Connect with us

Published

on

Last night we witnessed something pretty weird and unique at the Iowa caucuses. For the first time in American political history a presidential candidate from the out-of-power party won the caucus without ever participating in the debates or even actively campaigning in the state. Pro-Trump people will hail it as a triumph, and the never-Trumpers as an abomination. But when it comes to Donald Trump and his long strange trip into, and then out of, and then perhaps back into the White House, what do the results say about the state of our country?

Perhaps the most interesting thing about Trumps candidacy so far is that the more his enemies (in both parties) try to take him down, the more popular he becomes. Indeed, no modern president has had so many forces arrayed against him. From rogue DAs who openly ran for office with promises to prosecute Trump, to a hostile Congress and their sham impeachments, to the courts in progressive states kicking him off their ballots, to the medias one-sided reportage, to Big Techs outright censorship, all the way to opposition from the wealthy donor class, Trump has had to battle wave upon wave of attacks and legal charges, frivolous and otherwise, all with one goal in mind to prevent him from sitting behind the Resolute Desk ever again. And it appears they will continue to do whatever it takes to knock him out of the running.

Those who oppose him are so entrenched in their manic disdain for this one man that, as Sam Harris has shown, they will rationalize ripping to shreds the credibility of our most important institutions in their jihad against the Teflon Donald. They would, to borrow an old phrase, destroy the village to save it.

In fact, so aggressive has their prosecutorial zeal towards this one man been that attempts to decapitate the Trump candidacy are being called Lawfare. And my hunch is that a lot of Americans dont like it. Im not even a Trump man (I prefer DeSantis myself having seen what hes done for Florida) and yet I have found myself repeatedly in print defending the besieged Donald from what I perceive as far greater threats to the country and our sacred democracy than who becomes the head at the end of one neck of the federal hydra. Americans are not always the quickest to realize what are bad policies and dangerous ideas. Nevertheless, we do catch on if they persist. And the overwhelming vote for Trump last night could very well be read as a repudiation of the machinations of political insiders and powerful interests weaponizing the law to take this man out in a way that would have made Lavrentiy Beria nod with satisfaction.

I wonder, is it just the instinctual revulsion to seeing the courtroom being wielded like a club by those who see themselves not just above the law but outside it that is at the heart of Trumps win? Perhaps. But then again, for many others, it could be the complete breakdown of trust in every major institution in the country. Once important pillars of the Republic a free and impartial press, enlightened education, equal and open exchange of ideas, corporate responsibility, a thriving middle class, a political leadership that caters to the needs and hears the concerns of its constituents, wise foreign policy, the legitimacy of the electoral process, and now even the law itself have been, in the eyes of millions, hopelessly corrupted by people with the ruthless drive to wield the power these combined institutions can bring to bear on the average citizen. This feeling has only been solidified by the clear leveling of all the barrels of government power aimed at this one man just to ruin him.

And given his willingness to withstand (perhaps even relish) the slings and arrows of his many enemies inside and outside the D.C. Beltway, Trump has taken on the moniker of martyr. His supporters see in him their own William Wallace or Thomas Becket. (At least the film versions). When Trump says Its not me theyre after, but you, this has real meaning for many who feel very much like they no longer have any say in their nations direction. One must think that more than a few of the 51% of those who braved the cold to cast ballots for Trump see him as their last hope to save the Republic from those detached insiders leading the country to destruction while pulling the strings of a mentally enfeebled president in name only.

It has often been said that Trump did not cause the divisions in our country so much as arise out of them his opponents might say exploited them. However one wishes to view Trumps victory in Iowa, it should be made clear that in this one state at least, voters took the measure of the man and weighed him against the charges hanging over his head and found the latter wanting. So many people I know on the Left are shaking their heads. How is it that a man indicted on 91 felony charges could get any votes for dog catcher let alone the highest office in the land? they ask in dismay. The answer is simple. The caucus participants considered who brought the charges and why and, as telling, whos been spared prosecution due to party affiliation, despite their own demonstrable crimes. Iowans saw through the charade. As the great litigator Vincent LaGuardia Gambini once told a jury, they simply concluded that everything dat guy just said is bulls***.

Trumps victory is both encouraging and concerning. It is encouraging in that it should tell those willing to use the law like a tinhorn generalissimo to silence opposition that it will not happen on Iowans watch at least. But the fact that such a message even needed to be sent shows in what a perilous position we find ourselves. More so than I think people understand. As mentioned above, if the citizenry no longer trusts the institutions, then a government built around democratic principles will collapse. It has to. If one doesnt believe the law is equally applied, that it is nothing more than one of many political arrows in the quiver to let fly whenever an upstart gets too close to tipping the establishment apple cart, then why obey the law at all?

Thus we see the true dangers of what is often called Trump Derangement Syndrome. When people are either so self-righteous, or, more likely, so cynical that they are willing to scrap the institutions and processes that keep us from falling into the abyss of totalitarianism to destroy one man, they become the very fascists they are too busy accusing others of supporting to see it in themselves. Or, worse, they dont care as power is the aim, not a representative republic or, as the preamble to the Constitution reminds us, to promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty.

Representative, democratically structured governments are a relative newcomer to the political universe. At our founding, we were a lone, bright star in a firmament of monarchs, tsars, emperors, and despots. Our revolution and the republic it ushered in was the exception, not the rule, to governance throughout all recorded history. A mere 248 years against over some 5,400. And as we have learned through many hard and bloody lessons in failed nation-building disasters since the great democracies put down fascism and then held back communism, it may not even be the natural state of humankind. The authors of the Constitution knew a dark truth: ambitious men left unchecked will chase power, and all the brutality and corruption that goes with it. That we have thrived in our brief moment in the sun is a testament not to us as a people, for we are no different than any others when it comes to human nature, but rather the strength and legitimacy of the institutions our Framers bestowed upon us. Without them we are just another oligarchy in the making.

Love him, hate him, or, if youre like me, take the good with the bad and judge him in a line-item fashion, there is no denying that Trumps victory in Iowa was a pivotal event in American politics. Whether it is for the good or the bad, only time will tell.

Benjamin Franklins famous warning to a woman who inquired after the Constitutional Convention ended as to what form of goverment theyd created for the new country rings in my ears louder today than it has in a long time. We have given you a Republic If you can keep it.

Last night Iowans tried to keep it. For a little while longer anyway.

* * *

Brad Schaeffer is a commodities trader, author, columnist, and musician whose eclectic body of writing can be found in the Wall Street Journal, New York Post, New York Daily News, Daily Wire, National Review, The Hill, The Federalist, Zerohedge , and others. His latest book LIFE IN THE PITS: My Time As A Trader On The Rough-And-Tumble Exchange Floors is available on Amazon and soon Audible.

The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Continue Reading

Politics

£3 bus fare cap could be scrapped after December 2025, hints transport secretary

Published

on

By

£3 bus fare cap could be scrapped after December 2025, hints transport secretary

The £3 bus fare cap could be scrapped after December 2025, the transport secretary has suggested.

Sir Keir Starmer recently confirmed that the £2 cap, which has been in place in England since 1 January 2023, will rise to £3 at the start of next year.

The government has said the £3 cap would stay in place for another year, until December 2025.

But speaking on Sunday morning with Trevor Phillips, Transport Secretary Louise Haugh indicated the government was considering abolishing the cap beyond that point to explore alternative methods of funding.

Politics latest: Government not worried about food shortages

She said: “We’ve stepped in with funding to protect it at £3 until 31 December next year. And in that period, we’ll look to establish more targeted approaches.

“We’ve, through evaluation of the £2 cap, found that the best approach is to target it at young people.

“So we want to look at ways in order to ensure more targeted ways, just like we do with the concessionary fare for older people, we think we can develop more targeted ways that will better encourage people onto buses.”

Pressed again on whether that meant the single £3 cap would be removed after December 2025, and that other bus reliefs could be put in place, she replied: “That’s what we’re considering at the moment as we go through this year, as we have that time whilst the £3 cap is in place – because the evaluation that we had showed, it hadn’t represented good value for money, the previous cap.”

It comes after Ms Haigh also confirmed that HS2 would not run to Crewe.

The northern leg of HS2, which would have linked Birmingham to Manchester, was scrapped by former prime minister Rishi Sunak during the Conservative Party conference last year.

There had been reports that Labour could instead build an “HS2-light” railway between Birmingham and Crewe.

But Ms Haigh said that while HS2 would be built from Birmingham to Euston, the government was “not resurrecting the plans for HS2”.

“HS2 Limited isn’t getting any further work beyond what’s been commissioned to Euston,” she added.

Last month the prime minster confirmed the £2 bus fare cap would rise to £3 – branded the “bus tax” by critics – saying that the previous government had not planned for the funding to continue past the end of 2024.

He said that although the cap would increase to £3, it would stay at that price until the end of 2025 “because I know how important it is”.

Manchester mayor to keep £2 cap

The cap rise has been unpopular with some in Labour, with Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham opting to keep the £2 cap in place for the whole of 2025, despite the maximum that can be charged across England rising to £3.

Read more:
Lord Blunkett demands action on ‘death trap’ Tube platforms after ‘terrifying’ fall

HS2 boss reveals £100m bill for a railway line ‘bat shed’

The region’s mayor said he was able to cap single fares at £2 because of steps he took to regulate the system and bring buses back into public ownership from last year.

He also confirmed plans to introduce a contactless payment system, with a daily and weekly cap on prices, as Greater Manchester moves towards a London-style system for public transport pricing.

Under devolution, local authorities and metro mayors can fund their own schemes to keep fares down, as has been the case in Greater Manchester, London and West Yorkshire.

Continue Reading

Politics

Transport Secretary Louise Haigh downplays risk of empty shelves if farmers strike over inheritance tax

Published

on

By

Transport Secretary Louise Haigh downplays risk of empty shelves if farmers strike over inheritance tax

Shelves will not be left empty this winter if farmers go on strike over tax changes, a cabinet minister has said.

Louise Haigh, the transport secretary, said the government would be setting out contingency plans to ensure food security is not compromised if farmers decide to protest.

Farmers across England and Wales have expressed anger that farms will no longer get 100% relief on inheritance tax, as laid out in Rachel Reeves’s budget last month.

Welsh campaign group Enough is Enough has called for a national strike among British farmers to stop producing food until the decision to impose inheritance tax on farms is reversed, while others also contemplate industrial action.

At the weekend the group held a protest in Llandudno, North Wales, where Sir Keir Starmer was giving his first speech as prime minister to the Welsh Labour conference.

Politics latest: £3 bus fare cap could be scrapped after December 2025

Asked by Trevor Phillips if she was concerned at the prospect that shelves could be empty of food this winter, Ms Haigh replied: “No, we think we put forward food security really as a priority, and we’ll work with farmers and the supply chain in order to ensure that.

“The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be setting out plans for the winter and setting out – as business as usual – contingency plans and ensuring that food security is treated as the priority it deserves to be.”

Politics latest: PM has no plans to meet Taliban at climate summit

From April 2026, farms worth more than £1m will face an inheritance tax rate of 20%, rather than the standard 40% applied to other land and property.

However, farmers – who previously did not have to pay any inheritance tax – argue the change will mean higher food prices, lower food production and having to sell off land to pay.

Louise Haigh appears on Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips
Image:
Transport Secretary Louise Haigh

Tom Bradshaw, the president of the National Farmers Union, said he had “never seen the united sense of anger that there is in this industry today”.

“I don’t for one moment condone that anyone will stop supplying the supermarkets,” he said.

“We saw during the COVID crisis that those unable to get their food were often either the very most vulnerable, or those that have been working long hours in hospitals and nurses – that is something we do not want to see again.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Farmers ‘betrayed’ over tax change

Explaining why the tax changes were so unpopular, he said food production margins were “so low”, and “any liquid cash that’s been available has been reinvested in farm businesses” for the future.

“One of the immediate changes is that farms are going to have to start putting money into their pensions, which many haven’t previously done,” he said.

“They’re going to have to have life insurance policies in case of a sudden death. And unfortunately, that was cash that would previously have been invested in producing the country’s food for the future.”

Sir Keir has staunchly defended the measure, saying it will not affect small farms and is aimed at targeting wealthy landowners who buy up farmland to avoid paying inheritance tax.

However, the Conservatives have argued the changes amount to a “war on farmers” and have begun a campaign targeting the prime minister as a “farmer harmer”.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘Farmers’ livelihoods are threatened’

Speaking to Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips, shadow home secretary Chris Philp said he was happy with farmers protesting against the budget – as long as their methods and tactics were “lawful”.

“What the Labour government has done to farmers is absolutely shocking,” he said.

“These are farmers that, you know, they’re not well off particularly, they’re often actually struggling to make ends meet because farming is not very profitable these days. And of course, we rely on farmers for our food security.

Addressing the possible protests, Mr Philp said: “I think people have a right to protest, and obviously we respect the right to protest within the law, and it’s up to parliament to set where the law sits.

“So I think providing they’re behaving lawfully, legally, then they do have a right to protest.”

Read more:
Nigel Farage ‘living his best life’ in Clacton

UK doubles aid to Sudan to more than £110m

Next week farmers are expected to hold a mass protest of about 20,000 people in Westminster against the inheritance tax changes.

Continue Reading

World

Russia fires more than 200 missiles and drones at Ukraine in largest attack since August

Published

on

By

Russia fires more than 200 missiles and drones at Ukraine in largest attack since August

Several people have been killed after Russia launched its largest aerial attack on Ukraine since August.

More than 200 missiles and drones were deployed, Volodymyr Zelenskyy said, as he condemned a “massive combined strike” on “all regions”.

Andrii Sybiha, Ukraine’s foreign minister, said “peaceful cities” and “sleeping civilians” were targeted.

Ukraine war – latest updates

Moscow is focused on the “energy infrastructure throughout Ukraine” and is trying to intimidate Ukrainians with “cold and lack of light”, Mr Zelenskyy said.

The president added: “The whole world sees and knows that we are defending ourselves against absolute evil, which does not understand any language but force.

“We need unity [and] the world needs unity. Only together can we stop this evil.”

A firefighter at the site of a Russian drone strike in Mykolaiv in southern Ukraine. Pic: State Emergency Service of Ukraine/Reuters
Image:
A firefighter at the site of a Russian drone strike in Mykolaiv in southern Ukraine. Pic: State Emergency Service of Ukraine/Reuters

Two people were killed and a 17-year-old boy was injured after a Russian attack in the Black Sea port of Odesa, regional governor Oleh Kiper said.

Energy infrastructure was damaged, he said, leading to “interruptions in the supply of heat, water and electricity”.

In Mykolaiv, southern Ukraine, officials said two people were killed in a Russian drone attack.

Ukraine’s state emergency service said a multi-storey building, cars and a shopping centre were hit.

Two women were killed and six injured, including two children, it added.

In the central Dnipro region, two people died and three were wounded in a strike on a rail depot, while in Lviv, on the border with Poland, a woman was killed in a car.

Emergency services remove part of a Russian missile from an apartment building in Kyiv. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Emergency services remove part of a Russian missile from an apartment building in Kyiv. Pic: Reuters

In the capital, Kyiv, mayor Vitali Klitschko said Russian attacks had caused a fire to erupt on the roof of a residential building, injuring at least two people.

People took refuge in metro stations, while emergency services were pictured removing part of a Russian missile from an apartment block.

Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp

Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News

Tap here

The Ukrainian military said it had destroyed 102 missiles and 42 drones launched by Russia.

Hypersonic missiles were among the 120 fired at Ukrainian territory, it said.

Air defences were active in “almost all” regions of Ukraine.

Equipment at thermal power stations has been “seriously damaged” during Russian air strikes, Ukraine’s largest private energy provider said. DTEK said its staff were working on repairs.

People sheltering in a metro station in Kyiv. Pic: Reuters
Image:
People sheltering in a metro station in Kyiv. Pic: Reuters

Read more:
Schools go underground to keep life as normal as possible
Xi Jinping says China is ‘ready to work’ with Trump

Russia’s defence ministry confirmed it had attacked energy resources supporting Ukraine’s military-industrial complex, Russian news agencies reported.

Poland scrambled its air force early on Sunday because of the “massive attack by the Russian Federation using cruise missiles, ballistic missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles”.

Mr Zelenskyy sent his condolences to anyone affected by the latest Russian attacks.

He said “all necessary forces” were involved in restoring power and facilities.

On Tuesday, it will be 1,000 days since Russia launched what it calls its “special military operation”.

Continue Reading

Trending