Heritage President Kevin Roberts versus WEF

I have been the occasional listener of PBD for a little while, the most recent episode features Davos convention and one courageous American who has taken their 1st amendment rights straight to the top. What a legend.





Fast forward to 59:50, it's a 5 minute clip and a 20 minute dialogue around the subject. It's a fascinating listen, I say that because I put it on while I'm puttering around the house not watching the screen.

"It's laughable that you or anyone would describe Davos as ‘protecting liberal democracy’," Roberts said.

"It's equally laughable to use the word ‘dictatorship’ at Davos and aim that at President Trump. In fact, I think that's absurd."

"The thing that I want to drive home here, the very reason that I'm here at Davos, is to explain to many people in this room and who are watching, with all due respect, nothing personal, but that you're part of the problem,"

"I'll be candid here, because I think I've been invited here to be candid: The kind of person who will come into the next conservative administration is going to be governed by one principle, and that is destroying the grasp that political elites and unelected technocrats have over the average person," he said.

"I will be candid and say that the agenda that every single member of the [next] 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."

www.foxbusiness.com...





STAFF EDIT
not sure if this is the same vid......
www.youtube.com...

Kevin Roberts deserves a headline on such a platform as this one, where countless hours have been invested in dissecting, analyzing and exposing the WEF for their meddlesome and frankly sinister purposes. Give the man a medal for trying to humble these elitist benefactors (I use that language facetiously if it's not obvious) who have lost touch with reality, especially when you have conversations like this one happening and no one wants to object.

WEF Klaus Schwab envisions a future without elections

Twitter video

Schwab spoke to Google co-founder Sergey Brin on stage at the WEF gathering and discussed the predicting powers of AI technology.

"Digital technologies mainly have an analytical power; now we go into a predictive power, and we have seen the first examples, and your company very much evolved into it," he told the Google founder. "The next step could be to go into a prescriptive mode, which means you do not even have to have elections any more because you can already predict."

hey I am glad you posted this, but is strange nobody comments on it. This is as close to spitting in the face of the cabal as it gets. Nobody believes your lies anymore, nobody agress with your vision. And in their own venue. I guess the new Heritage foundation is not so bad. But we cannot forget it was created by George Soros, and the surviving Koch brother with a generous endowment by both of them.

Great speech.
Is he trying to get on the 2024 Deadpool or is he just controlled opposition?
I know which one Klaus is.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Thanks for your input. I don't see any records of that "generous endowment" toward heritage foundation from either of those benefactors.

a reply to: TzarChasm

My mistake. I was working off memory and confused this with the Quincy Institute , not Heritage. Whew, I better read my own # before I jump the gun. I wonder who is a benefactor then .

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Mandate for Leadership is a series of books published by the Heritage Foundation, an American conservative think-tank based in Washington, D.C. They are intended to serve as guidelines for reducing the size and scope of the federal government through specific policy recommendations. The books have traditionally been released to coincide with an incoming U.S. presidential administration, starting with the Reagan administration in 1981. 

Mandate For Leadership 2025

☝️ Most recent edition, direct PDF download link for your convenience

is the 'Heritage Foundation' in any way linked to or with the 'American Heritage' magazine ?

i do recall Forbes is in the mix someway

a reply to: StudioNada

Forbes has published several articles exploring the conception, expansion and modern influences of the heritage foundation.

2023

2021

2019

2016

And a few others you can dig up on your own time.

a reply to: TzarChasm

thanks, but No.... your 'off-the-top-of-my-head' reply sufficed

a reply to: StudioNada

I assumed your question was going somewhere with it. Thanks for participating.

“I can truly say that I’ve never been more hopeful about the future of democracy,” the conservative Catholic academic leader wrote in a Tuesday commentary piece for The Daily Signal – his organization’s media outlet.

He called the “elites” who spoke at the mid-January meeting in Davos, Switzerland “profoundly unimpressive.” He referred to speeches by United Nations (UN) Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Premier Li Qiang, and WEF founder Klaus Schwab.

“For 72 hours, I watched speakers who supposed themselves to be the most powerful people in the world fret about a ‘trust’ they knew they’d lost and wouldn’t get back,” Roberts reported.

We know the Davoisie don’t want to “rebuild trust”—they want to control our lives. And more importantly, we know they only have as much power as we give them. They’re old. They’re tired. They’re scared. And they should be. Their time is up. That’s what I told them, right to their faces.

catholicvote.org...

Heritage Foundation Plans For "Institutionalizing Trumpism" (whatever that means)

Under you, Heritage has vocally opposed recent aid packages to Ukraine. It has criticized the Biden administration for what you’ve said is a lack of transparency when it comes to how the money is being spent and how you believe those packages are impacting the administration’s domestic priorities. Can you explain some of your thinking on that pivot?

Yeah, sure. But perhaps it would be helpful to start with my perception of those examples you mentioned relative to the Reagan principle of peace through strength. We believe that the manner in which the Ukraine aid packages have been put together, the manner in which they’ve been debated or really not debated in Congress, the manner in which they’ve not been analyzed, the manner in which there’s no transparency, the fact that there’s no strategy actually is a violation of the principle of peace through strength.

But we had Russia invade a sovereign country on the doorstep of a democratic Europe. Does it not seem to you squarely within the U.S. national interest to stop Russian aggression?

if we do so in a way that is responsible with the people’s money, that articulates what the end game is, that is solely focused on military aid. And frankly, also recognizes that the United States of America, in both Democrat and Republican administrations, had a role in creating this conflict.

Project 2025 is Heritage’s big project in advance of the next election, a plan for if a conservative takes over the presidency. How would you describe its purpose?

But the point is to hasten the hiring of aligned personnel and hasten the implementation of conservative policy. And that includes hastening the overturning, via executive order, of what we believe are wrong policies of the current administration.

One priority for both your organization and the Republican Party writ large is reducing the size of the federal work force. What do you envision when you say, as you have said, you want to destroy the administrative state?

I envision the destruction that I’m referring to, which I presume is the real focus of your question, as a political entity being significantly weakened. People will lose their jobs. Hopefully their lives are able to flourish in spite of that. Buildings will be shut down. Hopefully they can be repurposed for private industry. But the administrative state — most importantly, what we’re trying to destroy is the political influence it has over individual American sovereignty

I just want to explain what Schedule F is. It’s an executive order that would reclassify tens of thousands of government workers, taking away their employment protections.

Yes, ultimately. That estimate in terms of the number affected seems high to me. I’ve seen 50,000. I ultimately don’t know the precise number, but that’s a comfortable range.

Roberts is making sense, again, again.