decide for you.” How do you expect people to react to that? We overturned Roe with the understanding that some states would be awesome and largely ban the barbarian practice and that other states, like my own California, would declare open season on fetuses. And that’s what has happened. But you know what? Thousands and thousands of lives have been saved. In the butchery states? No, abortion continues there. But we’ve made progress. We’ve saved lives.

We have to stop making the good the enemy of the perfect and start understanding that progress is made incrementally. The left imposed Roe v. Wade, which made a huge, horrifying leap in one fell swoop. And look what happened. It got overturned in one fell swoop.

The battle against abortion is not going to end by passing a law at the federal level. It just isn’t. First of all, it’s not clear Congress even could enact one. You know, we just threw out a ruling that said the federal government could make abortion laws. //

The Democrats have been beating us around the head with abortion. What they’ll do is call us liars if we try and pass an abortion law, and they have the advantage of truth because we didn’t promise this. We promised the opposite. It’s electoral poison, and there’s a lot more at stake than abortion – free speech, economic prosperity, and peace, to name just a few. But as for abortion itself, if the Democrats get the power, they’ll legalize it up to the moment that a kid gets his driver’s license. If you want to kill more kids, push for a federal abortion ban because that is a certain way of killing more kids.

The way to change abortion is to change hearts and minds one state at a time. I wish we could wave a magic wand and make this barbaric practice disappear. But I’m not a child. I understand that even things I believe in deeply are not going to just happen through the sheer power of rightness. We’ve got a lot of work to do. We can’t just wish the practice away because we accurately assess it as horribly wrong.

Is Donald Trump immoral for feeling the way he does about abortion? There are lots of pro-life people who are ticked off at him, but these people need to understand that Donald Trump, first of all, represents most Americans’ position and, second, that he was the most successful pro-life president in American history. This man has saved thousands upon thousands of lives through his judicial appointments who tossed out Roe. Trump hasn’t betrayed anybody. He just disagrees at the margins.

Trump is looking at things realistically and, yes, politically. And he damn well better look at things politically because there’s a lot more at stake here than abortion in 2024. A lot more.

Cortez told me he has been waiting three and a half months to cross the border. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) had yet to schedule his interview. There was a long line of migrants ahead of him, and, at this point, he was just hoping to get into the U.S. before November 2024.

When I pointed toward America and asked who they wanted to be president, Cortez answered quickly. “I want Biden to win,” he said.

Betancourt agreed. “If it’s Trump, it doesn’t matter how much I work or want to work,” he said. “They won’t let me in.” //

the number of illegal migrants soared, with roughly 2 million people entering the United States each year starting in 2021—the highest levels since the U.S. Border Patrol was created in 1924.

So, Mar-a-Lago is worth $18MM? Ummmm…OK.

With the very Soviet-style “verdict first, then trial” show trial proceeding apace in Manhattan, President Donald J. Trump has a delicious opportunity to turn the tables on his persecutors waging lawfare against him, his family, and his companies. //

The house was built by Marjorie Merriweather Post, the Post Cereals heiress and at the time the wealthiest woman in the United States, with her husband, stockbroker Edward F. Hutton. Completed in 1927, the house cost $7 million (equivalent to $118 million in 2022; perhaps Judge Engoron merely forgot a 1 in the hundreds place?).

It is said that in real estate, the three most important things are location, location, location. Mar-a-Lago is truly an unique property. Located on the Southern end of Palm Beach Island, it is the only property on the island to span its width, with both oceanfront and lakefront (hence its name, meaning “sea to lake”). It is not only listed on the United States National Register of Historic Places, it is also a United States National Historic Landmark. //

Hearst Castle has an estimated value of $700 million and Biltmore less than a quarter that amount, at $144 million. In 2022, Forbes magazine valued Mar-a-Lago at $350 million, but Palm Beach real estate professionals (who understand the intangibles that add value to properties on Palm Beach Island) valued the property much higher, with one estimate coming in at $725 million and another at $1 billion.

Now, what Palm Beach properties near Mar-a-Lago are valued at $18 million? Not many. One home to the South that sits on a half-acre on Lake Worth is valued at $40 million. Another to the North that sits on 0.89 acres with neither ocean frontage nor lake frontage, is valued at $37.5 million.

The closest to an $18 million valuation is a house squeezed into 0.28 acres in the middle of the block on a side street that is valued at $18.95 million.

Despite Willis' tough talk, she has actually been slowed down. It's unlikely the Georgia-based trial will happen before the November election at this point, which leads to a big question: What happens if Trump wins and then this vindictive, political prosecutor still garners a conviction in a county with a heavily left-wing jury pool?

There's no easy answer to that. Whether a president can pardon himself is an open question, though one that would likely be answered in the affirmative. Whether a president can pardon himself from a state-level conviction is another issue and one that has no precedent. On its face, the answer appears to be no.

So what then? Are Fulton County authorities going to head to Washington to battle the Secret Service and take Trump into custody?

It'd be a constitutional crisis to move forward with the prosecution of Trump on these ridiculous charges after the election. That's Willis' plan, though, because she isn't doing this to enforce the law. On the contrary, she's already brutalized it beyond all recognition by twisting RICO statutes, but she wants her name in lights. She wants to be the person in the history books who finally "got Trump," consequences to the nation need not apply.

Former Special Counsel Robert Hur resigned from the DOJ one day before the hearing but repeatedly defended its hyperpartisan track record. //

RNC Research
@RNCResearch
·
Follow
Classified documents were found...

At the Penn Biden Center? "That's correct."

In President Biden's garage? "Yes."

And in his basement den? "Yes."

And his main floor office? "Correct."

And his third floor den? "Correct."

At the University of Delaware? "Correct."

And at the… Show more

10:54 AM · Mar 12, 2024 //

Several Republicans questioned why Hur decided for the jury that Biden’s actions wouldn’t result in conviction instead of recommending charges and letting the jury decide for themselves. Hur claimed this was his ultimate task but, as multiple representatives noted, Trump faces charges and jail time for similar actions he took as president because someone at the DOJ decided he deserved scrutiny that Biden did not. //

“Joe Biden had 8 million reasons to break the rules,” Jordan said, referring to the $8 million revenue Biden made on his book. Hur did not explicitly disagree with Jordan’s assertion.

Legal scholar, writer, and political commentator Jonathan Turley weighed in on the unprecedented issue in a Monday column. //

It all comes down to the following, as Turley wrote.

The Trump trials are troubling precisely because they are being handled differently because of who the defendant is. No one can seriously suggest that Judge Chutkan would be moving other cases or canceling trips in order to shoehorn them into the calendar this year, if it were not for the election and the name of the defendant. Such cases are, after all, notorious for taking years to work out complicated pre-trial matters. //

Dieter Schultz
14 hours ago edited
I like Jonathon Turley but, because his perspective is that of a law professor and not of a former US Attorney, I love ShipWreckedCrew's analyses of what's going on here. I think the legal 'battlespace', legalspace?, is not disposed to support the Dems' lawfare in this. He had this to say about the DC case.
...

Just as the DC case was going to occupy nearly the entirety of the period January to May for pretrial matters and the trial itself, the Florida case is likely to tie up the entirety of May to September — at least. Nothing in the DC case can be done while all the attorneys and Trump are occupied working on the Florida case.

THAT is the landscape for SCHEDULING the DC case whenever the Mandate is sent back to the District Court.

You can see all the moving pieces that are now almost beyond control in the lawfare that the Democrat establishment has put in place. Who decided to indict Trump in two different district courts on unrelated charges less than two months apart? Amateurish and idiotic.
Source: https://shipwreckedcrew.sub... //

Avatar
GBenton Dieter Schultz
14 hours ago
I see desperation. Sloppy execution and sequential slow motion train wreck that will do far more damage to the Dems when all of these cases either lose or get overturned, setting precedent that hampers their ability to do this in the future.

When someone behaves in a desperate and stupid manner with reckless disregard, it doesn't signal competence or 5D Chess (Silly Billy's wet dreams notwithstanding).

The walls have been closing in on Trump with nothing but failure save the 2020 election Steal for 7 years.

If the Dems were good at any of this, that wouldn't be the case.

They just have institutional power and broad corruption, but we have the Supreme court and 300+ Trump judges and a majority of red states, so their stupid schemes keep disintigrating on impact with reality.

I know that makes Never Trump eunuchs sad, but that's just a bonus. //

Dieter Schultz GBenton
14 hours ago
I don't see it.

My belief is that far, far, ... far too many people see chaos as the equivalent of a brilliant strategic and tactical mind but it isn't anything close to that.

In fact, it seems to me that both those that sow chaos and those that are captivated by it are easy targets for those people that can play... not 5D chess but... regular chess.

Cheney and her committee falsely claimed they had ‘no evidence’ to support Trump officials’ claims the White House had asked for 10,000 National Guard troops. //

In fact, an early transcribed interview conducted by the committee included precisely that evidence from a key source. The interview, which Cheney attended and personally participated in, was suppressed from public release until now.

Deputy Chief of Staff Anthony Ornato’s first transcribed interview with the committee was conducted on January 28, 2022. In it, he told Cheney and her investigators that he overheard White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows push Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser to request as many National Guard troops as she needed to protect the city.

He also testified President Trump had suggested 10,000 would be needed to keep the peace at the public rallies and protests scheduled for January 6, 2021. Ornato also described White House frustration with Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller’s slow deployment of assistance on the afternoon of January 6, 2021.

Not only did the committee not accurately characterize the interview, they suppressed the transcript from public review. //

Cheney frequently points skeptics of her investigation to the Government Publishing Office website that posted, she said, “transcripts, documents, exhibits & our meticulously sourced 800+ page final report.” That website provides “supporting documents” to the claims made by Cheney and fellow anti-Trump enthusiasts.

However, transcripts of fewer than half of the 1,000 interviews the committee claims it conducted are posted on that site. It is unclear how many of the hidden transcripts include exonerating information suppressed by the committee. //

Ornato said White House concerns about January 6 were related to fears that left-wing groups would clash with Trump protesters and that no one in the White House anticipated a riot at the Capitol. Antifa and other left-wing groups were planning protests for the same day. Left-wing groups had been involved in violent assaults on Trump supporters following public protests. //

Once the Capitol was breached, the Trump White House pushed for immediate help from Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller and grew frustrated at the slow deployment of that help, according to the testimony. //

Days prior, Cheney had “secretly orchestrated” a pressure campaign to prevent the Defense Department from deploying resources on January 6, 2021. She organized an op-ed for the Washington Post from her father and other former secretaries of defense specifically to discourage Miller from taking action. //Cheney hid this testimony and instead asserted in her report that President Trump “never gave any order to deploy the National Guard on January 6th or on any other day. Nor did he instruct any Federal law enforcement agency to assist.” //

Because Ornato’s corroborating information had been suppressed from the public record by the January 6 committee, the Colorado Supreme Court improperly dismissed evidence.

Democrat Fani Willis’ legal troubles extend beyond recent revelations that she deceptively hired her otherwise under-qualified, secret, married lover to run the political prosecution of former President Donald Trump and other Republicans in Georgia. A new book from Mike Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman admits that a widely misunderstood phone call, on which Willis’ political prosecution rests, was illegally recorded. That means the entire prosecution could crumble with defendants having a new avenue to challenge Democrat lawfare. //

However, the person who recorded the phone call wasn’t in Fulton County or even in Georgia. That’s a problem. Jordan Fuchs, a political activist who serves as Raffensperger’s chief of staff, was in Florida, where it is illegal to record a call without all parties to the call consenting to the recording. She neither asked for nor received consent to record. //

Fuchs first gave The Washington Post fabricated quotes they later had to retract about a phone call President Trump had with someone in the elections office. Though Fuchs was not busted for her lie until March 2021, months after the fabricated quotes were used to impeach President Trump, the authors of the book say the embarrassment of being found out taught her the importance of recording phone calls such as the early January 2021 phone call that forms the basis of Willis’ investigation. They do not explain how this lesson worked in terms of the space-time continuum. //

Fuchs has never talked publicly about her taping of the phone call; she learned, after the fact, that Florida where she was at the time is one of fifteen states that requires two-party consent for the taping of phone calls. A lawyer for Raffensperger’s office asked the January 6 committee not to call her as a witness for reasons the committee’s lawyers assumed were due to her potential legal exposure. The committee agreed. But when she was called before a Fulton County special grand jury convened by Fani Willis, she was granted immunity and confirmed the taping, according to three sources with direct knowledge of her testimony. //

With Fani Willis repeatedly saying the entire investigation into Republicans was the result of a phone call that was illegally recorded, defendants might pursue legal recourse. It’s the latest challenge for Willis, even if the political ally judge reviewing whether she can continue prosecuting Georgia Republicans rules in her favor.

Fulton County DA Fani Willis used the phone call as the foundation for her RICO prosecution against Trump and his associates. According to a new book published by Michael Isikoff (who was an original pusher of the Russian collusion hoax), that call was illegally recorded by Jordan Fuchs.

Who is Fuchs? She is Raffensperger's Chief of Staff and has a very checkered history of political activism. Her hatred of Trump can be described as obsessive, and she was in Florida when she recorded the call in question. Why is that a problem? Because Florida is a two-party consent state. //

In other words, she broke the law because Trump did not give his consent to be recorded. In fact, according to Isikoff and his co-author, she didn't have Raffensperger's permission to record the call either. //

As Mollie Hemingway explains in her write-up on this revelation, this could put the entire case against Trump and his associates in jeopardy.

“Fruit of the poisonous trees is a doctrine that extends the exclusionary rule to make evidence inadmissible in court if it was derived from evidence that was illegally obtained,” according to Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. “As the metaphor suggests, if the evidential ‘tree’ is tainted, so is its ‘fruit.’ The doctrine was established in 1920 by the decision in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, and the phrase ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ was coined by Justice Frankfurter in his 1939 opinion in Nardone v. United States. The rule typically bars even testimonial evidence resulting from excludable evidence, such as a confession.” //

Rollin L
18 minutes ago
Not sure why this is a bombshell or revelation. When this call was leaked years ago, it was known then that it came from Raffensperger's office. This was a Presidential phone call which was by definition classified. It was illegal to leak even if it had been legally recorded. So the only news is the confirmation that the actual recording of the call was itself illegal. Federal charges should apply even if immunity was given from state charges. Jordan Fuchs should be charged, and Raffensperger for conspiracy to hide the crime. //

SD 6 24 minutes ago

If Fuchs was in Florida when she recorded the call… and Florida is a two party state… how can Willis give immunity for a crime that occurred in Florida? I think Florida would have standing in this case to prosecute Fuchs… not Georgia…

Did Donald Trump request National Guard troops to protect the Capitol Building on January 6th? That claim has been a point of contention for years, with figures like Liz Cheney steadfastly claiming no evidence exists to support it. Now, newly unearthed testimony, allegedly suppressed by the January 6th committee for years, is telling a different story.

As we've written many times on these pages, the only way this original investigative reporting could happen and can continue to happen is through the financial support of our readers. Clearly, we highlight corruption and malfeasance on the left, but sometimes those on the right need to be held to account too so conservatives can win hearts and minds - and elections. Much of the data we reported on with Ronna McDaniel was in publicly-available documents, but RedState was the first outlet to cover it, and still one of the only outlets to dive in. Why? Not only do we have investigative journalists who want to do the work; those journalists aren't constrained by corporate bean counters who are afraid of the ramifications. We go where the truth leads us.

Hannah Arendt once noted that Western intellectuals had adopted one of communism’s most effective tactics: making every debate about motive rather than the merits of an argument. This is the modus operandi of the modern leftist. You might be paid off by “dark money” or motivated by race (even unconsciously), but your arguments never really matter. Now the tactic is mainstreamed. When was the last time we had a real national debate on policy?

A responsible political media would treat allegations of Russian collusion as one does conspiracies about the moon landing or fluoride. Let’s face it, the biggest difference between Rachel Maddow and Alex Jones is aesthetics. Instead, no matter how many investigations disprove the conspiracy theory, no matter how many times its architects are caught lying, they keep being treated as good-faith political actors. The only way the media holds anyone accountable for the Russia collusion hoax, it seems, is to promote him. https://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2024/02/13/natasha-bertrand-promoted-to-cnn-correspondent/

Engoron easily could have employed a non-fraudulent, apples-to-apples methodology. That method would calculate Trump’s purported “ill-gotten” interest “savings” by comparing the recourse loan rates that Trump actually received from the lenders with the recourse loan rates Trump would have received had he not allegedly overvalued his assets. But the problem for Engoron is that applying this proper economic analysis would result in $0 of “ill-gotten gains” for Trump. //

Unlike Trump’s purported “overvaluations,” Engoron’s financial manipulation has actual victims — Trump, his family, and the Trump organization. But the harm goes much deeper than that. Made in an election year against a front-running major party candidate, Engoron’s ruling is a financial fraud on America.

Under New York law, Trump cannot appeal this ruling without depositing the full amount, including interest, in a court account. Even for Trump, $455 million is hard to come by. Likewise, a bond would require a company to guarantee payment for a defendant who has been barred from doing business in New York and is facing the need to liquidate much of his portfolio. //

The judge's order also forbids Trump from borrowing from any financial institution chartered or registered in New York for three years, so he can't even borrow to pay any of it from any bank in New York, an additional unfair aspect.

So, who is going to issue a bond under such risky conditions? //

If the only protection in New York is the discretion of figures like James, few businesses would relish the future. The message is that you can expect blind and equal justice so long as you don’t run afoul of the Democrats in power.

GregInFla
2 hours ago
The law used by Carroll to sue Trump (which was limited to one year life) was passed for the sole purpose of suing Trump for the supposed rape, a rape that occurred so long ago that the victim cannot even say what year it occurred in. Carroll's lawyer was one who pushed the law in Albany. I think this travesty is a worse travesty for law than the King fraud case. Corrupt persecution at its finest.

anon-kje4 -> GregInFla
20 minutes ago
The New York law changing the statute of limitations for one year to get Trump is essentially a bill of attainder: "A bill of attainder is legislation that imposes punishment on a specific person or group of people without a judicial trial." Such bills, or laws, are unconstitutional and the Supreme Court needs to swiftly knock it down in the interest of due process. How can anyone expect to gather evidence and witnesses 30 years after the fact, especially where, in this case, the charge was never brought to the defendants attention for years and years after the alleged incident.

TargaGTS | January 26, 2024 at 5:24 pm
Can someone explain how the NY legislature was allowed to essentially ”unexpire’ the statute of limitations that had LONG expired before they just changed the law a few years ago…almost certainly to allow this specific case to be litigated. I honestly don’t understand how that’s constitutional considering the limiting principles of the ex post facto clauses. //

DaveGinOly in reply to TargaGTS. | January 26, 2024 at 10:17 pm
The term “ex post facto” refers only to criminal laws. According to Madison, at least two important aspects of ex post facto laws were discussed. The first was if an explicit prohibition was necessary at all, because “everyone” knew such were not lawful (it was decided it would do no harm to make an explicit statement, and much help could be had from it). The second was a discussion of their nature, in which it was agreed that the term applied only to criminal law, and not to civil law. It was suggested the the prohibition should be extended to civil law, but the counter-argument that such a prohibition could be troublesome, for sometimes back-dated civil law is “unavoidable,” won the day. //

Olinser in reply to Olinser. | January 27, 2024 at 12:57 pm
Again, just a blatant lie. Here’s a list of what they were FORBIDDEN by the judge to present to the jury:

1) They were NOT ALLOWED to demonstrate that she had previously accused at least SIX different men of rape – from a random babysitter to Les Moonves – and that every single claim was provably false

2) They were NOT ALLOWED to present as evidence the coat she publicly claimed she wore during the alleged assault, when her own DNA report came back showing it had the DNA of multiple men…. but not Trump

3) They were NOT ALLOWED to present as evidence the Law and Order episode whose plot EXACTLY matched her alleged assault – the show that she had said multiple times she loved to ‘binge-watch’

4) they were NOT ALLOWED to present as evidence her multiple public statements that The Apprentice was her favorite show, the show starring her alleged rapist
...
8) They were NOT ALLOWED to present as evidence that the lawsuit was funded by Hoffman, who is also directly funding Trump’s political opponents

And that’s not even getting into that the was allowed to make an accusation without specifying the day, the month, or even the freaking YEAR that it happened, making it literally impossible for him to provide an alibi.

Heritage Foundation and Heritage Action for America President Dr. Kevin Roberts was invited to the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) annual conference in Davos, Switzerland, to appear on a panel about “What to Expect from a Possible Republican Administration” on Thursday.

In an op-ed penned ahead of the conference, Roberts wrote that he accepted the invitation to deliver the global elites a message. “Davos must accept the moral virtues, practical benefits, and natural rights of nations, families, and individuals to govern themselves,” Roberts wrote, or “‘We, the People’” will “take matters into our own hands.”

Roberts certainly delivered that message. When asked about who will likely join a new Trump administration, Roberts said it will be those who wish to destroy “the grasp that political elites and unelected technocrats have over the average person.”

“The agenda that every single member of the administration needs to have is to compile a list of everything that’s ever been proposed at the World Economic Forum, and object to all of them wholesale,” he added. //

The Heritage Foundation president aptly pointed out that the WEF elites, “the media, the academy, government agencies, international organizations, corporations, and the arts,” don’t actually care about preserving “democracy.” They fear Trump because a Trump presidency poses an existential threat to their power — and Roberts did nothing to alleviate that fear. //

Roberts also condemned elites for scaring people into believing “so-called climate change” is an “existential” threat to humanity and pointed out that Davos’ “solutions” to the supposed climate crisis are killing people. “More than a billion people in the world have been lifted out of poverty in the last 35 years because of fossil fuels,” Roberts explained. Yet climate alarmists are shutting down energy production to replace it with insufficient green energy.

“China,” Roberts added, is “the No. 1 adversary not just to the United States, but to free people on planet Earth. Not only do we at Davos not say that, we give the Chinese Communist Party a platform.” //

“I think President Trump, if in fact he wins a second term, is going to be inspired by the wise words of Javier Milei, who said that he was in power not to guide sheep, but to awaken lions,” concluded the president of Heritage. “That’s what the average American and the average free person on planet Earth wants out of leaders.”