Part 1: Dear Mike, "A Series of Letters from the Left to the Right:

Commentary: On December 2, 2011 I was excoriated by a young "conservative" named Mike, who wanted to give me a hiding for my communist views on "unregulated" capitalism. He called me or more precisely my views "ridiculous" I'll let you decide who is ridiculous.

His tirade was quite lengthy so I'm going to publish my response in nine parts under my: "A Series of Letters from the Left to the Right: as Dear Mike part 1-9.

Since his attack was full of vitriol I have taken off the gloves as I see no point of entertaining his bombastic rhetoric. In that vein I have used a graphic that is more in keeping with his more antagonistic tone.

He started with my "Thought for the Day" which are intended as a tongue in cheek rebuff of current obtuse conservative thinking. That will serve as Part 1-4 of my responses.

Parts 5-9 are in-response to the object of his real disdain—my critique of Adam Smith Re-examined.

I have color coded this blog post as follows: the post he critiqued in red—his critique in blue—and my response to his critique in black.

PART 1 Dear Mike, "A Series of Letters from the Left to the Right"

Since when does a “Christian Nation” rob the poor to give to the rich?

Well, since 1913 with the passage of the 16th Amendment, giving the rich power to directly tax the citizens of the United States. That’s also the year the Federal Reserve Act was passed, giving private corporations cartel monopoly power over the money supply of the United States, and the 17th Amendment was passed giving the Senate to the richest candidates.

Dear Mike, I am no lover of the Congress—which abdicated their sworn fiduciary responsibilities to —as you put it—the "rich." Your words not mine. The US monetary system should never have been "privatized" — it belongs in the hands of the representatives of people. The fact that government has the sole responsibility for issuing the currency of the nation, which is backed by the full faith and credit of the government (the people) and is then charged for the use of that money, by private banks is on its face ludicrous.

A case in point was a period leading up to the Civil War when the Bankers were betting on the side of the South and refused the Union credit to fight the war and Lincoln began issuing "Greenbacks" Lincoln said:

"The Government should create, issue and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is in the Government's greatest creative opportunity. By the adoption of these principles ... the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity."

Banks rob the poor with usurious predatory rates of upwards of thirty percent— on money which virtually costs them nothing, and at "unregulated lenders" its even worse for returning soldiers at payday lenders. They (the banks) are the rich, to whom I was referring.

When they have privatized everything, how will you petition a corporation for redress of grievances?

Easy – you’ll file a warranty claim for faulty goods, or a civil claim for severely faulty or harmful goods, or a police report for criminal activity. What’s the problem?

Dear Mike, You're lack of understanding of the deeper moral issues and your flip answer about consumer products, to prove how clever you are—are the problem.

It tells me that you don't fully comprehend the dire unintended consequences of rampant "unregulated" capitalism, especially when it comes to "privatizing" government functions.

Case in point, is the recently passed Arizona Anti Immigration Law that was written by a, "private for profit capitalist corporation" (the Corrections Corporation of America*) that builds and operates prisons. That law required that any Arizonian stopped and asked for proof of citizenship could be arrested if they failed to produce said documentation and sent to prison. I wonder who they were going go to ask for ID and to which prison they'd be sent?

That law was written at a conference of ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council)—that pays the way of state legislators, such as Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce, who introduced the law, and is a member of ALEC—to be "educated" by for profit businesses—who are interested in privatizing government functions—its funded by the uber capitalists Koch Brothers.

That same issue of privatizing government functions was headline news in Pennsylvania where: [quote]"Luzerne County Judge Mark Ciavarella used children as pawns, locking them up unjustly in a plot to get rich. Ciavarella is accused of taking nearly $1 million in kickbacks from capitalist Robert Mericle, the developer of the PA Child Care Centers, owners of private detention centers in exchange for placing juvenile defendants at their facilities, often for minor crimes". [unquote]

In one instance, he sentenced a college-bound high school girl to three months in juvenile detention for creating a website that made fun of her assistant principal. So much for free speech.

*CCA in their own 2003 Annual Report painted an industry rife with inefficiencies and corruption of State Lawmakers to get favorable laws passed that benefited CCA. A direct quote from that report said: [quote] "The private prison business represents a problem disproportionately larger than its current size. The existence of an industry based on incarceration for profit creates a commercial incentive in favor of government policies that keep more people behind bars for longer periods of time. CCA has been active in trying to influence correctional policy in the United States. As described in Chapter 3, it has done this through its ties with public officials and legislators, its extensive campaign contributions and its involvement in a group called the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) that promotes a conservative criminal justice agenda to state legislators around the country."

I would think a real "libertarian" would be repulsed by such intrusion and obvious breach of the Constitution. You know—that "god damn piece of paper" GWB referred to when challenged about torturing prisoners of war.

After 20 years of tax cuts for the rich— where are the jobs they created? China?

"Well, there are jobs everywhere, including China.

Dear Mike, DUH!

First of all there are two elements that have had a devastating impact on the loss of American jobs. Deceptive "free trade" policies and tax cuts—both sold as job creating measures.

Both "free trade" agreements and tax cuts—that are promoted and endorsed by, and pushed through a"real conservative" Congress, by "real conservative" lobbyists for the "real conservative" so called American Corporation, and that were supposedly predicated on opening foreign markets to US products—are really about finding "cheap labor" which would destroy American labor unions and starving the beast—to cut the social safety net.

In other words it was about making American workers compete with foreign workers who were paid a pittance in wages under intolerable conditions tantamount to slavery.

NAFTA is a case in point—Ross Perot warned that if they were passed "the giant sucking sound we would hear"—would be jobs going to Mexico." And for the average American it became a race to the bottom. The second part of the plan was "the big lie"—that if we taxed "capitalists" at a lower rate—that "the job creators" would create millions of jobs and the wealth would trickle down to the average American. After tax cuts from Reagan until Bush 2—the net effect is a stalled economy and we lost millions of jobs instead.

Under 30 years of Republican management—who strategically created the current debt crisis with the aforementioned trade agreements and tax cuts meant to decimate the American work force and "to starve the beast—we have lost Americans jobs by the millions. In fact the economy lost 3.78 million private sector jobs in 2008 under the real conservative management of GW. So the question based on those two big lies remains: "Where are the (American) jobs?"

What Weber should be asking is: After 20 years of increasing corporate taxes, increasing regulations and restrictions on doing business in the U.S., increasing costs associated with hiring and employing citizens, increasing restrictions and penalties for hiring immigrants, increasing complexity from municipal, county, state, and federal governments in this nation, TSA agents strip-searching and sexually molesting travelers everywhere, where did the jobs go?"

Dear Mike, Your assertion—that corporate taxes have increased in the last 20 years—is patently false they have in fact gone down over the last twenty years—as a percentage of GDP—which is a large contributor to the "deficits" many of which were run up under your "real conservative philosophies"—a deliberate strategy to "starve the beast "for the sole purpose of under cutting the social safety net.

According to 2010 OMB data 81.5 % of tax revenue comes from individual payroll taxes and individual Income taxes an additional 9.6% comes from other sources less than 9% comes from corporate taxes. Source OMB.

And what does TSA strip searches have to do with anything about jobs? Which by the way came in under GW Bush who created the Department of "Homeland Security" as part of the :"war" on terrorism—a"real conservative" president who also authorized secret monitoring of American citizens a violation of the fourth amendment and referred to the Constitution as a "god damn piece of paper" in regard to the use of torture. So much for real conservative "small non-intrusive government."

When the rich and powerful oppressed us in 1776—didn’t we revolt?

Sure we did. And we all remember this line from the Declaration of Independence: He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

Dear Mike, Your spin is showing--your reference to king George's imposition of troops, hardly pertains to the Constitutionally elected government of the people as the oppressors, and it conveniently ignores the current plutocracy that is now governing this nation through its bought and paid for congressmen.

Doesn’t that remind you of the last paragraph?

No.

When corporations finish privatizing our government who will represent you? Koch Industries?

What does that even mean?

See above Read my response to: When they have privatized everything

Dear Mike, More specific to your response is the current situation in Wisconsin where—the Koch Brother's stooge—Scott Walker has all but disbanded Unions by taking away the one thing that gives them strength, their ability to negoitate as a block. However an under reported part of that bill--* was a provision that privatised Wisconsin's gas and oil piplines along with state owned power plants--a total sell out of the people of Wisconsin--guess who the benefactors were? The Koch brothers.

For more on the subject:

* "

It will allow the Koch Brothers to buy or contract to operate state−owned heating, cooling, and power plants in Wisconsin without a solicitation of bids."

Daily Kos: The Koch Brothers' End Game in Wisconsin and:

Did the state of Wisconsin receive compensation for turning over their piplines and utilities to the koch brothers - Google Search

This is the end of PART 1

A Series of Letters from the Left to The Right: Dear Charlie

Commentary: This is a continuation of a series of exchanges between myself and conservatives who have taken issue with comments that I have made through FB. I call it: Letters from the Left to the Right". If I think they are justifiably angry but wrong on the facts of the issue I put the name calling aside and try to engage them in a rational dialogue.

In response to an article in The Huffington Post about how small businesses are suffering while global giaints' prosper in the wake of the financial meltdown I posted a comment that we had nationalized the Banks Debt but didn't Nationalize their profits or cap their bonuses and that that is exactly what we should have done Nationalize the Banks starting with the Fed. I got an angry responses from a man I didn't know and he accused me of being a radical socialist and that i was anti American. After reading his response I took a chance and wrote him directly on his FB page. The following is a series of exchanges that took place over several weeks.

Michael February 18 at 11:23am

Dear Charlie,

Sorry you have misconstrued my meaning. I am talking specifically about globalized corporations and large monopolistic banks that brought this country to its knees with their phony "too large to fail" excuse to rob the American taxpayers. All the players in that scenario were Wall Street insiders. The reason the average American worker is out of a job is that globalized corporations have found cheaper labor in foreign countries and they get paid by the American taxpayer to do it. I am not a champion of Communism. I am a champion of restoring the balance of power. In The Federalist #10, James Madison said the most destructive thing a republic could face is an imbalance of power where one faction imposes its will to the detriment of everyone else. Certainly just an objective observation by anyone of the current American political scene shows that in the past 30 years that power has shifted heavily in favor of the super rich. They pay no taxes to speak of in fact their are the main beneficiaries of the tax cuts over the past 30 years. All of those tax cuts are borrowed money and are being paid for by you and I. Today in this nation 1% of the population control 95% of the wealth. If you have ever played Monopoly as a kid you know that when everyone else is bankrupt you are the winner and the game is over. In real life that means families become homeless and are torn apart. I know that the propaganda of the Right is appealing, but I challenge you to find one program they endorse that will help create jobs. They claimed that the tax cuts for mega rich would create jobs. In fact their mantra of more and more tax cuts have had the opposite effect, there have been an exodus of jobs. The playing field is not level its been tilted by the influence of corporate lobbyist who have sold Americans a toxic mix of poisonous propaganda and bought every politician that has no morality. I am an ardent student of American history and have read many of the documents that were the underpinnings of this democratic republic. most of the claims made by the republicans are contrary to what the founders intended. They didn't want a small government as the Republicans insist, the wanted a large robust government that protected the people from the tyranny of the majority or minority. Why would they rewrite our history? When someone lies to me I start looking for their ulterior motives. It usually comes down to greed. Why did they want to deregulate the banks? They got their wish and look what happened within ten years the banks bankrupted this country. In closing I hope you will take an objective look at the current American political scene and reconsider what is really going on in this country.

Sincerely, Michael

Charlie February 18 at 4:42pm

The extremes you speak of are not the answer. But a Deli closing portending the end of the world is .....well......way too fanciful.

Michael February 20 at 5:18pm

Dear Charlie,

Thanks for the reply, however I would take exception to your assertion that my ideas are extreme. For example, if you think my idea of Nationalizing the FED is extreme or radical it might interest you to know that there were other American Extremists who thought that it was a good idea—they were: Ben Franklin, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln—from a book by Andrew Hitchcock "The History of Money Changers"

http://www.iamthewitness.com/book /Andrew.Carrington.Hitchcock/The.History.of.the.Money.Changers.htm

James Madison stated,

"The rich will strive to establish their dominion and enslave the rest. They always did. They always will ... They will have the same effect here as elsewhere, if we do not, by the power of government, keep them in their proper spheres."

Jefferson later made the following statement,

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and the corporations which grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

President Jackson vetoed a bill to renew the Charter of The Second Bank of America and in his veto message he stated the following,

"It is not our own citizens only who are to receive the bounty of our Government. More than eight millions of the stock of the Bank are held by foreigners ... Is there no danger to out liberty and independence in a bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country?

Controlling our currency, receiving our public moneys, and holding thousands of our citizens in dependence ... would be more formidable and dangerous than a military power of the enemy. If government would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower the favor alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing.

In the act before me there seems to be wide and unnecessary departure from these just principles."

After the Bankers refused America credit to fight the war and Lincoln began issuing "Greenbacks" Lincoln said:

"The Government should create, issue and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is in the Government's greatest creative opportunity. By the adoption of these principles ... the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity."

In A History of American Banking under the Title:

Deregulation, Bank Failures, and New Technology

it states that:

Several deregulatory moves made by the federal government in the 1980s diminished the distinctions among various financial institutions in the United States. Two major changes were the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (1980) and the Depository Institutions Act (1982), which allowed savings and loan associations to engage in often-risky commercial loans and real estate investments, and to receive checking deposits. By 1984, banks had federal support in buying discount brokerage firms, and commercial banks were beginning to acquire failed savings banks; in 1985 interstate banking was declared constitutional.

Such deregulation was blamed for the unprecedented number of bank failures among savings and loan associations, with over 500 such institutions closing between 1980 and 1988. The Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC), until it became insolvent in 1989, insured deposits in all federally chartered—and in many state-chartered—savings and loan associations. Its outstanding insurance obligations in connection with savings and loan failures, over $100 billion, were transferred (1989) to the FDIC.

Further deregulation occurred in 1999, when Congress overhauled the entire U.S. financial system. Among other actions, the legislation repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, thus allowing banks to enter the insurance and securities businesses. Supporters predicted that the measure would permit U.S. banks to diversify and compete more effectively on an international scale. Opponents warned that this deregulation could lead to failures of many financial institutions, as had occurred with the savings and loans.

That's from a objective third party. What bothers me is that when deregulation failed and brought about the "financial crisis" that has brought this country to near ruin—the Republicans didn't bat an eye or even acknowledge that their policies to deregulate had failed—they brazenly stuck to their guns and blamed everyone except themselves and tried to block legislation to Banking reform, which is the primary function of government to regulate "special interests" or as Madison referred to them "factions".

The Fed creates money and gives it to the banks interest free the banks turn around and charge you and I as much as 20-30%. That my friend is why we are up to our eyeballs in debt. Its private banks that set the interest rates, its not the, poor who need help with heating oil, teacher unions in Wisconsin or any other targeted group the Republicans go after. Its the banks and the corrupt politicians they own. We bailed them out and now they are sitting on boatloads of money and they won't lend it to keep the economy afloat. That should tell you something about their morality or lack thereof. I don't know about you but, I am a Christian and the oppression of the poor leaves me enraged.

Sincerely, Michael

Charlie February 20 at 6:32pm Report

Mike....you are amazing me with the stuff you are aware of. The unions are being targeted by Republicans for a good reason.....their benefits are out of whack.

Michael February 21 at 1:57pm

Dear Charlie,

WOW! I am almost speechless I just laid out why the bankers have nearly ruined the economy with "credit default swaps" and how the Republicans have given the banks a pass and tried to block new financial reform and you say the Republicans need to regulate unions because their benefits are out of whack. So in essence your telling me—Republicans are willing to regulate teachers and firefighters wages but not monopolistic predatory banks—who are the real cause of this mess. I have a news flash—the unions are not the cause of the economic problems that face this nation—the Republicans are attacking unions because they are part of the democratic base and they are trying to eliminate any and all Democratic support. Charlie I am sure you are a good decent man, but let me just say that the downfall of this Nation will not come from the Left and some "commie plot" it will come from the Right just like it did in pre war Germany after Hitler disbanded all political opposition. This Nation as the Founders intended it —a democratic republic—is already dying and is in its last days—if the Republicans have their way, we will all be servants of the "upper class" and I will stake my life on the fact that the "upper class" does not include me or you and our families or anyone that you or I associate with. They think Americans are stupid and will blindly follow them when they spout their simplistic propaganda and hatred. They counting on Americans being prejudiced, lazy and ignorant. There is a reason Rush Limbaugh refers to his audience as "dittoheads" In his arrogance he is telling them they can't think for themselves—so as he might—say—"let me do your thinking for you". It is a reflection of the real distain he has for people that are swayed by him. I urge you my friend to really pray about this instead of blindly supporting the people that are going to destroy this country. As a veteran I pledged an oath to defend this country from enemies—outside and inside—this country, the real enemies as I see it are NOT Unions, but the people who want to suppress them.

Sincerely, Michael

Charlie March 3 at 8:00am

Jesus said "The poor you always have with you". By seeking to replace jobs with redistribution the Feds have spent trillions to no avail. The tyrannical bouguise is now the university-government elites who are NOT the super rich but make millions and billions feeding at the government trough. If you want someone to fight against.... fight against that entangled web of bureaucrats and tenored socialists.

Michael March 3 at 9:40am

Dear Charlie,

Are you talking about the bourgeois causing this crisis? I am having trouble with understanding how the middle class are the culprits in this financial meltdown. The Banks were deregulated and started creating predatory loans that have put middle class families into foreclosure and bankruptcy. Tenured "socialists" and government bureaucrats—whoever they are—didn't do that.

Just so there is no mistake and I understand you—the word "bourgeois" is defined as a noun:

1. A person belonging to the middle class.

2. A person whose attitudes and behavior are marked by conformity to the standards and conventions of the middle class.

3. In Marxist theory, a member of the property-owning class; a capitalist.

as an adj.

1. Of, relating to, or typical of the middle class.

2. Held to be preoccupied with respectability and material values.

Is that correct? If that is the definition of "the bourgeois" you are talking about, isn't that the American Dream to become a property owner? A person of respectability? A contributor to society? A person of means? Are you saying the American Dream is dead? And only the the mega-rich should survive?

Furthermore, the context of the quote—"the poor will always be with us"—was the night of the Passover Seder or the Last Supper as we Christians refer to it. A poor woman came in and anointed Jesus with expensive oil which the disciples objected to as a "waste of money"—that could be given to the poor.

Please note that if the money hadn't been spent on the oil it would have been given to the poor instead.

Jesus chastised them and said, he would not be around much longer, but that the poor would always be in need of charity. He didn't mean to say what you seem to be implying that we should ignore the poor because they are an endless affliction on society. To the contrary his entire mission was focused on the poor, the sick, the downtrodden, and sinners like me and you.

By the way the full quote about the poor is found in Mark 14:7

7“For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them; but you do not always have Me.

In fact in one of his most famous teachings about who will be saved Jesus said:

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,

43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these , you did not do for me.’

Matthew 25:31-45

The "least of these" are: the poor, the sick, the hungry, the naked, everything the democrats have done in the area of public policy—health care, social security, food for the poor, heating oil subsidies, education programs to lift the children of the poor out of poverty, are a in proper alignment with what Jesus commanded us to do—love one another as I have loved you. We've spent trillions on the poor and there are still poor—so to hell with em? What?

You sound like a man of principle and a christian—if what Jesus said is true and you believe him as I do—then my advice to you is—if you have one crust of bread left give it to someone that has none. Because my friend, you can't lay up earthly treasure that will help you where we are all going. "What profit a man who gains the world and loses his soul?"

Sincerely, Michael

Let Freedom Ring

As I watch the events that are shaping the future of America, a growing sense of disbelief and sadness overwhelms me—as Republican state after Republican state adopts voter suppression laws in this country. To me it is a slap in the face to every man and woman who served, died or was wounded either physically or mentally to protect the freedoms that Americans cherish.

My father's generation sacrificed their lives to rid the world of "fascism", or as Mussolini called it "corporatism", an unholy alliance of the rich, aloof business class, a subservient military, prepared to obey even the most horrific orders—for "the homeland"—and an authoritarian government—that sought the enslavement of the "ordinary people"—all to satisfy rantings' of a megalomaniacal lunatic.

Those who saw the death camps first hand —that were euphemistically referred by cynical Nazi propagandists as "work camps"—were shocked to the core and were then outraged, by the piles of unburned corpses and the sight of walking skeletons—the victims of the same nexus of power hungry Nazi elite—the so called Übermensch. The "super race".

Those images were so shocking to me they still haunt me to this day as much as when I saw them in a LIFE magazine pictorial about WW II as a child—I can only imagine the devastating impact they had on the young soldiers who witnessed the sight first hand when accompanied by the sounds human anguish and the stench of rotting human flesh.

Many young soldiers who bore witness to such inhumanity said it was the first time they understood that, that was why they were fighting. It brought home to them in the most profound way the meaning and promise of America. It changed them forever. It changed America too.

That same vivid atrocity also struck Americans at home in their souls and played a large role in the accelerated end of segregation of the military under Truman—and a generation later, the expansion of voters rights, the end of the shameful Jim Crowe laws in the south, and the sham of "separate but equal education"—they were rightly exposed as just another form of oppression and completely intolerable to the vast majority Americans. Equality for all was the lesson of that generation! All men were created equal, reverberated in the American heart.

That sense of "equality and justice for all" sparked the Civil Rights movement and led to the Voting Rights Act—that liberalized and expanded democratic participation to every African American citizen finally keeping promise of full participation by all Americans in their own governance.

The Voting Rights Act was the fitting legacy of the aftermath of WW II—a culmination of a struggle that began with "emancipation" the slaves of the south nearly one hundred years earlier by a Republican president.

Today—because of voter suppression—that legacy is in peril.

Commentary: There are some things worth dying for—liberty is one of them. There can be no liberty without the right to vote—it is the foundation of all other rights. That is why Republican attempts to suppress that right are so utterly contemptuous in their implementation—it is so anti-American it is inconceivable to the vast majority of Americans—yet it is happening in every "republican held state" in the nation. In my view there is something fundamentally repugnant about a political party, that is so desperate to gain and maintain power they would deliberately engage in such treasonous behavior. It is a stunning repudiation of the sacrifices American veterans have made.

In a now infamous October 16th 2005 memo from Citibank* some of their the top executives, declared America, "a plutonomy" and except for **the peoples power of the vote they were advising that the rich would only get richer at the expense of the working and middle class. Their fear of a working class uprising is being realized in the current mobilization of the Occupy Movement. America wake up and rise up, now is the time to take back our country from these self-proclaimed "Masters of the Universe." These same plutocrats—who take everything and give nothing— keep us so focused on the enemies outside and pitting us against each other—that we fail to see them as the enemies of democracy in our midst.

A young Marine, Scott Olsen, who served his country for two tours in Afghanistan—who sustained head injuries that impaired his speech—not in Afghanistan—but at a Occupy Oakland protest—said with great eloquence, "I took an oath to protect the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic, that oath did not end when I took off my uniform." "I was simply exercising my first amendment rights to peacefully assemble and ask the government for a redress of my grievances."

I was moved by his courage and feel the same today as I did, when I too took that same oath as a young man. Duty bound to honor it. It occurred to me that it's time—that all Americans—whether you served in uniform or not—need to take, or reaffirm that oath—to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic. It reads:

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

If not us—who? If not now—when?

We are the people.

We are the government we elect.

They cannot buy "our" government.

They cannot suppress our votes.

* ELITIST BASTARDS - Citibank Plutonomy Memo Scandal - YouTube

**commonsense: America:The United States of Plutocracy.

Voting Rights Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

With Liberty and Justice for All

The Suppression of the Occupy Wall Street Movement Is Unconstitutional.

The reasons are simple the Constitution says that the people have a right to assemble peaceably and petition government for the redress of grievances. Its guaranteed.

By its nature the Constitution is written in broadest possible strokes and does not enumerate or attempt to tell people what form their protests should take. It does not say they can petition the government only Mon-Fri from 9:00am to 5:00pm. Nor does it say that they cannot sleep in tents overnight as part of their protest. It sets no limits other than it be done peaceably. All others forms expression are permitted.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress* of grievances.

The Constitution is purposefully written in such a way as to allow for the most diverse expressions of human and civil rights and to prevent the government from abridging the rights of the people. That is so that the government cannot say—"its not in the Constitution therefore its not a right".

Another way of looking at it is that the Constitution strictly limits the Governments rights by listing their rights and any rights not listed belong to the people. That is so the government can't make up petty rules that restrict or defeat the peoples rights—such as setting a curfew or limiting such assembles to a certain place.

This is made clear in the 9th amendment that states any right not listed in the Constitution is still a right retained by the people. Government is limited by a list the people are not limited.

Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people".

The 10th amendment recapitulates the same thing regarding the rights of the states and then restates the rights of the individual over even the state.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Commentary: Both of these Amendments were added because, there was an on going— "wrongheaded'—debate at the time which argued for the inclusion of a "Bill Of Rights" which listed all individual rights of the people. The founders saw that as a trap, that would be used to suppress the rights of the people and simply stated that there are no limits on peoples rights, but, set definite rights of government. They concluded and rightly so that the rights of the people are infinite and given to them by their creator—any list would finite and by its inclusion automatically limit the rights of the people.

In the sixties the government circumvented the rights of the people, by putting government paid provocateurs among the demonstrators, who would then cause violence and property damage allowing the police to move in with extreme aggression smashing peoples heads in order to prevent the people from petitioning the government.

That tactic is still being used today and is a clear violation of the intent of the founders. The other tactic was to marginalize the demonstrators with labels—liberals, communists, hippies, drug addicts, elitists, spoiled, pampered, lazy, a mob e.g.

Right wing radicals are little better than "fascists" whose only knowledge of the Constitution is limited to the 2nd Amendment and who would suppress every other right of the people they disagree with. When that occurs there is little difference between the authoritarian governments of Syria, Egypt, and Tunisia and the United States when both suppress the rights of their people unjustly with violence.

The Right always says that they love the Constitution. My question is why do they subvert it every chance they get?

*Redress—redress v. 1. To set right, remedy or rectify. 2. To make amends for. n. 1. Satisfaction for wrong done; reparation. 2. Correction. [