Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Ben Shapiro’

Kamala Harris Is Poised to Revive the Worst Aspects of FDR’s Socialist Agenda


By: Mary Grabar | October 08, 2024

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2024/10/08/kamala-harris-is-poised-to-revive-the-worst-aspects-of-fdrs-socialist-agenda/

Kamala Harris

Author Mary Grabar profile

Mary Grabar

More Articles

At the Economic Club of Pittsburgh, Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris recently said she would “engage in what Franklin Roosevelt called ‘bold, persistent experimentation,’” as he had told the 1932 graduating class at Oglethorpe University. But she did not mention FDR’s vision of “remaking the world,” which included fundamentally changing “our popular economic thought” to see to “a wiser, more equitable distribution of the national income.” Instead, she said she would seek “practical solutions” and even declared, “I am a capitalist.” She said she’s “been working with entrepreneurs and business owners” for her “whole career.” (No one has yet even been able to verify Harris’ job at McDonald’s.)

She also professed her belief in “an active partnership between government and the private sector,” sounding much like FDR at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco in September 1932. There he called for a new “economic constitutional order” built together by an “enlightened administration” and “enlightened businessmen” who together would “[adjust] production to consumption.”

Indeed, the desire to control production and fix prices was the aim of the largest contributor to the Roosevelt campaign, Wall Street speculator Bernard Baruch. He got the wish he paid for, the NRA (National Recovery Administration). Similarly, Harris supporter and billionaire Mark Cuban is vying for the position as head of the Securities and Exchange Commission and calling those who call Harris a Marxist “idiots.”

It was natural that Harris would quote Roosevelt. Biden referenced FDR in his speeches, especially in his last State of the Union address, when he invoked the Four Freedoms,” which became the basis of his campaign (before it was usurped by Harris). The media hailed Barack Obama as the second coming of FDR, with the Nov. 24, 2008, Time magazine cover showing Obama posed as FDR in a convertible, clenching the characteristic cigarette-holder.

But as Ben Shapiro pointed out, Roosevelt’s “bold, persistent experimentation” actually prolonged the Depression. So also warned James Freeman. Relying on Amity Shlaes, Freeman noted that FDR’s impulsiveness made it impossible for businesses to plan ahead.

FDR’s Ignorance

Indeed, as I point out in my book, FDR was barely capable of keeping a sustained thought, flitting from one subject to another, like Harris does in “word salads.” He would tell two advisors with diametrically opposed solutions to compromise. He would incorporate contradictory statements into the same speech. He was ignorant about economics and made no effort to learn. Prejudices learned in childhood guided his foreign policy. Yet, he felt himself qualified to plan the economy and the lives of all Americans.

FDR experimented, indeed. He followed the economic theories of his Brain Trust (“cornfield philosophers” with Ph.D.s, as John T. Flynn called them). Instead of letting prices bottom out and the economy recover as it had after World War I, the Brain Trust ordered farmers late in the spring of 1933 to plow under crops and then taxed processors. The NRA set prices, driving out small businesses.

The result? Food shortages and increased prices for people already hungry.

Harris’ “first-ever federal ban on corporate price gouging” by food companies promises the same results.

The Politically Connected

Another experimental idea was to confiscate the gold that American citizens had been “hoarding.” Average Americans who had tried to protect their investments were ordered, by threat of a 10-year prison term and a $10,000 fine, to hand in gold bars and even Christmas gold coins. FDR then determined the price of gold, sometimes by multiples of “lucky numbers.” But Baruch kept his gold. Today, politically connected stock market speculators, e.g., those married to the former Democratic Speaker of the House, use advance knowledge about legislation to sell stocks at a profit.

Similarly, Harris’ economic policies will not provide the “opportunity” she promises to all equally. Just as FDR doled out federal funds to court votes, federal funds will be doled out selectively. She promises to increase the startup deduction from $5,000 to $50,000 and “provide low- and no-interest loans” to small businesses. On what basis? Will the loans be forgiven, just like student loans? As business owner Chad O. Jackson asks, is even a $5,000 loan needed to start a business?

Redistribution of Wealth

On MSNBC, after her speech, Harris said that she would cut the “red tape” involved in housing and low-income housing construction. She explained, “some of the work is going to be through what we do in terms of giving benefits and assistance to state and local governments around transit dollars, and looking holistically at the connection between that and housing, and looking holistically at the incentives we in the federal government can create for local and state governments to actually engage in planning in a holistic manner that includes prioritizing affordable housing for working people.”

Out of this holistic mess we can gather that federal assistance will be contingent on where the housing is built (near public transit). Such stipulations indicate more “red tape” and an exacerbation of a housing crisis largely created by the government.

Her “$25,000 down payment assistance for first-time homebuyers,” she explains, would mean “creating the ability of that working person to build intergenerational wealth.”

Like FDR, she wants a redistribution of wealth. Her ideas about “intergenerational wealth,” referred to twice in her speech and then on MSNBC, echo Nikole Hannah-Jones’ argument for reparations because of advantages in white “generational wealth.” Harris is a big fan of Hannah-Jones. She called Hannah-Jones’ 1619 Project a “masterpiece” that told the “truth” of how “the very foundation of our country was built on the backs of enslaved people.” Which first-time homebuyers will get $25,000 from the government? Look at the model Evanston, Illinois, reparations program. Number one priority is “restorative housing.”

Democrats seem to think that quoting FDR will magically reassure voters. Vice presidential candidate Tim Walz tried to salvage a disastrous debate by paraphrasing FDR’s nonsensical statement about having nothing to fear but “fear itself.”

FDR’s Real Legacy

History books, overwhelmingly written by FDR fans, quote his line about fear as if it were a gem of profundity and cast the blame for the extended Depression on other factors, such as obstructionist Republicans and judges. Some argue that FDR did not spend enough money. The fact that he was president during the crisis of depression and war, plus his long-established celebrity status as a Roosevelt, etched him into the national memory as a hero.

Historian David M. Kennedy admits that the Great Depression was “a catastrophic economic crisis that Roosevelt failed to resolve, at least not until World War II came along.” But FDR had “larger purposes.” In 1937, as a second depression hit, FDR worried that economic recovery might be “politically premature.” It might “dismantle the fragile edifice of reforms” he had instituted, and it might weaken the executive branch.

So, Roosevelt’s “reforms” and his power in the executive branch were more important than the well-being of Americans, whose life expectancy was declining. According to Kennedy, the president knew the Depression offered “a rare political opportunity, and Roosevelt made the most of it, to the nation’s lasting benefit.”

What is assumed to be the “lasting benefit” includes such things as unemployment insurance, Social Security, and banking deposit insurance. But these programs’ costs are borne by consumers. Americans’ taxes pay for deposit insurance. While “too big to fail” financial institutions were bailed out during the 2008-2009 recession, average Americans lost their homes. Under Democrat “Green New Deals,” politically connected companies, from Solyndra to Blue Whale Materials, get the loans and contracts. Obama’s make-work plan, with huge signs announcing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 at sidewalks that went nowhere, mimicked the make-work boondoggling of the FDR administration. In both administrations, Washington, D.C., grew and prospered. FDR never really pulled the United States out of the Depression. Obama’s first-term recovery was the slowest one ever.

Like FDR, Kamala Harris is interested in growing the government for political power and transforming the country. If more Americans understood the real FDR, they would be able to see that they do have something to fear: another FDR-like administration.


Mary Grabar, Ph.D., a resident fellow at The Alexander Hamilton Institute for the Study of Western Civilization, is the author of “Debunking FDR: The Man and the Myths” (November 2024), “Debunking The 1619 Project,” and “Debunking Howard Zinn.” She taught college English for 20 years and founded the Dissident Prof Education Project (DissidentProf.com). Her writing can be found at marygrabar.com.

Kamala Harris’ Authoritarian ‘Joy’


By: Ben Shapiro | August 21, 2024

Read more at https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/08/21/kamala-harris-authoritarian-joy/

Kamala Harris on stage with a red background in a light brown suit smiling and waving
Vice President Kamala Harris addresses the Democratic National Convention at the United Center in Chicago, Illinois, on Aug. 19, 2024. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

We’ve been told, over and over and over again, that Kamala Harris is the candidate of “joy.” Tim Walz, upon accepting his vice-presidential nomination, thanked her for “bringing back the joy.” Rolling Stone gushed that Harris’ “new politics of joy is the best way to fight fascism.” The New York Times headlined, “Harris used to worry about laughing. Now joy is fueling her campaign.”

Now, for most Americans, this simply is not a time of joy.

Not a single poll shows more than 35% believing that the country is moving in the right direction. Two thirds of Americans think America is on the wrong track. Meanwhile, the supposed candidate of joy has the approval of approximately 46% of Americans; almost 50% are unfavorable on her.

Three years of extraordinary inflation means that everyday items now cost at least 20% more than they did in 2021. Uncertainty and chaos span the globe, from Ukraine to Taiwan to the Middle East. Americans no longer know whether they can safely say that a man is different than a woman while simultaneously being informed that it is deeply important that they elect a woman president.

But … joy.

It’s a brilliant marketing gimmick, to be sure. Kamala Harris’ career has been filled with three marked characteristics:

  • blatant and manipulative calculation;
  • heavy-handed government interventionism;
  • and awkward, off-putting mannerisms ranging from word salad to laughter.

But “joy” can be used as a shield against all these charges. She’s not manipulative—she’s genuine! She’s not tyrannical—she’s caring! She’s not awkward and phony—she’s joyous! That laughter you hear isn’t the strange cackling of a machine politician caught in a lie. It’s a sheer outburst of happiness springing directly from the heart of a woman who is dancing on the inside. She is youth, she is joy, she is a little bird that has broken out of the egg!

Joy is also a sword to be used against opponents. Donald Trump, we are told, is a candidate of darkness and revenge. JD Vance, his vice presidential candidate, is “weird” and authoritarian. Why can’t they feel the joy?

In fact, why don’t you feel the joy? Is something wrong with you? Why can’t you bob your head to Beyoncé’s “Freedom” while Kamala dances and Tim Walz pastes on a smile so broad it would turn Jack Nicholson’s Joker green with envy? Do you hate joy?

All of this is, to put it mildly, slightly sinister.

It is one thing to demand that Americans vote for a candidate for the presidency on the basis of her policies, or even on the basis of her opponent’s supposed unworthiness. It is another to demand that we feel the joy. It reeks of authoritarians of the past, all of whom suggested that the failures of their policies were not failures of leadership, but failure of the people to change their hearts of stone for hearts of flesh.

It is not a coincidence that Josef Stalin’s propaganda posters routinely featured small children gazing adoringly up at him, with the slogan emblazoned, “We Are Warmed by Stalin’s Affection!” Or that Mao’s posters similarly featured celebratory children, with the words, “Mao’s Words Bring Joy!” Or that Hitler offered free vacations to members of the German Labour Front with the slogan, “Strength Through Joy!” (One legacy of “Strength Through Joy” was the German “People’s Car,” later to be known as the Volkswagen Beetle.)

Authoritarians demand emotional fealty, not merely political fealty.

This doesn’t mean that Kamala Harris is a Stalinist, Maoist, or Nazi (although members of the radical Democratic Party base seem to be warm toward aspects of all three regimes).

It does mean that authoritarianism papers over its totalitarian policies with the soothing platitudes of paternalism and maternalism and demands that you sacrifice the true joys in life—family, church, community—in favor of a Big Brother. Or, in the case of Kamala Harris, a Big Mother.

Just feel the joy. And stop asking questions.

COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM

Related posts:

  1. WATCH: Mystery Deepens: Who’s Running US in Joe and Kamala’s Absence?
  2. How Republicans Can Win the Election
  3. Here’s How Kamala Harris’ VP Pick Responded to the George Floyd Riots

The Big Midterm Lesson: Defensive ‘Victories’ on the Right Aren’t Going to Save The Country


BY: JOHN DANIEL DAVIDSON | NOVEMBER 10, 2022

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/the-big-midterm-lesson-defensive-victories-on-the-right-arent-going-to-save-the-country-2658627186.html/

Ron DeSantis speaking into a mic onstage
Republicans won big in places where GOP leaders leaned into the culture war and passed abortion restrictions. That’s no accident.

Author John Daniel Davidson profile

JOHN DANIEL DAVIDSON

VISIT ON TWITTER@JOHNDDAVIDSON

MORE ARTICLES

If there’s a clear lesson to come out of Tuesday night’s bizarre midterm election, it’s that Republicans can no longer be content with defensive victories or defensive politics. To win political power and do what must be done to save the country, Republicans will have to go on offense, present a compelling vision for the future, and engage culture war issues like abortion and critical race theory without apologies. 

When they do that, they win. But it stands in stark contrast to the perennial advice of Beltway GOP consultants, who think it best to avoid major culture war issues like abortion. Indeed, the “official narrative” of corporate media in the wake of Tuesday’s midterms is that abortion was a big winner for Democrats, who supposedly capitalized on the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, successfully making abortion a major electoral issue and blunting a red wave by boosting turnout among young, pro-abortion voters. 

It sounds good, but it’s not quite right. Republicans who didn’t shy away from talking about abortion after Dobbs, and who signed into law abortion legislation earlier this year without flinching or apologizing, did really well — they were Tuesday night’s winners. As Marc Thiessen noted on Fox News, Republican governors in Ohio, Georgia, New Hampshire, Texas, and Florida all signed post-Dobbs abortion restrictions, and they all won reelection by comfortable margins. 

That’s not to say abortion was a non-factor. Democrats squeezed every last electoral drop they could out of Dobbsspending $320 million on abortion-related TV ads (much more than on all other issues combined) which helped motivate a voter base that might have otherwise been depressed.

Still, there was a clear contrast between Republicans who heeded the advice of Beltway consultants and tried to dodge abortion questions or take a noncommittal stance and those who defended their anti-abortion positions and pushed for post-Roe legislation. Only one of those groups fared well Tuesday.

The larger lesson here is that Republican candidates should lean into the culture war and make no apologies for their positions, even on contentious issues like abortion. Fighting back against the left, it turns out, is what a lot of voters on the right want from Republicans.

Consider what Ron DeSantis achieved in Florida, winning 60 percent of the vote after narrowly eking out a victory four years ago. He did that by not shying away from big, high-profile fights over hot-button culture war issues like critical race theory and transgender indoctrination. Glenn Youngkin did the same thing last November to pull off an upset in the Virginia governor’s race.

But DeSantis and Youngkin are, sadly, exceptions to the general rule that Republicans tend to be reactionary and defensive. Indeed, the failure of the conservative movement is largely attributable to this default defensiveness, and it needs to end. For decades, conservatives whined about just wanting to be left alone even as the radical left was marching through our institutions and transforming society, showing us at every turn they had no intention of leaving us alone. Yet some on the right still don’t seem to get it. On Tuesday morning, anticipating a red wave, Ben Shapiro tweeted: “The mandate for Republicans will be to stop Biden’s terrible agenda dead. It will not be to make very loud but tactically foolish moves.”

Shapiro didn’t specify what he meant by “very loud but tactically foolish moves,” but he followed it up with this:

Sorry, but the era of normalcy and being left alone is over. The left will never leave us alone. They want to win and wield power, and if we want to stop them, we will have to win and wield power ourselves. Conservatives who want to be left alone will simply lose, as they have been for decades now.

Those like Shapiro who long to be left alone are also apt to argue that the conservative project has been moderately successful over the years, moving slowly to notch wins. Look at Dobbs. Look at religious liberty and the Second Amendment. Look at all the good judges appointed to the federal bench during the Trump administration.

But this is a cope. Yes, there have been a few victories for conservatives. The Dobbs decision was the greatest policy victory of the conservative cause in a generation, and it was due mostly to the dogged work of the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation, two institutions often unfairly maligned as “Conservative, Inc.” by the New Right, and — at least before Dobbs dropped — dismissed as failures.

Yet even the Dobbs decision was a defensive victory, handed down like a gift from on high by the Supreme Court. But it didn’t end legal abortion, and indeed the ruling itself bent over backward to avoid the broader implications of its own constitutional logic, which, as Justice Clarence Thomas explained in his concurring opinion, calls into question the constitutionality of substantive due process and the long train of Supreme Court rulings that have followed its invention more than a century ago.

As Dobbs itself suggests, defensive victories delivered by the federal judiciary aren’t going to reverse what has been, with few setbacks, a relentless, decades-long march by the left through every institution of American life. Anyone who tells you things aren’t that bad because we happen to have five mostly reliable Supreme Court justices is either delusional or quietly willing to acquiesce to leftist tyranny.

They’re probably also inclined to think Republicans didn’t really do so bad in the midterms, and that what Americans really want is just some tinkering with Social Security and the welfare state. Nothing too loud and tactically foolish. That’s more or less Rep. Kevin McCarthy’s plan if he becomes speaker of the House. After all, the country just wants to heal.

No. The country does not want to heal. It does not want “some semblance of normalcy.” There are two diametrically opposed moral systems at war right now in America, and it’s not enough at this late hour to be content with the status quo, to repose in the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and hope the five good justices will somehow stop the revolutionaries.  

Just look at the successful pro-abortion midterm referendums in Michigan, Vermont, and California, where the right to kill the unborn is now enshrined in those states’ constitutions. What’s true of the abortion issue is true of nearly every other major issue in American public life. Being passive and defensive is not going to cut it. If Republicans want to win, they’d better be willing to fight. Let’s hope they are. The future of the republic depends on it.


John Daniel Davidson is a senior editor at The Federalist. His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Claremont Review of Books, The New York Post, and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter, @johnddavidson.

Commentary: Pathetic media doubling down on stupid


Commentary by Ben Shapiro – Guest Columnist | Wednesday, October 17, 2018

URL of the original posting site: https://www.onenewsnow.com/perspectives/ben-shapiro/2018/10/17/pathetic-media-doubling-down-on-stupid

Ben ShapiroDemocrats have the enviable advantage of being able to trot out nearly any story and be given credibility by most of the mainstream media. And every time the media do that, they undercut their own credibility.


This week, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., in preparation for a 2020 presidential run, decided to fight back against President Trump’s brutal nickname for her: “Pocahontas.” Trump, you’ll recall, labeled her Pocahontas because for years, she has claimed Native American ancestry. Not only that, she claimed repeatedly that her mother’s Native American ancestry drove her parents to elope after her father’s family refused to welcome her mother with open arms thanks to their bigotry. As it turns out, Warren could never provide any evidence of Native American ancestry – even though she spent years labeling herself “Native American” while at the University of Pennsylvania Law School as well as Harvard Law School.

On Monday, Warren decided she’d had enough. She released a video of her family members discussing her claims of Native American background. “Native communities have faced discrimination, neglect and violence for generations,” Warren intoned. “And Trump can say whatever he wants about me, but mocking Native Americans or any group in order to try to get at me? That’s not what America stands for.”

She accompanied that video with her supposed proof of Native American background: an analysis by Professor Carlos Bustamante of Stanford University in which he explains that it is possible that Warren had a Native American ancestor anywhere from six to ten generations ago. That would have made her anywhere from 1/64th to 1/1,024th Native American. The study was based not on Native American DNA but on Mexican, Peruvian and Colombian DNA.

In fact, not even Cherokees were happy with Warren. In a stunning rebuke, the Cherokee Nation released a statement saying, “Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage” – and that Warren’s DNA test “makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, whose ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is proven.”

All of this should have been foreseeable by anyone with half a brain. Falsely claiming you are Native American for years is bad enough. But releasing a study demonstrating that you are 99.9 percent white – and then claiming that such a study justifies your false claims? What made Warren, an intelligent human being, think such a thing?

Only one simple fact: Warren knows, as everyone in politics knows, that the media will cover for nearly any instance of leftist political manipulation.

  • They’ll cover for Warren fibbing about her ancestry.
  • They’ll cover for Texas Senate candidate Beto O’Rourke driving drunk, plowing into a truck and then attempting to flee the scene of the crime.
  • They’ll cover for Arizona Senate candidate Rep. Kyrsten Sinema saying that she didn’t care if Americans joined the Taliban (CNN’s headline: “Kyrsten Sinema’s Anti-War Activist Past Under Scrutiny as She Runs for Senate”).

Democrats have the enviable advantage of being able to trot out nearly any story and be given credibility by most of the mainstream media.

Non-Democrats, however, see this game. And every time the media simply parrot Democratic talking points on issues like Warren’s ancestry, they undercut their credibility. Large media institutions have done more than anyone, including President Trump, to destroy their reputations with the American people. Their pathetic behavior over the past few weeks, in the approach to the 2018 elections, shows that they’re doubling down on stupid.

COPYRIGHT 2018 CREATORS.COM


Ben Shapiro, 34, is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School, host of “The Ben Shapiro Show” and editor-in-chief of DailyWire.com. He is The New York Times best-selling author of “Bullies.”

Berkeley’s Overreaction to Conservative Speaker Is Incredibly Pathetic


Reported By Andrew West | September 14, 2017

Tag Cloud