The recent election loss at a time when every economic indicator over the previous four years should have catapulted Romney to victory, started me to seriously think; not think about Romney’s failures, not about what the conservative movement should have done or about two parties which were once upon a time closer at their furthest distance than they were even in FDR’s time (and that says a lot). In fact other than 1860 we have never been so dissimilar and as a people, so divided. A thought often wonders about its origin as much as what it is about; something must first ignite its awareness. I was stunned that a nation as great as ours could be so philosophically wrong? After all our Founding principles are as basic as Newtonian and Quantum physics. We know they are right and that they work yet so many still believe otherwise. It was a though some universal timeless law had been proven fundamentally wrong. Is the world truly flat when it was thought to be round because so many things work the way they do?

The issue suddenly started to gain clarity as a read an article this past evening by Xavier Lerma in the English version of the Pravda, which describes Putin’s dismay that the communists have won in America, and lost in Russia and that although we should avoid the Soviet mistake that cost the Russians’ seventy-five years of suffering, under the USSR, we (Americans) elected a President, for a second term, with a cultist personality, who promotes the Communist Manifesto without calling it so, by mesmerizing an illiterate society; this is a President that lies about less taxes yet supports more taxes and promotes peace by advocating wars in Egypt, Libya and along the Mexican border. In fact Putin states that Stalin’s fools and Obama’s fools share the same drink of illusion. Obama bailed out those businesses that voted for him by hiking the debt to over 16 trillion while doing nothing for the tragic unemployment rate for blacks and minorities.

But why did this happen? Surely a land founded upon liberty did not need to be told about its value. I then reread the address given by Alfred Smith’s 1936 radio address (two term NY governor) and things became a little clearer. At that time Herbert Hoover had lost the election, not only because he was not a conservative and contributed to a spending folly that led to the despair of the depression but because the Republican platform was long, unreadable and not understandable as opposed to the Democratic platform which was a clear, concise, covenant with the people who entrusted it to be faithfully kept. And since the history of the Republic no President had so faithfully committed himself to the principles upon which he ran; yet four years later Smith describes what was not carried out and how far adrift FDR had gone. Despite being a progressive when it came to public safety nets he (Smith) was far more of a Constitutionalist than most anything we have today.

Smith’s first argument was class against class. He stated: “It has been freely predicted that if we were ever to have civil strife again in this country, it would come from the appeal to passion and prejudices that comes from the demagogues that would incite one class of our people against the other. In my time I have met some good and bad industrialists. I have met some good and bad financiers, but I have also met some good and bad laborers, and this I know, that permanent prosperity is dependent upon both capital and labor alike. And I also know that there can be no permanent prosperity in this country until industry is able to employ labor, and there certainly can be no permanent recovery upon any governmental theory of “soak the rich” or “soak the poor.”

His second argument was government by bureaucrats. He stated: “The next thing that I view as being dangerous to our national well-being is government by bureaucracy instead of what we have been taught to look for, government by law. Just let me quote something from the President’s message to Congress:” “In 34 months we have built up new instruments of public power in the hands of the people’s government. This power is wholesome and proper, but in the hands of political puppets of an economic autocracy, such power would provide shackles for the liberties of our people.” Smith replied: “Now I interpret that to mean, if you are going to have an autocrat, take me; but be very careful about the other fellow. There is a complete answer to that, and it rises in the minds of the great rank and file, and that answer is just this: We will never in this country tolerate any laws that provide shackles for our people. We don’t want any autocrats, either in or out of office. We wouldn’t even take a good one.”

Smith especially drew attention to the first campaign plank which read: “We advocate immediate and drastic reduction of governmental expenditures by abolishing useless commissions and offices, consolidating departments and bureaus, and eliminating extravagance to accomplish a saving of not less than 25 per cent in the cost of the Federal Government.” He stated, “Well, now, what is the fact? No offices were consolidated, no bureaus were eliminated, but on the other hand, the alphabet was exhausted. The creation of new departments — and this is sad news for the taxpayer — the cost, the ordinary cost, what we refer to as housekeeping cost, over and above all emergencies — that ordinary housekeeping cost of government is greater today than it has ever been in any time in the history of the republic.”

Smith went on to disparage an unbalanced budget by reminding the government of another campaign plank which read: “We favor maintenance of the national credit by a Federal budget annually balanced on the basis of accurate Federal estimate within revenue.” He stated: “How can you balance a budget if you insist upon spending more money than you take in? Even the increased revenue won’t go to balance the budget, because it is hocked before you receive it. What is worse than that?”

And Smith knew that taxes are not the answer. He commented: “Now here is something that I want to say to the rank and file. There are three classes of people in this country; there are the poor and the rich, and in between the two is what has often been referred to as the great backbone of America, that is the plain fellow. That is the fellow that makes from one hundred dollars a month up to the man that draws down five or six thousand dollars a year. Now, there is a great big army. Forget the rich; they can’t pay this debt. If you took everything they have away from them, they couldn’t pay it; they ain’t got enough. There is no use talking about the poor; they will never pay it, because they have nothing. This debt is going to be paid by that great big middle class that we refer to as the backbone and the rank and file, and the sin of it is they ain’t going to know that they are paying it. It is going to come to them in the form of indirect and hidden taxation. It will come to them in the cost of living, in the cost of clothing, in the cost of every activity that they enter into, and because it is not a direct tax, they won’t think they’re paying, but, take it from me, they are going to pay it!”

What about States Rights as defined by our 10th Constitutional Amendment? This is where his safety net idea was founded… upon that Constitutional principle and hence he recognized the limited federal Government role. The democrat platform stated: “We advocate the extension of Federal credit to the States to provide unemployment relief where the diminishing resources of the State make it impossible for them to provide for their needs.” This was his response: “That was pretty plain. That was a recognition in the national convention of the rights of the States. But how is it interpreted? The Federal Government took over most of the relief problems, some of them useful and most of them useless. They started out to prime the pump for industry in order to absorb the ranks of the unemployed, and at the end of three years their employment affirmative policy is absolutely nothing better than the negative policy of the Administration that preceded it.”

Again on the 10th Amendment the democratic platform stated: “We favor unemployment and old age insurance under State laws.” He stated: “Now let me make myself perfectly clear so that no demagogue or no crack-pot in the next week or so will be able to say anything about my attitude on this kind of legislation. I am in favor of it. And I take my hat off to no man in the United States on the question of legislation beneficial to the poor, the weak, the sick, or the afflicted, or women and children. Because why? I started out a quarter of a century ago when I had very few followers in my State, and during that period I advocated, fought for, introduced as a legislator and finally as Governor for eight long years, signed more progressive legislation in the interest of the men, women and children than any man in the State of New York.” And although I did not always agree with his policies it was apparent that he embraced the Constitution’s 10th Amendment.

And Smith noted yet another anti-Constitutional practice preached as part of the democratic campaign but ultimately never adhered to. “We promise the removal of Government from all fields of private enterprise except where necessary to develop public works and national resources in the common interest.” Smith remarked: “NRA! A vast octopus set up by government, that wound its arms around all the business of the country, paralyzed big business, and choked little business to death. Did you read in the papers a short time ago where somebody said that business was going to get a breathing spell? What is the meaning of that? And where did that expression arise? I’ll tell you where it comes from. It comes from the prize ring. When the aggressor is punching the head off the other fellow he suddenly takes compassion on him and he gives him a breathing spell before he delivers the knockout wallop.”

Now let us try and understand through Alfred’s Smith’s own words what he thought the Democratic Party had morphed itself into by way of taxes, subsidizes and controls. The Democratic party stated: “We condemn the open and covert resistance of administrative officials to every effort made by congressional committees to curtail the extravagant expenditures of Government and improvident subsidies granted to private interests.” Smith replied: “Now, just between ourselves, do you know any administrative officer that has tried to stop Congress from appropriating money? Do you think there has been any desire on the part of Congress to curtail appropriations? Why, not at all. The fact is that Congress threw them right and left — didn’t even tell what they were for. And the truth, further, is that every administrative officer sought to get all that he possibly could in order to expand the activities of his own office and throw the money of the people right and left. And as to subsidies, why, never at any time in the history of this or any other country were there so many subsidies granted to private groups, and on such a huge scale. The fact of the matter is that most of the cases now pending before the United States Supreme Court revolve around the point whether or not it is proper for Congress to tax all the people to pay subsidies to a particular group.” Again the party stated that: “We condemn the extravagance of the Farm Board, its disastrous action which made the Government a speculator of farm products, and the unsound policy of restricting agricultural products to the demand of domestic markets.” Smith replied: “What about the restriction of our agricultural products and the demands of the market? Why, the fact about that is that we shut out entirely the farm market, and by plowing under corn and wheat and the destruction of foodstuffs, food from foreign countries has been pouring into our American markets — food that should have been purchased by us from our own farmers. In other words, while some of the countries of the Old World were attempting to drive the wolf of hunger from the doormat, the United States flew in the face of God’s bounty and destroyed its own foodstuffs. There can be no question about that. Now I could go on indefinitely with some of the other planks. They are unimportant, and the radio time will not permit it. But just let me sum up this way. Regulation of the Stock Exchange and the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment, plus one or two minor planks of the platform that in no way touch the daily life of our people, have been carried out, but the balance of the platform was thrown in the wastebasket. About that there can be no question. Let’s see how it was carried out. Make a test for yourself. Just get the platform of the Democratic Party, and get the platform of the Socialist Party, and lay them down on your dining room table, side by side, and get a heavy lead pencil and scratch out the word “Democrat,” and scratch out the word “Socialist,” and let the two platforms lay there. Then study the record of the present Administration up to date. After you have done that, make your mind up to pick up the platform that more nearly squares with the record, and you will put your hand on the Socialist platform. You don’t dare touch the Democratic platform.”

Tomorrow it is about to become far worse!

  • Longdrycreek

    A fine piece of historical research that is relevant in 2012. After all my recent reading of old books, not the new ones, I have come to the same conclusions as the author. We have seen this fiasco before: FDR and before him with Progressives, as Teddy R, and W. Wilson.
    The difference is the world has changed, but Progressive and Socialist and Communist ideas have not changed.
    I venture an educated guess but the idea of several Americans, that is, sections, will be inevitable, because the Old North is unable to understand or accept the Old South and
    Fly Over Country, its virtues, customs, and results.

  • Steven

    Where can I read the complete radio transcript?

  • Libertyinfinite

    The American People are no longer capable of understanding what any of our governments consist of. We have simply gone on for too long without knowing what is going on, to get a good grasp on it now.

    Not only are the American People of today wholly ignorant of & subservient to the tyrannical collectivist utopian agenda, we also have a culture that pushes said agenda increasingly on to us.

    Our culture in America no longer recognizes liberty. We no longer feel it. It is so far removed from us, that we chose tyranny simply because we no longer comprehend what liberty is.

    Our schools & medias. If you go back to the sixties even, a relatively short time ago, you will find very little entitlement mentality in schools & medias. What you'd find if you had a porthole to the past is a private property, faith, family, self worth, self government based society. & today that is not the case.

    Today our schools are "teaching" hate of Americas' traditions of self government. & medias left & right in majority that produce masses of marxist sway & propagandist lies. The right never talks about liberty. It too has forgotten the language. It merely lives in the shadow of the left as a kind of dancing fool.

    The right is without an identity. It is without a purpose. So, in reality, liberty no longer exists in America. & it is so far gone that no one, literally no one knows what it is anymore enough to talk about it.

    I would suggest going back in time to when we were culturally living as a civil society. & replicate that. Self worth as opposed to state worth. Faith as a vital part of each Americans' ability to govern self, community & country. Competition in schools as opposed to political correctness. Rewarding work as opposed to redistributing wealth. Private property rights work.

    But the American People of today, AND THE AMERICAN RIGHT are wholly out of reach.

    We should oppose what is being done in America. The fact that no one does, & no one can, should tell you how far removed from liberty we are here today.

    It's not that we choose to be slaves. It is that we know nothing else.

    • Jen Kuznicki

      I take serious offense to the "we" in your post. I contend those who voted for Obama have no idea what America is, why or how it was founded. Ignorant masses of people who live in America is not "we".

      • Jason LaFleche

        Don't you see that this end is inevitable? The constitution, the document we were taught to revere, has doomed us to this end. That document, guarantees democratic rule.

        How long did you think it would take before large groups of voters realize that they can vote themselves gifts from the treasury?

        Is it becoming obvious yet who will be paying for all this?

        Democracy WILL ruin this nation in the long run. :)

        • bambi

          Your brain is so damaged it is hard to respond without insulting you. Are you trying to say the founders should have installed a king after they fought Britain? Or, do you want Communism? My guess is you would like communism, but communism is what democracies turn into when Marxists like you, and that POS in chief Obama, run the place. I know you don't like to work, so why don't you sit on your fat ass, let other people pay you to not produce, and allow the country to become North Korea. You are useless, stupid and a pathological cheat.

          • Jason LaFleche

            Wow, I guess I am useless, fat, and stupid. You're right and you don't even know me.

            My point is. We asked for a democratically ruled nation, and this is what we have.

            You don't think that a nation can change politically because the electorate has changed?

            What you are seeing IS inevitable, and there's nothing we can do about it but fall in line. Oh,

            how sorrowful this must be for you. Instead of living your life trying to help others, you've

            chosen the path of destruction. Are you advocating civil war?

            Because I bring up the reality that no one else will, I am a cheat? How is that? Do you

            feel better now that you've made yourself out to be better than me?

            You sound like a rambling teenager who didn't get their way.

        • Delores Tunk

          Jason would be the "ignorant masses" you would be referring to, Jen.

        • task


          Both Madison and Marx understood that democratic access to the treasury would doom a nation. Thus Congress is Constitutionally bound by enumerated and limited powers to promote the General Welfare. We live in a post Constitutional time and the question should be, "How did that happen?"

          What I like about the internet is that I can say what I believe, at least for now and I know that Obama is a Marxist and is reaping the fruits of what the defunct USSR provided pre and post cold war. Russia won that war, we did not.

          I listened to Levin this evening as he spoke about the civil society and government's role to protect it. Before a government can be totalitarian it must destroy the civil society. In America the government never had to do that. We did it to ourselves. We did it via the educational system, through Hollywood, the media and political correctness. In Marxist terms this is subversive warfare and it takes about two decades to accomplish. We have had four or five generations whose minds are fatally contaminated. When this is properly done you cannot get to these people with documents, photos, numbers or logic. Their perception is closed. They have been programed. Even the Russians are in amazement that their spawn has been so successful in America. In Russia the Marxists had a harder time post the 1917 Revolution. The populace had not been pre educated. So they needed Lenin to create the "useful idiot".

          After the brainwashing comes the destabilization phase and that is fast. It can and will occur during the Obama Presidency if strong conservative resistance is not mounted. This is the time the economy, military and international policies undergo major transformation. And the "useful idiots" placed Marxists into positions of power to accomplish the transformation that will ultimately consume all resistance including your own. The very people who did this are eventually alarmed but by that time they are hapless victims of their own making.

          What I also find interesting is that the Muslim Brotherhood is using the same tactics in America and in Europe. Political power is what this is all about and the techniques are well known but poorly understood and that is especially so for people who are most free and just refuse to believe it.

          We are in big trouble my friend and that includes you and your family because the conclusion is not imaginable by most of America. I suspect that you are younger than I but I suspect I will also live long enough to experience what many of my eastern european friends have already warned us about.

          • Jason LaFleche

            My point is, get ready. Maybe you're old enough to not have to live through what IS inevitably coming. My kids may see it. I am starting to see hints of it.

            So what do we do here? Endlessly attack the other side? The other side WILL grow bigger and be MORE of an impact on society no matter what we do.

            The other side has for too long been under the finger of the rich, and they're going to get theirs. I'm talking about Latinos, Blacks, and generally the poor. I say that it is GOING to happen, and it is presently. More of these groups of people are winding up in the legislature, and you don't have the votes to stop it. It's getting worse for you in that regard.

            People get p@#$% off, whenever I have something to say, and most times my comments don't make it past the approval god. But, I am trying to be the voice of truth my friend, and the truth hurts.

          • Delores Tunk

            This is almost a lucid argument on your part, and it totally contradicts your first comment and your previous comments prior to the election. I don't trust you.

            The right has been arguing for the Constitution, and you reject it, and say, bend over, and take what's coming to us.

            I believe you are what is referred to as a surrender monkey.

          • Jason LaFleche

            You have your beliefs, and that's fine. I'm afraid you are the contradictory one.

            You argue for the constitution, but don't like the results when you're in the minority.

            The constitution was made by white, fat, old men and it protected their way of life for a couple hundred years.

            Most common people couldn't care less about some document made over 200 years ago. The fat, old white guys even took their freedoms to the extreme. They made sure the rules benefitted them, in young age and in retirement. They enrichened themselves on the backs of the poor. Nice.

            You argue for a way of life that is 'all used up'. Only problem is, them damn workers won't work harder. They won't work in the same conditions that created this great concentration of wealth. They won't work for less either.

            So what did the greedy, fat, white man do? He opened up places to continue his reaping on the back of foreign workers. He made it so even the tax law would benefit his unchecked freedom. Now there are less jobs, and the fat, greedy white man complains about unemployment compensation, and the whole social framework connected with it. How he can't make a profit anymore because of the scary possibility of 'burdens of taxation'.

            That fat man has indoctrinated you into believing that it's 'every man for himself' under the guise of 'freedom'.

            The constitution was created by man, for man. In fact, it's so great that it has never been amended. The bible argues for a different way of life.

          • task

            The rich don't exactly outnumber the people who voted for Obama. When I refer to "useful idiots" I am not restricting this to Obama voters. It also includes corporations. When you demagogue the public with freebies you need money generated by corps and unions to get the message out. Obama uses the money he garners from Hollywood, corporations and unions to generate the propaganda needed to increase his voting base with expanded federal spending giveaways.

            Those fat old white men you refer to that created our founding documents were neither fat or old nor were they talking about wealth. They were talking about liberty. Even a small tea tax was enough of a violation of principle for 56 of them to sign the Declaration and they knew that they faced death if captured by the British. Five were captured and tortured till they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and destroyed.Two lost their sons and another two had their sons captured and nine died from wounds inflicted on them by the war. Families had to hide and move again and again. British soldiers looted their property. Some owned ships that were confiscated by the British and needed to sell what was left of their assets to survive. One had to leave his wife's bedside while she lay dying and his 13 children scattered. He lived in the woods and caves and when he returned home he found his wife had died and his children had vanished. He died a few weeks later from a broken heart and exhaustion. Many died in poverty. I could go on but you get the picture. Those men paid in a big way for the liberty so many of us today voted to abandon.

            Today our political class, unlike the Founders, is very powerful and privileged class and they wish to stay in power. The very document that was so carefully crafted to prevent the government from confiscating your liberty is almost ignored. It was never designed to allow any majority to create a government with unlimited powers. Can 51% of the population vote 49% into slavery. No! Neither can they seize private property. That is why it is called private. Our federal government is becoming a national government and will snatch your liberty every chance they get. Many of our Founding Fathers served in Congress without pay, without benefits, without medical care and without pensions. Ask yourself if today's professional politician would substitute their medical care for what the rest of us will get under the Patient Affordable Care Act. Ask yourself if they will substitute Social Security for their large pensions for but a brief time in office. Ask yourself if you think they will voluntarily accept term limits.

            The problem is that we have an uneducated population regarding liberty. You don't know what it means until after you you lose it.

            Getting back to the 10th Amendment and what Al Smith understood. The feds should do nothing regarding entitlements or safety nets. Al Smith was a proponent of safety nets in NY. That is constitutionally a legitimate thing to foster if the state wishes to do so. Not so for the feds because they lack the authority even if 66% of the voters want it. The Constitution would need amending. If you like an entitlement state move to CA or NY. If you don't then move to TX or OK. Once the feds get involved how do you move anywhere? The beauty of State's Rights is that some people in NY want certain freedoms that TX affords so they move there. In TX some people want some of the free things that NY provides so they move there. Now many more people are satisfied because they can exercise choices.

          • Hillsdale Charger

            Perhaps in the cut and paste or attempt to summarize, you seem to present some mischaracterizations in your assessments of Smith. I’ll lean towards cut and paste in summation given that you cite Smith as a 2 term governor when he actually served 4 terms (with the 2 year term in NY that is a common typo or mistake). With regards to the 1932 platforms of Hoover and FDR, the primary specific difference was the Democratic platform specifically wanting a Constitutional amendment to repeal prohibition while the Republican platform opposed the repeal. Aside from that, both platforms were consistent with those of prior candidates. (Actual platforms and much documentation of presidential politics are available at the University of California at Santa Barbara). Given the economic situation and the results of the 1930 elections, I would be hard-pressed to contend platforms played a major role in the outcome.

            In 1936 Smith paraphrased the 25 percent plank, which while correct, left out a relevant call at the state level: “And we call upon the Democratic Party in the states to make a zealous effort to achieve a proportionate result.”

            By doing so, he does not acknowledge the role of the states in other planks. “We advocate the extension of federal credit to the states to provide unemployment relief wherever the diminishing resources of the states makes it impossible for them to provide for the needy; expansion of the federal program of necessary and useful construction effected [sic] with a public interest, such as adequate flood control and waterways.” “We advocate unemployment and old-age insurance under state laws.” “We condemn the improper and excessive use of money in political activities.” “We condemn paid lobbies of special interests to influence members of Congress and other public servants by personal contact.” “We condemn action and utterances of high public officials designed to influence stock exchange prices.”

            Part 2 to follow

          • Hillsdale Charger

            Part 2: Why would Smith make such remarks against the Democratic platform and especially FDR? Consider that FDR made the spirited and unique (due to polio) nominations of Smith in both 1924 and 1928. 1924 saw the spectacle of 100 ballots in the fight between Smith and McAdoo before the convention simply tired and nominated Davis. 1928, Smith battled the KKK and anti-Catholicism groups, prohibitionist groups, his connections to Tammany Hall, and his lack of understanding of the importance of the radio. His hand-picked successor, FDR, was governor of NY and in 1932 Smith wanted the presidential nomination and tried to align with McAdoo, Hearst, and others to block FDR to allow him to seek the Presidency again. Not receiving a Cabinet appointment for “past favors” proved another thorn and the joining of the Liberty League. Compare and contrast Smith’s words in 1936 to his words in 1928 in accepting the Democratic Party nomination. Throughout he praised the work of Woodrow Wilson and trashed Republican ideologies.

            Here is an extended passage: “No more dishonest or unpatriotic propaganda has ever been seen in this country than that disclosed by the investigation into the methods of certain utility corporations. Private corporations to gain control of public resources have procured the writing of textbooks for the public schools; have subsidized lecturers pretending to give to the country their own honest and unbiased advice; have employed as their agents former public officials and have endeavored to mislead public opinion by the retention of the services of leaders of the community in various parts of the country. Highly paid lobbyists, penetrated into every State and into the legislative halls of the nation itself.

            As against propaganda, it is the duty of the Democratic Party to set up truth. The ownership of some of these great water powers is in the nation, of others in the several states. These sources of water power must remain forever under public ownership and control. Where they are owned by the Federal Government, they should remain under Federal control. Where they are owned by an individual State, they should be under the control of that State, or where they are owned by States jointly, they should be under the control of those States.

            Wherever the development, the government agency, State or Federal as the case may be, must retain through contractual agreement with the distributing companies the right to provide fair and reasonable rates to the ultimate consumer and the similar right to insist upon fair and equal distribution of the power. This can be secured only by the absolute retention by the people of the ownership of the power by owning and controlling the site and plant at the place of generation. The government — Federal, State or the authority representing joint States — must control the switch that turns on or off the power so greedily sought by certain private groups without the least regard for the public good.

            I shall carry into Federal administration the same policy which I have maintained against heavy odds in my own State. Under no circumstances should private monopoly be permitted to capitalize for rate-making purposes water power sites that are the property of the people themselves. It is to me unthinkable that the government of the United States or any State thereof will permit either direct or indirect alienation of water power sites.”

          • Hillsdale Charger

            Part 3: Again, it might be summation, but it is not clear as to whether you make distinctions between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Keep in mind that many signers of the Declaration would be some of the more adamant opposition to the adoption of the Constitution. The small tea tax had no direct bearing on the Declaration. The tax on tea was a part of the Townshend Acts in 1767. The most strident colonial opposition was John Dickenson’s Letters from a Pennsylvania Farmer arguing that both internal and external taxes were the same. Boycott movements began to wane in effectiveness. While “repealed” for the most part in 1770 following the Boston Massacre, the duty on tea remained. The 1773 Tea Act leading to what generations later became known as the Boston Tea Party actually reduced the tax rate on tea as Parliament wanted to protect their economic interests in the East India Company. Even George Washington referred to the individuals who dumped the tea as vandals. Only with the Coercive Acts was a Continental Congress called and the path toward independence slowly developed.

            You are correct as to the danger of affixing one’s signature to the Declaration of Independence. The fates of individual signers to which you allude, however, have never been confirmed. They are an often cited piece of American tradition, but the historical accuracy is severely lacking in a number of cases.

            Thank you for mentioning Hillsdale.

          • task

            Prohibition was an issue but there was no need to mention it in the context of the differences in the candidates because the New Deal concepts realigned the democrats to unseat republicans as a response to the Great Depression. The point is Smith’s radio address of 1936 and not the fact that he was also a catholic which led people to think he may not have been true to the constitutionalist (he was) or his zeal to repeal the 18th Amendment or that he made an unsuccessful bid for President. I was not doing a biography. I presented an accurate rendition of his radio address other than the fact that Governorships were, at that time, for 2 years and I knew that but made a typo. In fact we know he ran one term, then lost and ran 3 continuous terms afterwards.

            “Why would Smith make such an argument against the Democratic platform and especially FDR?” Smith gave his reasons and was quite descriptive as to why in his radio address. Listen to his radio address yourself. Those reasons were not dissimilar to the reasons given by Alabama democrat Arthur Davis, one of the most vocal supporters of BO, in 2008, but ultimately realized that Obama campaigned differently than how he governed and subsequently demonstrated his indignation when he spoke at the 2012 Republican Convention. Smith was never a republican but he made it abundantly clear that the FDR Administration was closer to a socialist agenda than to a Constitutional agenda. He was a States Rights advocate and mentioned that in his radio address several times as in this additional passage: "First, a Federal Government, strictly limited in its power, with all other powers except those expressly mentioned reserved to the States and to the people, so as to insure State's rights, guarantee home rule, and preserve freedom of individual initiative and local control." This was not what FDR was about but Smith was. And in his radio address I find no ambiguity.

            He concluded with this passage: “Now, in conclusion let me give this solemn warning. There can be only one Capitol, Washington or Moscow! There can be only one atmosphere of government, the clear, pure, fresh air of free America, or the foul breath of Communistic Russia. There can be only one flag, the Stars and Stripes, or the Red Flag of the Godless Union of the Soviet.

            As far as the Founders lived and died there are many historical accounts and I could have gone on but once again the point is that many suffered under the British and died and although details may matter to a historian my aim was to abrogate the concept that they suffered no ill fates post signing the Declaration. And yes, of course many who signed the Declaration disagreed with the Constitution because they sensed that the document was insufficient to guarantee liberty and if they had a time machine and traveled to 2012 I’m sure all of them, without exception, would have additionally modified the document to even further limit the power of all three branches of the Federal Government.

            Yes, the tea tax was not sole reason for the Revolution; there were many reasons that finally made them sign the Declaration and disengage from what was a very formidable opponent but they remembered that tax and ultimately it is considered by many to be a key event in the growth of the American Revolution. Historians differ just as physicists such as Einstein differed with Niels Bohr or doctors such as Micheal Debakey with Denton Cooley.

          • Jen Kuznicki

            Hillsdale Charger, please read my post below.

        • Jen Kuznicki

          Jason, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the founding of this nation. I assume that since it is winter, that you have a lot of time on your hands. Please register for and take these lectures and lessons on the Constitution 101 from Hillsdale College.

          • Jason LaFleche

            Why do you always sidestep the main argument?

            It has nothing to do with how I understand the constitution. Just ask a few common people about this issue and their eyes glaze over.

            Kinda like most of your commentors, only their eyes turn red, they argue for something that is unattainable today. Translation: not enough votes.

            Get over it. Work hard. Do honestly. Stop calling names. Live life always trying to help others.

            Whether you like it or not, that way of life, is over.

          • Jen Kuznicki

            It has everything to do with the way you understand the constitution, and the philosophy behind it, the arguments back then.

            Politics is an argument, you suggest to lay down. Perhaps we should have allowed the king to continue controlling us too. Perhaps you were for the crown, and perhaps you like to be told what to do.

            People's minds can change, not yours probably, but you should first learn what you are talking about before you comment.

            You never commented on the bulk of this article, written by a democrat during FDR's reign. Same problem today, and I'm quite sure there have been Republican presidents since. History is a great lesson, you should learn more, it is really much better for everyone if you would stop using arguments that you have no idea clash with actual fact.

            You have a lot of time on your hands, use it to learn.

            I reserve my right to call names because liberals do it to me, got it? Capitalism has helped more people than any system ever has, read Adam Smith.

  • Jen Kuznicki

    Hillsdale Charger, please. You are arguing a point that has nothing to do with task's post. I'm glad you are getting an education, but what precisely is the purpose of disputing things not even brought up here? I want you to state your purpose for posting numerous lengthy comments that serve no purpose or bolster the discussion. I'm not your personal publisher, and your practice of using reams of words in comments that go off on unnecessary tangents is starting to annoy me.

    • Jen Kuznicki

      Hillsdale Charger, you miss the point of the post completely. Smith was arguing against the policies of FDR. FDR and Smith were fellow Democrats. Smith realized after FDR inflicted his policies that he was not what Smith had thought he was. Smith brought up point after point of why he believed FDR's policies were wrong, noting the difference in philosophy between Democrats. This has nothing to do with context or other speeches Smith gave or symptoms of ailments. This is about the indignant rebuke of socialism within the Democrat party at the time.

      • Jen Kuznicki

        Hillsdale Charger, your uncle should give a similar rebuke of Obama.

        • Jen Kuznicki

          Hillsdale Charger, see the name at the top of the website? Yes, it's mine. Self-indulgence? possibly, I pay for the site and I built it and I write it and I monitor it, and it's mine. Your discussion is welcome, if it has anything to do with the subject at hand, this isn't a forum, and it is up to me if I accept your comment.

          When you write a comment here, I read it, and decide if I want it published or not. So, I am a publisher. I've written many articles, posts on lots of sites. Some sites have moderators who decide if they want my stuff published. Same goes for Free Republic, if they don't want your stuff on there, it is taken down, and some people get zotted because they don't follow the rules. That makes Jim Robinson, of Free Republic a publisher.

          I do not agree with you, that you are simply offering the facts that surround your discussion. I have detected many arguable points in your comments.

          And I'm not a real 'abstract' kinda gal.

          • Jen Kuznicki

            Apology accepted, charger. You do not understand, I get that. Now, did you want to make a point about Smith and FDR, or do you want to talk about chickadees? Close minded I am not, annoyed I am.

          • Jen Kuznicki

            Chickadees it is. I love how their little bodies fluff out when it's cold.

  • Hillsdale Charger

    The great thing about Hillsdale is the availability of the faculty. I have gotten the opinions of Dr. Arnn and Dr. West about my responses and your replies. They have pointed out the pseudo-conservative writings on other threads and its usage to inflame people against conservative ideology. Now I understand better why so many people hate conservative views when opponents such as you pretend to promote the right path and then rely upon vitriol to achieve you real agenda.

    • Jen Kuznicki

      Arnn and West had a problem with other threads, while reading this one? They didn't have a problem with this one?


    • Jen Kuznicki

      Mark or Hillsdale Charger, or whoever you are. I don't like liars.