Heritage Trustee: “I will not—I cannot—accept the idea that we have ‘no enemies to the right'”
Prof. Robbie George: “The white supremacists, the antisemites, the eugenicists, the bigots, must not be welcomed into our movement or treated as normal or acceptable. Is this a call for “cancelation”? No. It’s a reminder that we conservatives stand for something—or should stand for something. We have core principles that are not negotiable.”
Robbie George is a conservative Princeton University professor and speaks and writes widely on the value of civic discourse.
Most importantly for this purpose, he has been a Trustee of the Heritage Foundation since 2019.
You may have heard Heritage is in the news because its president Kevin Roberts released a video swearing allegiance to Tucker Carlson after Tucker’s slobbering interview with neo-Nazi and Groyper leader Nick Fuentes. I covered the absolutely furious reaction (including from me) in Heritage Foundation Soils Itself, Embraces Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes.
What was most infuriating about the video was how insulting he was to critics of Tucker. As I said in my prior post:
What a disgraceful statement. Tucker is allowed to spew his crap, and we are allowed to criticize him for it.
We are not a “venomous coalition … sowing division,” we’re responding to two years of non-stop demonization by Tucker. No Kevin, we are not “bad actors who serve someone else’s agenda,” we are Americans who believe that the Jew hatred and venom normalized by Tucker both is abhorrent in its own right and also is anti-American and anti-MAGA.
The reaction has escalated, if anything. Internal Heritage staffers have been “subtweeting” about the Roberts video:
— PrestonBrashers (@PrestonBrashers) October 31, 2025
Roberts released a written follow up affirming Heritage’s opposition to anti-Semitism – but it only fed the fire because it said nothing about Tucker. The focus on Fuentes is a distraction.
It’s Tucker’s normalization of anti-Jewish ideologies that is the problem. That’s what Rod Dreher focused on in an excellent Substack post, Nick + Tucker: A Two-Man Unite The Right Rally (emphasis added):
Jews are afraid. They have been completely blindsided by the swift rise of anti-Semitism on both the Left and the Right. As you regular readers know, I’ve known about this, and deplored it, but it’s something else when you talk to actual American Jews, even those who live in one of the best places for Jews in the United States (which, aside from Israel, is probably the best country in the world for Jews), and hear them talk about their fears.
One man told me that he now hears all the time people in his community talking about emigrating to Israel. He said, “I think for most of us, it’s just a matter of time.”
An Evangelical listening in on the conversation said that his wife has been shocked by how many normies in her local mom’s Facebook group share clips from Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes — truly crazy stuff. Said this flustered man, “These are suburban conservative moms who repost videos with Fuentes ranting about AIPAC, and they have no idea what AIPAC is.” They’re just going with the flow. They trust Fuentes and Owens, so whatever those two say, they accept.
Every one of the right-wing Jews to whom I spoke last night believe that Tucker Carlson is the most dangerous man in America to Jews, because in their view, he’s the most important mainstreamer of anti-Semitism on the Right. This was painful for me to hear, because I consider Tucker a friend, and though I have been disturbed by the anti-Jewish turn his rhetoric has taken, I had not been aware of how extensive his anti-Jewish commentary had been (I don’t regularly listen to his podcast), nor the effect his rhetoric has had on the outlook of American Jews.
Tell the crisis management team they need to do better. Fuentes is not the main issue – Tucker and his normalization and stoking of Jew hatred (Fuentes was just one of many such guests) is the issue.
— William A. Jacobson (@wajacobson) October 31, 2025
The smooth and easy part is to condemn Nick Fuentes. But Fuentes is not the most dangerous anti-Semite in America. That title belongs to his enabler, Tucker Carlson. So that’s the tougher and braver call, to condemn both the snake and the snake charmer. Be tough and brave!
— Dinesh D'Souza (@DineshDSouza) November 1, 2025
Everyone with a moral compass knows Fuentes is a creep. The harder admission is that Tucker is too—for giving Fuentes and a parade of degenerates oxygen, legitimacy, and an audience. Say it plainly: Tucker is spreading the rot. https://t.co/F1jpydyZuD
— Mike (@Doranimated) October 31, 2025
But throughout it all, Prof. George has conveyed a sense of reasonableness. This was his first reaction:
I'm reposting this tweet of mine from two-and-a-half years ago. The point and plea I made back then are even more urgent today. https://t.co/POrgvp2TXK
— Robert P. George (@McCormickProf) October 30, 2025
He followed up today with a tweet that is one of the best statements I’ve seen. He doesn’t mention Tucker or Fuentes by name, but it’s clear it is the Tucker/Fuentes movement he’s talking about, and as a Heritage Trustee, it’s an insight into what may be going on at the organization behind the scenes (emphasis added):
A few days ago, I posted a brief statement of what I, as a conservative, seek to conserve. The first item on the list was what I regard as the foundational principle of all sound morality: the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of each and every member of the human family. Everything else I believe about ethics and politics in one way or another stands upon or presupposes that principle. Any form of “conservatism” (or “liberalism”) that denies it in principle or transgresses it in practice is alien to me.
That is why I believe that the conservative movement, though it can and should be a broad tent, simply cannot include or accommodate white supremacists or racists of any type, antisemites, eugenicists, or others whose ideologies are incompatible with belief in the inherent and equal dignity of all. As a conservative, I say that there is no place for such people in our movement.
So, while I understand and appreciate that politics is about “adding and multiplying, not subtracting and dividing,” and though I welcome conservatives representing a range of viewpoints on a wide swath of issues, I will not—I cannot—accept the idea that we have “no enemies to the right.” The white supremacists, the antisemites, the eugenicists, the bigots, must not be welcomed into our movement or treated as normal or acceptable.
Is this a call for “cancelation”? No. It’s a reminder that we conservatives stand for something—or should stand for something. We have core principles that are not negotiable.
I am—notoriously, for some of my fellow conservatives—committed to the principle of free speech for everybody, including people with whom I profoundly disagree even on the most important issues, indeed, including racists and other bigots. But defending their rights does not mean allying with them, welcoming them into our movement, or treating them as representing legitimate forms of conservatism.
I am also—again, notoriously, for some of my fellow conservatives—willing to engage people with whom I deeply disagree, so long as they are honest and are willing to do business in the proper currency of intellectual discourse, a currency consisting of reasons, evidence, and arguments. (It is pointless to engage bad faith actors, charlatans, and con men.) But, again, engaging and forcefully arguing against people who deny the inherent and equal dignity of all is one thing, welcoming them into the movement or treating their ideas and ideologies as representing legitimate forms of conservatism is something entirely different.
Let me be plain. American conservatism today faces a challenge. That challenge comes from those who reject our commitment to inherent and equal human dignity. They are seeking acceptance in the conservative movement and its institutions, and they do so with the ultimate objective of transforming them by undermining that commitment. They openly preach white supremacy and the hatred of Jews, among other noxious ideas. They no longer feel the need even to try to hide their bigotry.
It is incumbent upon those of us who maintain the “ancient faith” (to borrow a phrase from Lincoln) to make clear to friend and foe alike that we will not permit the integrity of our movement and its institutions to be compromised. We will not treat its foundational principle of inherent and equal human dignity as optional. On the contrary, we will insist on it, defending and advancing it with renewed dedication.
My less articulate take on that point:
Hey @Heritage @KevinRobertsTX here’s your next keynote speaker. Under your standards, if you don’t platform and promote him, it’s cancel culture.
Hey @Heritage @KevinRobertsTX here's your next keynote speaker. Under your standards, if you don't platform and promote him, it's cancel culture. https://t.co/aARTcUnloh
— William A. Jacobson (@wajacobson) October 31, 2025
I’d be surprised if Heritage keeps Roberts given the damage he has done to the institution.
Kevin Roberts denounced those who criticized Tucker as “venemous” and “sowing division.”
Dana Loesch asks him if saying you hate Christian Zionists isn’t also venomous and sowing division.
He appears to malfunction in response. pic.twitter.com/HTaEcZ81i8
— Richard Hanania (@RichardHanania) October 31, 2025
While many Republican politicians have spoken out against Fuentes, Ted Cruz was one of the only with the guts to take on Tucker:
If you say nothing when someone tells you that Adolf Hitler was cool, you are a coward and complicit in evil.
My full remarks to the @RJC, here: https://t.co/gM0rBDDoUm pic.twitter.com/Zo5wyVoTVY
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) October 31, 2025
There’s only one person who can put an end to the Tucker/Groyper hijacking of and attempt to destroy the MAGA movement, and he hasn’t said anything.
Yet.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Kevin Roberts must perform the honorable act of resignation rather than take a well respected institution down with his despicable views.
He should follow the time honored Japanese solution and commit Seppuku.
Haven’t seen Tucker since his sudden cancelation on Fox News. It is distressing to learn of this. The original eugenicists were Progressives. They swapped ideas with Hitler. So I reject the idea that these people are to the right of me, of us. How did Nazis get assigned to ‘right-wing,’ anyway? Fascists were men of the Left! Mussolini went back to Marxism before he was killed. Etc.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention.
I need to do some stock-taking. Cure my ignorance, some of it anyway. “No antisemites!” should be our rallying cry. Sorry, Tucker…
I’m with you. TC and NF are not conservatives. They are just another flavor of leftist nuts.
If you are socialist or communist you are on the left. If you are a capitalist you are on the right. An antisemite can be either on the left or the right. Either left or right can be authoritarian. Either left or right can be nationalistic. I think only the left can be a globalist but I could very well be wrong.
Stalin branded Hitler “right wing.” Stalin was so far left that anyone his right would qualify by his lights. The other WW II Allies adopted the label, because it helped separate Stalin from Hitler, preventing their citizens from realizing the fact that Hitler and our ally Stalin were two peas in a pod.
Supporters of “Hitler as right-wing” cite the street battles between Nazis and Communists as evidence they were political opposites. But these battles were not between Right and Left, they were battles between two ideologically similar political parties, one nationalist (and socialist) and the other internationalist (communist, and controlled by a foreign government). They were “opponents” but not “opposites,” vying for the support of the same political constituents, socialist-minded Germans. Many of Hitler’s earliest supporters came from the communists. The communists did not switch allegiance from “Left” to “Right,” they switched from Soviet-directed international communism to home-grown national socialism, from one Leftist political party to another. The contest was a form of a civil war for control of Germany.
This. The Nazis used to brag about how easy it was to convert communists. They didn’t have to do much, just convince the person on a few key points.
Socialism is left wing and Hitler was a socialist by his own admission.
Mussolini was also a socialist, yet he was the exemplar of fascism. What does that tell you?
It’s quite possible there is actually no one “to the right” of MAGA.
It’s probably more accurate to define the ‘wings’ as totalitarians and independents. Both communists and fascists of various stripes hunger to have the government in control of every human’s life, and themselves in control of the government, they just give different explanations. The US is a rare case of the independents getting power, and writing themselves a government (after a few false starts) that is supposed to protect that independence while providing enough structure to survive. God willing, it will endure.
This debate has been hashed to death, and the generally-accepted solution is that the domain is two-dimensional. See Nolan Chart, where the two axes are socialism/capitalism and freedom/tyranny. My comment is that MAGA occupies one of the capitalist edges — where you think it lies on that edge depends more on where YOU lie.
I am a supportive of Israel
Putting some people on the ‘Right’ as if some conservatives are some kind of extreme Right wing but in line with the Marxists anti-Isreal
Right and Left as in National Socialism and Leftist Marxism are not opposite, they were different only in German Nationalism and Bolsheviks world domination.
To me the likes of Carlson are slipping to the Left not to the “Right”
Antisemitism and TDS are anxiety disorders with paranoia. Taken to extremes they can both result in social instability and death. Conservatives should have a zero tolerance policy for both. Unfortunately, it seems that our president regards the Jew haters as useful idiots, with emphasis on useful and idiots.
I understand that is the Kevin D. Roberts Ph.D you’re referring to.
Apparently, conservative principles are negotiable, Professor George. The left pretty much controls every cultural institution at this point.
The term “white supremacist” like “fascist,” gets used in a pejorative and careless manner. What does it mean? How come we rarely hear “black supremacist,” or “Asian supremacist, “or “Chinese supremacist.” The terms seems only to get applied to white people. Suppose one rejects the notion that all races, and ethnic groups are equal (or equivalent) in all possible ways? Does that make one a “white supremacist?” In other words, a rejection of the blank slate assumption. To argue that different groups differ in some human traits at the macro level does not constitute hatred.
For the same reason we don’t hear about the “far left wing” or “extreme left wing.”
We do hear of black supremacists, such as Nation of Islam, and the Black Israelites. Even the horrible SPLC calls them black supremacists and condemns them.
Hayek explained that politics is better represented as a circle with liberty and totalitarianism at the lower and upper poles such that as you moved via the left or right, you moved further from liberty toward totalitarianism.
Sorry. I did not intend this as a response to oden, but as a general comment on the entire thread. I seldom post and don’t always use the system correctly.
Only in the West do we doubt our own supremacy. Obscure and small tribes all think that they are the best.
You get dignity by doing something for somebody else. Dignity is not inherent.
What works individually also works by race. The day that blacks take up a collection for poor whites is the day that blacks discover the dignity that they think is being withheld from them.
Israeli dignity comes from taking care of Palestinians.
Palestinians are pretty much without dignity.
Except the dignity claim of being oppressed, the false dignity that blacks have been using for 80 years. And feeling that dignity is being withheld from them.
Look at you talking about dignity like you actually understand human social dynamics and aren’t a weird antisocial automaton.
Hey. Applaud when he finds an acorn.
Rhhardin is the first person I have seen trying to define the magic word called “dignity.”
Palestinians are without dignity (i.e., being worthy of respect) because they have shed themselves of it.
IMO we have too many people using too many terms they don’t fully understand and those same terms being heard by others whose response either positive or negative is impacted by their own misunderstanding of the terms, the context in which used or worse filtered through a lens of bad faith, sometimes to the point of seeing things that don’t exist, searching for shadows and finding them. That’s not to say there are not instances of antisemitism, there absolutely are and anyone willing to see can observe the disturbingly large and growing number.
IMO, antisemitism, like any other hatred/prejudices based on religion, should not be welcome. Period, no nuance, and absolutely equally applicable to those who endorse or espouse hate/prejudice based on any religion. Nor should we welcome race hustlers or any sort of racial/ethnic supremacist of any stripe. Period, no exceptions.
The call to remove a platform is a tough one for me. To rule out speech and debate, especially speech we disagree with, is at odds with what I believe is the wiser answer; more and better speech in opposition. That said a podcast host like TC certainly has no right to viewers or subscribers and if he loses his commercial audience that’s tough cookies.
The dilemma or mine anyway in thinking this through over the past couple days, is the intertwined nature of the speaking opportunities aka platforms for the ‘right’. We have think tanks not Universities so the arms length traditional free speech approach that Universities used to operate with don’t really work in practice. A think tank like Heritage isn’t just a place to give a speech as a Univ might be. They push a particular broad political ideology, host scholars, raise funds, develop policies, serve as the intellectual engines of the ‘right’ and wield great influence. Given all that, I believe groups/institutions like Heritage also have an obligation to be responsible in their use of their influence and to refuse access and speaking opportunities to not just to openly antisemitic nuts like Fuentes but to those like TC or Candice Owens who have either strayed into abhorrent views or are only relatively recently displaying them. These sorts of former allies may yet return to the fold once they discover their errors, admit them and serve some sort of penance but IMO until then they should be shunned by the organized political ‘right’. There are lines that shouldn’t be crossed without consequences and TC and Owens both crossed it.
The words Antisemitism and Islamophobia (which is a stupid word) are unique because they are both used to refer to ethnic prejudices as well as religious ones. The religions are closely ingrained enough with particular ethnicities that the words can mean either/or/both.
But yes I pretty much agree with everything else you said.
The term antisemitism was coined specifically to refer to Jew-hatred on racial and ethnic grounds, not on religious grounds. Antisemitism is hatred of Jews, not of Judaism.
To those who downvoted this, facts don’t care about your feelings. What I wrote is the plain and undisputed truth, and if for some strange reason you don’t like it then you’re simply wrong. “Antisemitism”, like any other word that was coined by a known person for a specific purpose, has a fixed meaning, and if it’s not what you thought it was then now you know better.
For sure the term originally applied to an ethic/racial phenotype but wasn’t the term originally applied more broadly to describe all the ‘Semitic’ peoples? So not just ‘Jews’ but Assyrians and so on who had similar linguistic and cultural markers who were all lumped together as the sons of Shem?
IOW the term was used by a sort of proto eugenics movement in the mid 19th century drawing on early and often misguided, inaccurate archeology, anthropology and linguistic pseudoscience by (surprise!) Germans of ‘Aryan stock’ who were attempting to create some sort of hierarchy of humanity in which (surprise!) they decided that ‘Aryans’ were at the apex.
I don’t disagree about the origin but I think it is incorrect and too narrowly applied to say that ‘antisemitism’ only originally applied to ‘ethnic Jews’ whatever that is supposed to be. Certainly not in 2025 when Jews, like every other cultural group, come in 41 flavors unless we accept offensively crude caricature that a ‘real’ Jew is supposed to look and behave like Shylock or some other abominable caricature. Today at least from the outside looking in view I’d argue the term antisemitism has morphed from strict phenotype traits to include religious, cultural, linguistic traits as well as tendencies in selection of profession that serve to reinforce antisemitic stereotypes.
No, it wasn’t. The sole and only purpose of coining the term was to denote hatred of Jews and only Jews, for themselves, not for their religion. It was never intended, and never used, for hatred of anyone but Jews.
And it was never about phenotype; that was only a way to identify the hated Jews. Antisemitism was and is hatred of Jews qua Jews, as a nation, i.e. a racial/ethnic group. Jews may be physically diverse, but we are one nation, and antisemitism means hatred of that nation’s members, without regard to religion, appearance, or anything else.
Milhouse,
I gotta disagree, not that there wasn’t a historical pattern of Jews being stigmatized, slandered, ridiculed, persecuted, driven out of Nations, killed out of hand.
What I am talking about is the contention that the term ‘antisemitism’ didn’t arise out of the proto eugenics/social Darwinism BS that became prevalent in the mid 19th century. It was definitely used more broadly to apply to more than only ‘Jews’ but to include all the so called ‘Semitic Race’ aka Sons of Shem as (in the Cray Cray view of the proto eugenics, social Darwinism movement) a ‘lesser race’ than the so called ‘Aryans’.
It was particularly prevalent in the newly unified Germany. I believe the first use to have been by Wilhelm Marr to argue that Jews were culturally different than Aryan Germans and incompatible b/c their religious beliefs/cultural traditions made true assimilation of Jews into wider German National culture impossible, IOW his claim was that Jews were, are and always would be an ‘other’ incapable of becoming true Germans. All this stemmed from the mid 19th century proto eugenics/social Darwinism and probably the natural inclination of a newly unified Germany to create a cultural identity. Historically speaking, creating an ‘other’ as a foe either external or internal has been used for this crude process.
Chief, that is just not true.
First of all, there wasn’t a historical pattern, before the 19th century, of Jews being persecuted as Jews. There was religious hatred of Judaism, not of Jews. Any Jew could escape such hatred simply by accepting Christianity.
This wasn’t 100% effective in Spain, where the very beginnings of non-religious antisemitism can be found, but it was generally true everywhere else.
You’re also wrong about the term “antisemitism”. It didn’t “arise” out of anything. It was deliberately coined by one person, for a specific purpose, and was used only for that purpose.
And no, it was never used “to include all the so called ‘Semitic Race’ aka Sons of Shem”. It was never used for anyone but Jews. “Antisemitism” does not mean, and never meant, “hatred of semites”, but only “hatred of Jews”.
So basically he doesn’t believe that extremism makes the political spectrum a circle. I know not everyone agrees with that, but it is strange to suggest that we are somehow responsible for these nutbags. That’s like saying Elon Musk and Joe Rogan are responsible for Antifa.
Kevin Roberts needs to be shown the door. He is the insidious rot we need to be wary of at all times. His “what’s in it for me” attitude towards defending friends and allies makes him just one of the many nameless assholes who would watch an old person get beat up on a subway platform while he filmed it on his phone.
Despite the constant caterwauling about “white nationalists” or “white supremacists” I’ve yet to see them riot, loot, burn down cities and so on. In fact, I’ve never met one and I’ve been all over the US. Continually pointing towards them as a danger to our republic is simply misdirection away from the leftists, progressives and racists on the left that are the actual danger.
They’ve done that, but not recently. 100 years ago the KKK was huge. Now it doesn’t really exist any more.
Yes, they did do that 100 years ago but not, like, last week in Portlandia.
in fact there are many parallels between the KKK and Antifa. Including the fact that there is no one organization called Antifa, just small local groups that are completely independent of each other. The same was true of the KKK.
Zero tolerance of any criticism is what makes the likes of Nick Fuentes possible. I had never seen this guy before. Tucker stated at the beginning of the interview that he, himself, could not hold such views as it would be unchristian. I guess Tucker was supposed to beat his chest, interrupt Fuentes constantly and call him scum.
Instead he let the guy talk. I can now see that Fuentes is just a little creep who has nothing original to say, repeats himself constantly, and pathetically tries to shock his audience,
By suppressing all criticism people like Fuentes pop up out of sheer frustration. If normal people feel free to criticize, there would be no market for the likes of Owen’s and Fuentes.
No you get “guys like that” because there are guys like that and they’ve been given a platform. People come in all different kinds. Roberts apparently doesn’t champion free speech inasmuch as he calls critics of Carlson venomous and controlled by others. There’s no debating with these people because they’re just fucking Jew haters and haters of what ever other groups they hate. They can all gather in their safe spaces and debate each other.
lefty: black nationalists =good etc etc
lefty owns the msm and educational system in america so their power to move the culture is immeasurable …..THAT is the enemy
take away their public funding…..gop lackey’s
so simple
but they wont do it
“ George Washington to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island, 18 August 1790”
It appears that Tucker has gone over to the left. I have to unsubscribe, and let him know.
I define the “left” as statists, The “right” as being for America’s founding ideals. Including that they didn’t have everything correct, Hence, the amendment process.
Moderate conservatives will always find a reason to clutch their pearls and choose the destruction of their society. They will ALWAYS choose to ally with the left rather than prevent the extinction of their society.
No.
If such people do as you claim, then they are not actually conservative.
Well, if someone is Christian (or Jewish) the following should define their decisions about Israel and Jews:
Genesis 12:3:…“and I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee:
I for one am not threatened by speech. Let those clowns like Fuentes and Owens go on Tucker and spew all the nonsense they want.
Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it, but those who deliberately distort the past are aspiring to repeat it. There are always going to be a few people around who like to make themselves feel more special by scapegoating others, and they can be easily manipulated by unscrupulous demagogues who want to acquire political shock troops willing to commit various mischiefs. For some reason Roberts thinks he wants to align these bad actors with Conservatism, but we might suspect that this reveals a more personal agenda that considers them potentially useful for some darker purposes. So until this can be fairly evaluated he must be removed from any access to the resources of others who do not share or approve of his designs.
Tucker found himself unemployable after getting canned at fox. He might have wh0red himself out as influncer to Russia Today and Al Jazeera. He doesn’t care where the money comes from. I don’t think tucker believes anything, he just says what he’s paid to say.
There has never been a more worthless term that means whatever the speaker wishes for it to mean than cancellation.
The white supremacists, the antisemites, the eugenicists, the bigots and such are not ‘to the right’.
They are a form of collectivist and, as such are to the left.
I never thought I’d live to see the day when otherwise sensible, decent, at least moral if not Christian Americans would flit with and parrot anti-Jewish hate. We Christians are grafted into the Jewish roots. The roots support our faith. It is folly to speak against Jewish people (Romans 11:18). After all, Christians must remember that Jesus is a Jew as were the apostles and early church members until the missionary journeys commenced. My heart is broken hearing that Tucker and Candace have joined the “dark side.” I once read and listened to them in agreement. I abruptly stopped once they outed themselves. I have never heard of that Nick fellow nor do I care to find out more about him. Even more grievous is learning that so many in the GOP cannot think for themselves!
I am glad this article was written. Just because anti-semitism is almost always on the left does not mean that it will always stay there. About half of people can remember when anti-semitism was largely on the right.
Anti-semitism has never been on the right.
Because the right focuses on individuals. Individual freedom. Individual responsibility. Individual liberty.
It is the left that collectivizes based on characteristics they set –often immutable genetic criteria. Often criteria they treat as immutable.
When one adopts these positions, one leaves the right.
Tucker went to the Middle East post Midnight Hammer and he became more anti-Netanyahu than before the trip. I wonder if he has a consulting contract with the Emirates? (It wouldn’t surprise me)
What stunned me was that Kevin Roberts had no answer to Dana Loesch’s question. How could have have failed to anticipate that question?
Tucker Carlson is a complete fraud.
His ideology goes wherever he believes will result in his greatest personal gain.
He is not fighting for the country. He is fighting for himself.
Israel and Taiwan are far more important than Ukraine.
If you remember prof, a while ago I told you to get a gun and learn some fundamentals on using it.
Not sure, but more and more I believe the haters will win because they can get their dumb ass foot soldiers to create violence against whomever they deem dangerous to their revolution.