#kevin roberts

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Allison Fisher at MMFA:

During The New York Times’ “Climate Week NYC” discussion with Heritage Foundation president and Project 2025 architect Kevin Roberts, reporter David Gelles outlined the right-wing initiative’s regressive approach to climate change and the environment. Gelles also noted that Project 2025's call to dismantle climate action comes as the world is already experiencing the consequences of a warming climate, pointing out that a record number of people in the Phoenix, Arizona, area were killed by extreme heat this year alone. Roberts responded by pointing to Heritage Foundation research claiming that there has been a “reduction in climate deaths — climate-related deaths — over the last century by 98%.” Not only is this a red herring argument used by climate deniers to downplay the climate crisis, but that reduction is reportedly due in part to improved forecasting, which is done by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, an agency Project 2025 has called to dismantling.

As Reuters has reported, the decrease in deaths since 1920 is largely due to “better forecasting and preparedness,” even while “the number, intensity, and cost of climatic and meteorological hazards have all increased over the last hundred years.”

Notably, Project 2025 calls for dismantling NOAA, which houses the National Hurricane Center, the very agency that has improved the forecasting of deadly weather events and is critical to providing life-saving information. 

With Hurricane Helene in the process of making landfall, Project 2025 architect and Heritage head honcho Kevin Roberts told the Climate Week NYC hosted by The New York Times vomited out climate denialist talking points. Project 2025 has called for the dismantling of NOAA and National Hurricane Center (NHC) and the privatization of the NWS.

[destiel-news-network]

(Source)

After the plane ride, he went on to praise the organization behind the project. Trump has since lied — saying he "had no idea" about anything to do with the project..

[alwaysbewoke]

x

[perseuspixl]

Here is Project 2025 leader Kevin Roberts saying Donald Trump gets full “credit” for creating Project 2025 and will enact it if he wins

[thedialoguedilemma]

Just a theory that has been floating around:

JD Vance, Stephen Miller, Elon Musk, Kevin Roberts and Russell Vought alongside big tech are puppeteering Donald Trump to do the most insane forms of policy pushes as President in an effort to crash the United States into a national crisis and have Congress invoke the 25th Amendment. This is the plan, this was always the plan.

This is what President Biden was warning us against. It’s bigger than Trump. The thing that makes Trump so dangerous is the fact that’s he’s a moron and he’s easily manipulated. The names I listed above ARE THE OLIGARCHY.

[mylionheart2]

[lucrezianoin]

source on twt

Trump’s friend, Project 2025 founder Kevin Roberts, issued a cryptic warning and admitted to an even deeper, hidden agenda: “We are winning. …Some [victories are] in ways that the other side doesn’t yet know …And we’re not going to tell you everything that’s coming.”

[tomorrowusa]

As with The Apprentice, Project 2025 is scripted.

To Trump and his scriptwriters at Project 2025, "porn" is a euphemism for the LGBTQ+ community.

The Real Targets of Project 2025’s War on Porn It's not just about people watching porn. It’s drag queens, trans people, LGBTQ library books, and more.

The prominence of pornography in Project 2025 is no mistake, of course; it’s absolutely core to the authors’ agenda for Trump. The attack on porn is inseparable from the attacks on abortion and contraception, on marriage equality and trans rights, and of course on drag queens and library books—all of which, they believe, threaten the straight, married family as the natural bedrock of society. All of these threats, to them, constitute pornography. By calling on the president to outlaw porn, they’re calling for the eradication of all these imagined enemies of the family. Though Project 2025 does not define “pornography,” their concern clearly extends beyond porn itself. Pornography, according to the Mandate, is responsible for the “normalization” of non-normative gender expression and identity among young people—what the right often calls “gender ideology.” Pornography could be anything that contributes to that purported normalization. “Pornography,” Roberts continues, is “manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children.” And how should it be outlawed? “The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered.” Project 2025 is not targeting “pornography” as something that’s harmful to children per se, but rather redefining anything concerning sexuality and gender that they say is harmful to children as pornography. [ ... ] Behind all this is what philosopher Judith Butler calls anti-gender ideology and movements, which is how we should understand Project 2025’s anti-pornography rhetoric. It’s a transnational movement, fueling and also fueled by the reassertion of patriarchal order, of a return to normative sex and gender roles, and of ordering the world by sex and gender hierarchies.

It's always easier to prevent a dictatorship than it is to oust one. Register and Vote.

I Will Vote

[hale-my-nathan]

Trump Weird News - Project 2025 - Really, Still in Denial?

[jonostroveart]

PRETZEL LOGIC

Trump is flat out denying that he knows anything about or has anything to do with Project 2025 . In one breath, he says he knows nothing about it, in the next he says he disagrees with it. Is that pretzel logic, or what? Either he’s full of shit or he’s a babbling idiot. Pick one. “Both” is also an acceptable answer. And of course, there is video of Trump shaking hands with Project 2025’s führer, Kevin Roberts. Apologies to the great Steely Dan.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Andrew Prokop at Vox:

Former President Donald Trump has lately been trying to distance himself from Project 2025, claiming it was cooked up by the “severe right” and that he doesn’t know anything about it. But it turns out the severe right is coming from inside the house. Kevin Roberts, the self-proclaimed “head” of Project 2025, has a book coming out in September — and the book’s foreword is written by Trump’s vice presidential candidate, J.D. Vance, who lavishly praises its ideas. “Never before has a figure with Roberts’s depth and stature within the American Right tried to articulate a genuinely new future for conservatism,” Vance writes, according to the book’s Amazon page. “We are now all realizing that it’s time to circle the wagons and load the muskets. In the fights that lay ahead, these ideas are an essential weapon.”

What ideas? Like Vance, Roberts is obsessed with the idea that the left controls major American institutions — he lists Ivy League colleges, the FBI, the New York Times, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Department of Education and even the Boy Scouts of America. The book argues that “conservatives need to burn down” these institutions if “we’re to preserve the American way of life.” (Vox has requested a copy of the book, but has not yet received one at the time of this writing.) Obviously, this poses a problem for Trump’s attempts to distance himself from the virally unpopular Project 2025 and its lengthy agenda for what he should do if he wins, which includes proposals to restrict abortion access and centralize executive power in the presidency.

And it’s one more indication that Trump’s pick of Vance might be politically problematic for him. Vance has a fascination with provocative and extreme far-right thinkers, and a history of praising their ideas. He is not a running mate tailored to win over swing voters who are concerned Trump might be too extreme — quite the opposite. The book was written and announced before Vance was chosen as Trump’s running mate. But there’s some indication that people involved had some late second thoughts about it. It was originally announced as “Dawn’s Early Light: Burning Down Washington to Save America,” with a cover image showing a match over the word “Washington.”

More recently, though, the subtitle has been changed to “Taking Back Washington to Save America,” and the match has vanished from the cover.

[...]

Vance agrees quite a bit with Project 2025’s most extreme ideas

Project 2025 contains a multitude of proposals in its 922-page plan, not all of which J.D. Vance necessarily supports. But he’s on record backing ideas similar to those put forth in two of Project 2025’s most controversial issue areas. The first is abortion. Project 2025 lays out a sweeping agenda by which the next president could use federal power to prevent abortions, including using an old law called the Comstock Act to prosecute people who mail abortion pills, and working to prevent women from abortion-banning states from traveling out of state to get abortions.

Vance is on record supporting these ideas. Last year, he signed a letter demanding that the Justice Department prosecute physicians and pharmacists “who break the Federal mail-order abortion laws.” In 2022, he said he was “sympathetic” to the idea that the federal government should stop efforts to help women traveling out of their states to get abortions. That year, he also said: “I certainly would like abortion to be illegal nationally.” At other points, Vance has struck a different tone. ““We have to accept that people do not want blanket abortion bans,” he said last December. And this month he said he supported a Supreme Court decision that allowed the abortion bill mifepristone to remain available. Here, Vance is trying to align with Trump, who — fearing political blowback — argues he merely wants abortion to be a state issue, despite his long alliance with the religious right. But Vance’s record implies his true agenda might be otherwise.

The second controversial area where Vance is sympatico with Project 2025 is centralizing presidential power over the executive branch. The project lays out various proposals to rein in what conservatives view as an out-of-control “deep state” bureaucracy — mainly, by firing far more career civil servants and installing far more political appointees throughout the government. Vance, as I wrote last week, has backed a maximalist version of this agenda. In 2021, Vance said that in Trump’s second term, Trump should “fire every single midlevel bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people.” The courts would try to stop this, Vance continued, and Trump should then “stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did, and say, ‘The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.’”

While Donald Trump is doing his darndest to supposedly run away from the highly unpopular Project 2025, his ticketmate J.D. Vance is making that proposition difficult to impossible.

See Also:

HuffPost: There’s Another Link Between Trump’s Campaign And Project 2025

[ngdrb]

The Dangers of the MAGA Movement: An Objective Analysis

The "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) movement, popularized by former President Donald Trump, has been one of the most influential and polarizing political movements in recent American history. While it has garnered a significant base of support, it has also raised concerns about its potential dangers. This blog post explores the various aspects of the MAGA movement, analyzing its possible risks and the implications for the future of American society.

Historical Context

The MAGA movement originated during Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, with the slogan "Make America Great Again" appealing to many Americans who felt left behind by globalization and economic changes. The movement's core message was to restore America's former glory by focusing on national interests, reducing immigration, and renegotiating trade deals.

Potential Dangers

1. Polarization and Division

One of the most significant dangers of the MAGA movement is its contribution to political polarization and division. The rhetoric often used by its leaders and supporters can be divisive, pitting different groups against each other based on factors such as race, religion, or political affiliation. This polarization can lead to a fractured society where constructive dialogue becomes difficult, and consensus on critical issues is nearly impossible to achieve.

The Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement, spearheaded by former President Donald Trump, has sparked significant controversy and raised concerns about its potential impact on the fabric of American society. While the movement's rhetoric appeals to a sense of patriotism and a desire for national prosperity, it has also been criticized for promoting divisive and extreme views.

One of the primary dangers associated with the MAGA movement is the perpetuation of divisive rhetoric and the potential for fueling social tensions. The movement's narrative often portrays a stark divide between "true Americans" and those perceived as outsiders or threats, leading to a polarized and fragmented society. This divisiveness can undermine the principles of unity, inclusivity, and respect for diversity that are fundamental to a healthy democracy.

Additionally, the MAGA movement has been linked to the rise of extreme ideologies and fringe groups with radical agendas. While the movement itself may not explicitly endorse violence, its rhetoric and messaging have been co-opted by individuals and organizations that promote hate, intolerance, and in some cases, violent extremism. This association raises concerns about the potential normalization of extremist views and the potential for escalating tensions and conflicts.

Furthermore, the MAGA movement's skepticism towards mainstream media and its embrace of alternative sources of information have contributed to the spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories. This erosion of trust in authoritative sources and the blurring of fact and fiction can undermine the ability of citizens to make informed decisions and foster an environment where disinformation thrives.

It is crucial to acknowledge that the MAGA movement represents a diverse range of perspectives and individuals, and not all supporters espouse extreme or divisive views. However, the concerns raised about its rhetoric, associations, and potential consequences for social cohesion and democratic norms should be carefully examined and addressed through open and constructive dialogue.

2. Undermining Democratic Principles: A Narrative of Decay

One of the primary concerns surrounding the MAGA movement is its alleged erosion of democratic norms and institutions. Critics have pointed to the movement's repeated allegations of widespread voter fraud and its refusal to accept the results of the 2020 presidential election as undermining trust in the electoral process. Additionally, the movement's attacks on the free press and labeling of unfavorable coverage as "fake news" have been seen as attempts to discredit a vital component of a healthy democracy.

The MAGA movement has also been criticized for its divisive rhetoric and embrace of extreme views. The movement's nationalist and populist messaging has been accused of fostering an "us versus them" mentality, pitting different groups against one another based on race, religion, or political affiliation. Additionally, some fringe elements within the movement have been linked to white supremacist ideologies and conspiracy theories, raising concerns about the normalization of extremist views.

Perhaps the most concerning aspect of the MAGA movement is its potential for inciting violence. The movement has been blamed for emboldening individuals and groups with a propensity for violence, as evidenced by the events surrounding the January 6th insurrection at the United States Capitol. The inflammatory rhetoric and unwillingness to accept electoral outcomes have been cited as contributing factors to the violence witnessed on that day.

As the MAGA movement continues to evolve and shape political discourse, it is crucial to maintain a critical and objective perspective. While the movement may resonate with some segments of the population, its potential impact on democratic institutions, its divisive rhetoric, and its association with extremist elements and violence should be carefully examined and addressed.

3. Divisive Rhetoric and Extreme Views

The MAGA movement has been criticized for its divisive rhetoric, which often targets minority groups, immigrants, and political opponents. Extreme views and conspiracy theories have found a foothold within certain factions of the movement, fueling an "us versus them" mentality. This polarization can erode social trust, undermine democratic institutions, and potentially lead to violence.

The MAGA movement has sometimes been associated with extremist groups and individuals. Events such as the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, highlight the potential for violent actions stemming from extreme ideological beliefs. The normalization of extremist rhetoric can lead to an increase in hate crimes and domestic terrorism, posing a threat to public safety and national security.

The movement's stance on immigration and its often-nationalist rhetoric can have adverse effects on minority groups. Policies perceived as anti-immigrant or exclusionary can foster an environment of fear and discrimination. This can lead to social unrest and a further divide between different communities within the country, undermining the principles of equality and unity.

While the MAGA movement promises economic prosperity, its protectionist and isolationist tendencies could have unintended consequences. Strained relationships with international allies, trade disputes, and a focus on domestic industries may hinder global competitiveness and economic growth in the long run.

It is crucial to examine the MAGA movement through an objective and fact-based lens, recognizing both its potential benefits and risks. A balanced and inclusive approach, grounded in democratic values and respect for diversity, is essential to address the concerns raised and foster unity within the nation.

4. Strained International Relations

The MAGA movement, centered on "America First," prioritizes domestic interests over global cooperation, which can strain international relations. Policies such as renegotiating trade deals and withdrawing from international agreements reflect an isolationist stance that may provoke tensions with other nations. This approach risks diminishing America's influence globally by reducing its role in collaborative efforts and undermining established alliances. The emphasis on unilateral actions could hinder international cooperation on crucial issues like climate change, security, and economic stability. Furthermore, it may isolate the United States diplomatically, weakening its ability to shape global policies and responses effectively. In essence, while "America First" policies aim to prioritize national interests, they potentially sacrifice broader international partnerships and leadership roles, impacting both global stability and America's standing on the world stage.

Conclusion

While the MAGA movement has undoubtedly resonated with a significant portion of the American population, it is essential to consider its potential dangers. The risks of increased polarization, erosion of democratic norms, rise of extremism, negative impact on minority groups, and strained international relations are serious concerns that need to be addressed. Moving forward, all political movements must strive for unity, uphold democratic principles, and promote inclusivity to ensure a stable and prosperous future for all Americans.

By understanding and acknowledging these potential dangers, we can work towards mitigating them and fostering a more cohesive and resilient society.

[gwydionmisha]

CW: Dead Animals

[perseuspixl]

"We are in the process of the second American Revolution which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be. Kevin Roberts

Right-Wing Goon/Nutcase

President of The Heritage Foundation

[victusinveritas]

[nodynasty4us]

From the July 4, 2024 blog post:

[Heritage Foundation President Kevin] Roberts knows that Trump is itching to send troops to suppress left-wing demonstrations. Roberts also knows that it only takes a little bit of violence to seemingly justify violent repression, if you greatly exaggerate how violent demonstrators are. That's what Roberts wants. He wants some violence -- it doesn't have to be much -- to justify an American Tiananmen or new Kent State, or several Kent States. (Presumably he knows that the majority of respondents to a Gallup poll conducted just after the Kent State massacre approved of the deadly National Guard response.) Like Trump and like many other right-wingers, Roberts wants to use physical violence on liberals and the left, and wants to be able to say he and his allies were justified in doing so. This is a fantasy about acting violently with impunity because you have absolute dictatorial power and a fantasy about being acclaimed by the public as a hero and protector. Roberts and his allies are sick, twisted people. This is what they want.