Archive | October, 2013

Boooooo for Halloween! Boston wins World Series after last Lhota-DeBlasio debate.

31 Oct


Brooklyn’s giving a special Bronx cheer for Bill DeBlasio/Warren Wilhelm.

Last night, among the lighter debate topics, we heard how since “he’s Italian” a young Warren Wilhelm had wine from an early age…

We also wondered how Bill DeBlasio felt about the Boston Red Sox’s chances of winning their first World Series — being the debate was happened as things were underway at Fenway Park. In fact, it was airing on Ch. 5 as the debate was broadcast live on Channel 4/NBC. Boston was set for the first World Series win at home in 95 years — since 1918. It was a very, very, very Big Deal for anyone that’s a part of Red Sox Nation. There were bigger “stories” attached for last-to-first angles and of course, the City’s Boston Strong reaction to last April’s terrorist bombing during their marathon day.

But, today is Halloween — and it will be the EVERLASTING HORROR for many baseball fans — millions of both NY Yankees and NY Mets fans alike, to have their Mayor walking around with a Boston Red Sox cap. It’s being played-off as insignificant across NYC media — of course, as its the Democratic candidate. But Yankee Stadium would never accept a Mayor DeBlasio vs. a Mayor Lhota that’s born just miles away? Sports are a religion across New England, and the Red Sox transcend baseball… their fans will NEVER let anyone from NYC forget that. At one Super Bowl celebration for the New England Patriots’ football team, for example and another year for the Boston Bruins hockey team winning it all — millions of Boston fans changed “Yankees Suck!” over and over. Boston’s hatred for New York transcends sports, and is centuries old. Boston fans aren’t just in NYC, but living nationwide — thus their marketing tactic of “Red Sox Nation”.

We wonder if DeBlasio himself, has ever chanted: “Yankees Suck?”

Is all this enough to make a NY Mayor smile? how come DeBlasio has never answered to this?


Happy Halloween… what a horror story…

(Vote for Joe Lhota.)

# # #

It’s 2013: President Obama visits Brooklyn for 1st time, ever — to “wash” two Manhattan fundraisers?

25 Oct

President Obama never stepped foot in Brooklyn before today — not in the campaign season in 2008/2009, nor throughout the re-eelction year in 2012.  He’s always taken the 4+ million people in Brooklyn for granted. Before today, he usually made a bee-line to big-cash political funds for himself in Manhattan — sometimes 2 or 3 per evening, and walking right past the Occupy Wall Street protesters at that, to take $26,000/plate and shake hands with that very same 1%. NOT FOR CHARITY – but for HIMSELF.

Just a few days before the 1 Year Anniversary of Superstorm Sandy — he doesn’t even mention it. Sen. Chuck Schumer attended a ceremony out in Far Rockaway today to mark the rebuilding of its $42 million boardwalk. The President? He didn’t even mention his helpful hugs with NJ’s Gov. Christie.

But today 5 years into his Presidency, he helicoptered in and landed in Prospect Park’s ballfields briefly and ahead of TWO Manhattan fundraisers for his political arms (one $16,000 per plate). He didn’t tour any part of Brooklyn with community members or our NYC Mayor. Was this all designed simply to prove this trip wasn’t “all about” the evenings fundraisers — so that the American taxpayer would pay the bills? But there was a campaign-stop for Democrat for Mayor Bill DeBlasio at Junior’s on Flatbush Avenue at lunchtime. He didn’t leave NYC until nearly 10 pm — but how many American people would call this trip “hard work”US-POLITICS-OBAMA-DE BLASIO

The national press will be made to highlight the speech at P-Tech in Crown Heights — reading off the Teleprompter about how “Congress” has to give him the funding for Education, so that he’ll do something or other. The kids in attendance naturally, will be positively affected in seeing the President up-close and right in their community. That part is appreciated, very much (although where was he, across ALL the many times he’s come into NYC?). For a man that uses rhetoric of inner city challenges, he seems to avoid it – most always. Is anyone really watching? anyone really listening?

Always promising to do something, and saying someone is holding him back, etc. etc. “We’re not there, yet.” That sells, on the campaign trail. People nod. They believe him to be doing something, somewhere. Just not today in Brooklyn.

No talk about the near 40% UNEMPLOYMENT IN BROOKLYN OF INNER CITY MALES. That’s not his fault, right? So, what has he been doing for 5 years — and the 10,000s of DC bureaucrats associated with responsibilities tied to NYC or cities, or housing etc. etc. We see NO inner city agenda. Even Gov. Cuomo feigned one, before HIS election. Now what? Apply the misdirection that some Republicans are to blame? Spin the plates. What’s the focus today, if not Jobs?

Nope. Just back to fundraising for Pres. Obama and talking about what he’ll eventually do. Joe Biden’s in DC at a $32,000/plate Friday Night Fundie. Obama’s here, and next week goes to Boston for others. They can always wash the trip, with something or other that seems like work. Then, pepper the trip with fundraisers with the People picking up the tab/costs.

Seemed like a good time to come in for the 1st time, make it seem like he’s doing something for Brooklyn – then pick up some cash at the ATM that’s Manhattan. And leave. Wonder if we’ll see him back?

# # #

BRC welcomes Brooklyn’s esteemed District Attorney.

23 Oct


A number of attendees called October “one of our best meetings” – as the Brownstone Club welcomed a giant of law enforcement in Brooklyn’s District Attorney Charles “Joe” Hynes. His accomplishments were frequently applauded, recognizing many innovative aspects of his public service — including the Red Hook Juvenile Justice Center, his dedication to the rights/protection of Seniors, and even his tenure beforehand as Commissioner of FDNY.

He stayed for a Q&A and expressed how he learned that former Democratic Party boss (disgraced and jailed by D.A. Hynes) had surfaced at the campaign celebration of his Democratic rival. We implored Mr. Hynes to debate Mr. Thompson on NY-1 and allow more NYC voters and media/writers to react to both his rationale/positions for taking the Republican line. He replied he wouldn’t. He distrusts the Democratic Primary victor’s relationship with NY-1 and refused to debate unless his rival would meet him first among their peers at the Brooklyn Bar Association, on principal. We wish him well. His service should be lauded — and as a Democrat it is surprising that his record isn’t common knowledge, already.

In a year that’s produced an outstanding array of speakers, lively interaction each meeting, and involvement in local issues – BRC certainly covered some ground on this evening. We advanced the meeting’s date so that members could involve themselves and engage communities on behalf of our candidates. Our 40 attendees would hear from the head of Brooklyn operations for Joe Lhota for Mayor in Mr. Ross Brady, and openly discuss the campaign. photo-29

We also had a presentation from “Indie Republicans” – two independent thinkers from Queens, NY with a grassroots organization that’s energizing Democrats & independents (online and in their communities) who would not be swayed from any sort of ‘Conservative’ approaches or thinking. It was very interesting and demonstrated citywide potential for creative energy & alternative views to emerge from our Republican Party.

There was a nuance of just how wide “the Republican tent” can be – and how the younger generations and social media can be more aggressively utilized for creating awareness, opinion based on more facts (vs. emotional, biased coverage and media attacks).


In the 2nd hour the Club dissected the present state of our Brooklyn GOP – and examined how a perceived spitefulness surrounding the Catsimatidis’ loss by his supporters may be detracting from what should be unanimous support of Brooklyn’s Joe Lhota. BRC opened the floor to openly about a Primary that grew bitter (thanks to relentless attack ads) many hoped would be well in the past by October – but clearly is not, even as Election Day draws closer. Many felt a year that should have made our GOP stronger was wasted, and harmed by divisions and motives that simply did not put “the Party first”.

Our members engaged each other and some criticisms were aired at length — i.e., the lack of any GOP candidate for Brooklyn Borough President, belief that present or future $$-considerations surrounding the Catsimatidis Primary were destructive/irreparable, as were occurrences at the recent contentious “Brooklyn Republican Convention” of Sept. 30th.

As they say, you had to be there — because ultimately, the involving manner of the discussion and ultimately the ‘inside baseball’ of its results were therapeutic. While there’s certainly a “to be continued” feeling to the what’s being decided in Court Hearings, regarding the County Chairmanship – resolution is said to be coming in January. Certain members had their opinions heard and responded to, on all sides of these issues. As a group, we ended the discussion far less fractured – and that’s a tribute to all that spoke.


photo-28Our final guest speaker of the evening was NYC Council candidate Andy Sullivan who gave an impassioned speech about public service — and the tolls and sacrifices that activists and public figures can bear, behind the scenes. Mr. Sullivan was outstanding in his relaying the impact of his involvement against the “Ground Zero mosque” and national media interviews, and then the slings/arrows he faced behind closed doors, when Powers That Be didn’t agree with that stance. Whether or not you agree with the positions of any man that’s devoting himself to the public-good, and trying to make a difference in their community — the spirit for being involved is incredible. Mr. Sullivan is a sure example, and embodies a man for others — which is an essential characteristic we all would want to see MORE OF in elected leaders.

# # #

Carroll Gardens blog reveals DeBlasio’s Achilles’ Heel — local Democrats with a memory

19 Oct

“I was skeptical from the start. I felt that Mr. DeBlasio was too much of an ideologue with a sound bite.” — Comment

“You and/or CORD could have gotten this out sooner – However, we DO thank you for getting it out at all. Those of us (without public voices) remember Bill D.  Lhota may not have been the best choice during the primary season, but he may be now — and at least he got the trains to run on time.” — Comment

“I truly appreciate the dialogue with my readers and my neighbors. That’s what makes a community.” — blogger, Katia K.



A recent posting in our local “Pardon Me For Asking” blog brings into the forefront locally — what many citizens across Carroll Gardens, Kensington and Park Slope have been aware of across decades. It reveals Bill DeBlasio’s true weakness — local Democrats with their memory intact, and  non-partisan fearlessness of relaying their opinion.

In fact, the 39th NYC Council District could be playing as a microcosm of the 2013 general election.


“Married” to Bill DeBlasio
A Joint Memoir from Some Ex-Constituents

“Our affair with Bill DeBlasio began sometime in 1999 when he became our School Board Representative.

We were attracted to his drive, his enthusiam and yes, even his ambition. He flirted with us–we responded.

The marriage was consummated when we elected him our Council Member in 2001. He married each of us…all of the men, women and children of District 39.

He appeared to be quite the catch—well-spoken, attentive, an engaged conversationalist who seemed to listen with every fiber of his being. He was tall, handsome, charming—He was a Democratic representative in a Democratic demographic–he had ties with a former President and was an advisor to a potential one—The honeymoon had begun. We were willingly seduced and felt very lucky.

We were unaware then, that we did not even know his real name.

It was not long before we learned that his style of representation was very different to what we had become accustomed to. He was not readily available by phone–he was rarely in his office and there were intermediaries that we were told to deal with instead of him.

It seemed like he was never home.

This was a very different type of commitment—one this corner of the 39th had certainly never seen before.

Four years into our relationship, we renewed our vows, but it became clear that Bill had set his sights on much greener, much larger pastures. All of the signs were there and of course, conflicts arose.

Developers seemed to be targetting our community. High rise, out of context apartment buildings tearing the fabric of our historic brownstone neighborhood–changing our surroundings faster than our infrastructure or current environment could possibly accommodate.

What did our Champion DeBlasio do?

He turned his back on us and opened his arms to a developer who had grand plans for a project that presented very real environmental concerns.

Then, in April of 2009, the filthy Gowanus Canal was miraculously nominated to the National Priorities List–an event that any faithful partner would have cheered….instead Our Bill declared that the Canal “was not that dirty” and proceeded to support the New York City Plan which scoffed at the facts and scientific findings of the EPA.

Perhaps if this had been the last of our disappointments, our relationship and inevitable parting could have been more pleasant. He was now the certain Public Advocate to Be and he had more than one foot out the door.

But his final farewell, the last straw came when we learned that he very very quietly tried to push through a law which would exempt a project which was in direct contradiction to a hard earned zoning amendment he had publicly supported and widely claimed to take credit for!

Bill moved on to his Public Advocate position–where his tenure left us, to put it politely, unsatisfied. The EPA vs the City of New York battle raged over the Gowanus Canal’s future, and our Bill, our neighbor, our former partner and most importantly, OUR PUBLIC ADVOCATE, had not one word to say about the environmental/public health hazard coursing through the heart of his former district.

Throwing his hat into the Mayoral race at the end of the Public Advocate gig, was not a surprise. We did find him predictable and ever self serving.
It may come as a surprise to you that Bill can deride the worst landords in New York City on one hand and accept their money with the other…but it does not surprise us.
One day Charter Schools must go–next day–they can stay if they pay rent–next day they won’t be pushed out if they can’t pay……all too familiar to us.

Bill tells a tale of two cities combined with the I am Robin Hood stance. It is a catchy platform–who would not fall in love with someone who professes to better the lives of the poor, champion the underserved and better educate our children while taxing the rich?

However, this same Robin Hood, this same equalizer, this former partner of ours has also publicly characterized himself both a progressive and a fiscal conservative. We suppose it depends on who is in the audience at the time.

It seems as though Bill is counting on the fact that New York is still a Democratic city–and what he says will not really be measured or remembered.

He is wrong.

After all these years, we can say that we know the man known as School Board Member Bill DeBlasio. We remember the man known as Councilman Bill DeBlasio and we experienced the man known as Public Advocate Bill DeBlasio.

We have seen the many shades of Bill and we know what a relationship with Bill DeBlasio might bring. Now, he is courting you.

Published jointly by Carroll Gardens CORD and Pardon Me for Asking

(link to actual blogpost, click here)


It’s the epicenter of DeBlasio’s “Working Family Party” and its notorious actions which thwart non-WFP Democrats, reformers and moderates alike. BY THE WAY.. While it was Rudy Giuliani’s former counsel, Randy Mastro that nearly crippled the WFP (by exposing their actions) — where is Mr. Mastro and Mr. Giuliani now, to remind NYC’s Democrats and Independents of this?

# # #

NY’s Al Smith in 1936 warned Democrats against dividing “class against class”.

18 Oct

“What are these dangers that I see? The first is the arraignment of class against class…from the demagogues that would incite one class of our people against the other.

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.”


As the power-elite of New York City, State gather for the Waldorf Astoria ballroom in the 68th Alfred E. Smith dinner, let’s reflect of how he BOLDLY spoke against the winds blowing across Washington D.C. at that point in history. What Democrat today could break with his Party to center them against today’s brand of run-away liberalism or socialist policy? Gov. Smith’s thoughts are still important today, as we see both Pres. Obama and now NYC Mayoral candidate DeBlasio using the rhetoric, to say anything for votes. Here’s his speech, word for word.


By Alfred E. (Al) Smith

[Alfred E. Smith, Democratic governor of New York during four terms, became the Democratic candidate for President in 1928 but lost to Herbert Hoover. In 1932 he supported Franklin D. Roosevelt for President, but by 1936 he was so shocked and alarmed by what he saw happening that he decided to warn his Party. Because of the popularity of President Roosevelt this step was considered by some to be virtual treason. Nevertheless, on January 25, 1936, Alfred F. Smith gave the following speech in Washington, D.C., to warn the American people that the Democratic Party was being betrayed.]

At the outset of my remarks let me make one thing perfectly clear. I am not a candidate for any nomination by any party at any time, and what is more I do not intend to even lift my right hand to secure any nomination from any party at any time. Further than that I have no axe to grind. There is nothing personal in this whole performance so far as I am concerned. I have no feeling against any man, woman or child in the United States. I was born in the Democratic party and I expect to die in it. And I was attracted to it in my youth because I was led to believe that no man owned it. Further than that, that no group of men owned it, but on the other hand, that it belonged to all the plain people in the United States.


It is not easy for me to stand up here tonight and talk to the American people against the Democratic Administration. This is not easy. It hurts me. But I can call upon innumerable witnesses to testify to the fact that during my whole public life I put patriotism above partisanship. And when I see danger, I say danger, that is the “Stop, look, and listen” to the fundamental principles upon which this Government of ours was organized, it is difficult for me to refrain from speaking up.

What are these dangers that I see? The first is the arraignment of class against class. 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.” . .


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.”

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.

The next danger that is apparent to me is the vast building up of new bureaus of government, draining resources of our people in a common pool of redistributing them, not by any process of law, but by the whim of a bureaucratic autocracy.


Well now, what am I here for? I am here not to find fault. Anybody can do that. I am here to make suggestions. What would I have my party do? I would have them reestablish and redeclare the principles that they put forth in that 1932 platform. .

The Republican platform was ten times as long. It was stuffy, it was unreadable, and in many points, not understandable. No Administration in the history of the country came into power with a more simple, a more clear, or a more inescapable mandate than did the party that was inaugurated on the Fourth of March in 1933.

And listen, no candidate in the history of the country ever pledged himself more unequivocally to his party platform than did the President who was inaugurated on that day.

Well, here we are!

Millions and millions of Democrats just like myself, all over the country, still believe in that platform. And what we want to know is why it wasn’t carried out.

Now, let us wander for awhile and let’s take a look at that platform, and let’s see what happened to it. Here is how it started out:

“We believe that a party platform is a covenant with the people, to be faithfully kept by the party when entrusted with power, and that the people are entitled to know in plain words the terms of contract to which they are asked to subscribe.

“The Democratic Party solemnly promises by appropriate action to put into effect the principles, policies and reforms herein advocated and to eradicate the political methods and practices herein condemned.”

My friends, these are what we call fighting words. At the time that that platform went through the air and over the wire, the people of the United States were in the lowest possible depths of despair, and the Democratic platform looked to them like the star of hope; it looked like the rising sun in the East to the mariner on the bridge of a ship after a terrible night.

But what happened to it?


First plank: “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.”

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.


Another plank: “We favor maintenance of the national credit by a Federal budget annually balanced on the basis of accurate Federal estimate within revenue.”

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? .


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!


Another plank: “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.”

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.

“We favor unemployment and old age insurance under State laws.”

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 the sin of this whole thing, and the part of it that worries me and gives me concern, is that this haphazard, hurry-up passage of legislation is never going to accomplish the purposes for which it was designed and — bear this in mind, follow the platform — under State laws.

Another one: “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.”

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.


Here is another one: “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.”

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.

Here is another one: “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.” . .

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.


And incidentally, let me say, that it is not the first time in recorded history, that a group of men have stolen the livery of the church to do the work of the devil.

Now, after studying this whole situation, you will find that that is at the bottom of all our troubles. This country was organized on the principles of representative democracy, and you can’t mix Socialism or Communism with that. They are like oil and water; they refuse to mix.

And incidentally, let me say to you, that is the reason why the United States Supreme Court is working overtime throwing the alphabet out of the window — three letters at a time.

Now I am going to let you in on something else. How do you suppose all this happened? Here is the way it happened. The young Brain Trusters caught the Socialists in swimming and they ran away with their clothes.

Now, it is all right with me. It is all right to me if they want to disguise themselves as Norman Thomas or Karl Marx, or Lenin, or any of the rest of that bunch, but what I won’t stand for is to let them march under the banner of Jefferson, Jackson, or Cleveland.


Now what is worrying me, where does that leave me as a Democrat? My mind is now fixed upon the Convention in June, in Philadelphia. The committee on resolutions is about to report, and the preamble to the platform is:

“We, the representatives of the Democratic Party in Convention assembled, heartily endorse the Democratic Administration.”

What happens to the disciples of Jefferson and Jackson and Cleveland when that resolution is read out? Why, for us it is a washout. There is only one of two things we can do. We can either take on the mantle of hypocrisy or we can take a walk, and we will probably do the latter.

Now leave the platform alone for a little while. What about this attack that has been made upon the fundamental institutions of this country? Who threatens them, and did we have any warning of this threat? Why, you don’t have to study party platforms. You don’t have to read books. You don’t have to listen to professors of economics. You can find the whole thing incorporated in the greatest declaration of political principles that ever came from the hands of man, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.


Always have in your minds that the Constitution and the first ten amendments to it were drafted by refugees and by sons of refugees, by men with bitter memories of European oppression and hardship, by men who brought to this country and handed down to their descendants an abiding fear of the bitterness and all the hatred of the Old World was distilled in our Constitution into the purest democracy that the world has ever known.

There are just three principles, and in the interest of brevity, I will read them. I can read them quicker than talk them.

“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.”

That is simple enough. The difference between the State constitutions and the Federal. Constitution is that in the State you can do anything you want to do provided it is not prohibited by the Constitution. But in the Federal Government, according to that government, you can do only that which that Constitution tells you that you can do.

What is the trouble? Congress has overstepped its bounds. It went beyond that Constitutional limitation, and it has enacted laws that not only violate the home rule and the State’s right principle — and who says that? Do I say it? Not at all. That was said by the United States Supreme Court in the last ten or twelve days.


Secondly, the Government, with three independent branches, Congress to make the laws, the Executive to execute them, the Supreme Court, and so forth. You know that.

In the name of Heaven, where is the independence of Congress? Why, they just laid right down. They are flatter on the Congressional floor than the rug on the table here. They surrendered all of their powers to the Executive, and that is the reason why you read in the newspapers references to Congress as the Rubber Stamp Congress.

We all know that the most important bills were drafted by the Brain Trusters, and sent over to Congress and passed by Congress without consideration, without debate and, without meaning any offense at all to my Democratic brethren in Congress, I think I can safely say without 90 per cent of them knowing what was in the bills.

That was the meaning of the list that came over, and besides certain bills were “Must.” What does that mean? Speaking for the rank and file of American people we don’t want any executive to tell Congress what it must do, and we don’t want any Congress or the Executive jointly or severally to tell the United States Supreme Court what it must do!

And further than that, we don’t want the United States Supreme Court to tell either of them what they must do.

What we want, and what we insist upon, and what we are going to have is the absolute preservation of this balance of power which is the keystone, the arch upon which the whole theory of democratic government has got to rest. When you rattle that you rattle the whole structure.

Of course, when our forefathers wrote the Constitution of the United States it couldn’t be possible that they had it in their minds that it was going to be all right for all time to come. So they said, “Now, we will provide a manner and method of amending it.”

That is set forth in the document itself, and during our national life we amended it many times.

We amended it once by mistake, and we corrected it. What did we do? We took the amendment out. Fine, that is the way we want to do it, by recourse to the people.

But we don’t want an Administration that takes a shot at it in the dark and that ducks away from it and dodges away from it and tries to put something over in contradiction of it upon any theory that there is going to be a great public howl in favor of that something; possibly the United States Supreme Court may be intimidated into a friendly opinion with respect to it.

What I have held all during my public life is that Almighty God is with this country, and He didn’t give us that kind of Supreme Court.

Now this is pretty tough on me to have to go at my own party this way, but I submit that there is a limit to blind loyalty.

As a young man in the Democratic Party, I witnessed the rise and fall of Bryan and Bryanism, and I know exactly what Bryan did to our party. I knew how long it took to build it after he got finished with it. But let me say this to the everlasting credit of Bryan and the men that followed him, they had the nerve and the courage and honesty to put into the platform just what their leaders stood for. And they further put the American people into a position of making an intelligent choice when they went to the polls.

Why, the fact of this whole thing is — I speak now not only of the executive but of the legislature at the same time — that they promised one set of things; they repudiated that promise, and they launched off on a program of action totally different.

Well, in 25 years of experience I have known both parties to fail to carry out some of the planks in their platform. But this is the first time that I have known a party, upon such a huge scale, not only not to carry out the plank, but to do the directly opposite thing to what they promised.


Now, suggestions, and I make these as a Democrat anxious for the success of my party, and I make them in good faith.

No. 1: I suggest to the members of my party on Capitol Hill here in Washington that they take their minds off the Tuesday that follows the first Monday in November. Just take their minds off it to the end that you may do the right thing and not the expedient thing.

Next, I suggest to them that they dig up the 1932 platform from the grave that they buried it in, read it over, and study it, breathe life into it, and follow it in legislative and executive action, to the end that they make good their promises to the American people when they put forth that platform and the candidate that stood upon it 100 per cent. In short, make good!

Next, I suggest to them that they stop compromising with the fundamental principles laid down by Jackson and Jefferson and Cleveland.

Fourth: Stop attempting to alter the form and structure of our Government without recourse to the people themselves as provided in their own Constitution. This country belongs to the people, and it doesn’t belong to any Administration.

Next, I suggest that they read their Oath of Office to support the Constitution of the United States. And I ask them to remember that they took that oath with their hands on the Holy Bible, thereby calling upon God Almighty Himself to witness their solemn promise. It is bad enough to disappoint us.


Sixth: I suggest that from this moment they resolve to make the Constitution the Civil Bible of the United States, and pay it the same civil respect and reverence that they would religiously pay the Holy Scripture, and I ask them to read from the Holy Scripture the Parable of the Prodigal Son and to follow his example.

Stop! Stop wasting your substance in a foreign land, and come back to your Father’s house.

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, tl1e 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.

There can be only one National Anthem. The Star Spangled Banner or the Internationale.

There can be only one victor. If the Constitution wins, we win. But if the Constitution — stop. Stop there. The Constitution can’t lose! The fact is, it has already won, but the news has not reached certain ears.

# # #