PART 5a 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 am publishing my response in 9 parts as "A series of letters from Left to Right: Dear Mike Since his attack was full of vitriol I have taken off the gloves as I see no point of entertaining his bombastic rhetoric. Parts 5-9 are in-response to the object of his real distain—my critique of Adam Smith Re-examined.

I have color coded my blog post that he critiqued in red—his critique in blue—and my response to his critique in black.

This is Part 5a* 

*Due to length I needed to subdivide Part 5 into three separate responses 5a-5b-5c

Adam Smith: The Budget Debate Examined

Once the plutocracy has destroyed the middle class who’s going to buy their cheap China imports or afford to pay for their energy or buy their over processed foods or pay their exorbitant interest rates and usurious service fees.

Blah, blah, blah, he hates inexpensive foreign goods but still wants everything for free, paid for by someone else who earned more than him.

Dear Mike,

Your insulting personal attacks and baseless assumptions aside.

Let me introduce myself.

My name is also Mike.

It may surprise you that I actually believe in Capitalism, but, unlike you, only in as far as it is regulated and those regulations are rigorously enforced.

I have never bought a foreign made car because I prefer supporting the "domestic" US economy—to an economy that includes "unregulated countries like China—that game the system and are not accountable for things like: putting melamine—a white crystalline compound made by heating cyanamide and used in making plastics—into baby food to increase its weight.

Did I mention they use slave labor to undercut the wages of American workers—but I forget amoral "unregulated" capitalist theory doesn't worry about such niceties as liberty, human rights—only how much you can profit.

I believe in supporting local merchants and I try to buy American made products if I can find them. A model closer to Adam Smith's original idea—which was based on an agrarian economy—where—for the most part, people knew each other and were much less likely to cheat on their neighbors who probably attended the same church and married into the family.

I've worked my entire life from the age of twelve—when I delivered newspapers as my first job, both home delivery and on the street. I have worked at manual labor jobs including farm work, house and road construction, I have always respected hard honest work and find dignity in it—a trait I learned from my father, a small business owner, my mother who raised seven children and my grandmother, who as a young girl, stood in fresh cow pies to keep her feet warm when she milked the cows, on a farm in North Central Minnesota because the family was too poor to let her wear shoes except in the dead of winter. I instilled those traits in my sons who both had paper routes at age twelve.

I was not drafted—I enlisted in the Navy out of high school. I took my oath to protect and defend this nation against enemies both foreign and domestic—as a life long duty I am honor bound to fulfill. Especially from fascist, who want to do away with this Democratic Republic and replace it with an economic theory that enslaves people and then throws them out on the street like so much garbage.

That visceral dislike of fascism was an ideal I got from the generation that preceded my own who fought and defeated fascism in Europe. You may have heard of them as "the Greatest Generation" I knew them as neighbors, cousins, aunts, uncles, brothers, and fathers, and I feel duty bound to protect their sacrifices. One of the first childhood memories I have is flinching at loud reports from 3 volleys of a 21 gun salute, as the body of a neighbor boy from our hometown, who was killed in Italy, was buried, his name was, Darcy Isman. He delivered groceries to our house, before he went to war and was killed.

I have run my own small business that employed 13 people and—by your limited definition of success—sold the business at a profit. I have always paid every dime of tax that I "owe" because I am grateful to have been—by accident of birth—born into a country that use to know the virtues of honor, which for you an explanation seems appropriate—"doing the right thing even when no one is looking".

I don't ask for or get anything that I didn't earn. I have always paid my own way and I have been on this planet 67 years.

Finally, I was taught that craftsmanship was an expression of a man's dignity. Therefore: I hate shoddy inferior products that are meant to disintegrate in your hands the minute you try and use them and then the endless amount of BS they put you through to reclaim your money only to be given an in-store credit for more of their shoddy crap.

This is the end of Part 5a go to: 

part 5b commonsense: PART 5b Dear Mike: "A Series of Letters from the Left to the Right

Mitt Romney: Christian or Antichrist?

Commentary: The American economy is in crisis which is causing many in this nation to question their previous choice of electing Obama and they are looking for another potential political "savior."

Mitt Romney is the leading Republican contender. The fact that he may well become the next President led me to start researching his faith, his values and his beliefs. The question is are his religious beliefs a legitimate area for inquiry?

While the Constitution clearly states: "that there can be no establishment of religious test for holding public office"—it does not prohibit the American voters from informing themselves about potential candidates and their beliefs as they may influence their policy decisions. In fact the Founders stressed the absolute need for an "informed electorate" for the healthy functioning of a democracy.

Therefore I believe Romney's religious beliefs as they may pertain to policy making are legitimate area of inquiry—in as much as if he were a Rastafarian, a follower of Reverend Moon, or a member of some other esoteric faith that most people are unfamiliar with. Just look at the false assertions about Obama being an Muslim have given rise to. Romney's beliefs are of utter most concern and need to be vetted, in light of the tremendous power he may assume if he prevails in defeating Obama.

Mitt Romney the leading Republican candidate, is a bishop in the LDS, a self identified Christian religion—that is anything but Christian—and they have a history of extreme irrational magical thinking—as cults often do—e.g. learning a secret handshake for when they met God—as if God would not recognize them otherwise.

Mr. Romney has a facility of answering yes to conflicting points of view on many subjects including his religious beliefs—on CBS News he said: "I am a true-blue through and through believer. And in the next breath said, My church wouldn't endeavor to tell me what to do on an issue, and I wouldn't listen to them on an issue that related to the nation." Say anything to get the desired result.

Look at the recent financial resources the LDS spent—39.9 million dollars—to propel the passage of California's Proposition 8 a law that is at it's core unConstitutional by denying a certain class of people their fundamental human and civil rights. That massive effort was based purely on religious beliefs not reasoned secular thought as the Founders intended.

Mormonism's public persona is that of a normal Christian denomination, but the reality of their deeper and sincerely held beliefs are so far out of main stream Christianity that they need to be looked at in the cold light of day.

One ex-Mormon wrote in Why I Left the Mormon Church:

"But the ultimate goal of the church, as stated publicly by its early leaders Joseph Smith and Brigham Young (but not mentioned so publicly by more recent Mormon leaders), is to establish the Mormon Kingdom of God in America, and to govern the world as God's appointed representatives. The church is already influential in the making of secular policy, as was proven not so long ago when the Equal Rights Amendment was defeated with decisive help from the Mormon church. To me, the possibility that the Mormon church might control America is a frightening prospect."

It is interesting to note that before his death, in 1844, Joseph Smith was himself a candidate for the Presidency of the United States with an expressed goal of: "establishing the mormon kingdom of God in America."

When combined with the widely held Mormon belief in the "White Horse" prophecy—that in the end-times the Mormon's will "save America and the Constitution—as alluded to, by recent Mormon convert, Glenn Beck's rantings and his veiled reference to the "Constitution Hanging by a Thread", a direct quote from Smith's end times utterances —makes me take pause.

Another of Mormonism's more esoteric beliefs is—that as a man ascends through the various levels of Mormonism,*he himself may become God—and will be given a planet of his own to rule over.

The full quote from The Manual on Celestial Marriage last paragraph on page 6 http://www.ldslearning.org/celestial-marriage.pdf:

"The Father has promised us that through our faithfulness we shall be blessed with the fulness (sic) of his kingdom. In other words we will have the privilege of becoming like him. To become like him we must have all the powers of godhood; thus a man and his wife when glorified will have spirit children who eventually will go to an earth like this one we are on and pass through the same kind of experiences, being subject to mortal conditions, and if faithful, then they will receive the fulness (sic) of exaltation and partake of the same blessings. There is no end to this development; it will go on forever. We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds, will be peopled by our own offspring. We will have endless eternity for this."

Which is a direct quote from (Smith's, Doctrines of Salvation, 2:43-44 48) 4shared.com - free file sharing and storage - download

Mormons when confronted with these secret deeply held beliefs will dodge, evade or deny them. WHY? All of these teachings come directly from past and current Mormon leaders or ex-Mormons and are not the work of outsiders. What are they hiding?

There seems to be a built-in duality of veracity in Mormonism that goes back to the founder Joseph Smith regarding the deeper teachings of the church.

Stephen F. Cannon in his years of research of the LDS noticed this strain when he wrote: "This legacy of deceit in the history and doctrine of the LDS church is well-known to those who walk in Mormon circles. There are numerous articles in “alternative” Mormon periodicals that deal with the subject of “lying for the Lord.” One that strikes to the heart of the matter was published in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought.

As an example he sites: "Critics of the LDS church have for years pointed out how Joseph Smith Jr. and many succeeding prophets had lied to cover up the practice of polygamy. It has only been recently, however, that public acknowledgment of these charges have been emanating from within the LDS church."

Mormon's justify it in "unofficial" Mormon literature as "lying for the lord"—a trait that Mitt Romney seems to have mastered and frequently exhibits equally well in his public life.

My only concern in this matter—is not to bash Mormonism per se—it is—that our value's are informed by our beliefs, but our differing views on faith have no place in the secular political sphere and the shaping of political policies.

There is a reason the founders were wary of overlaps in the affairs of the state and religious entanglements and that is why they insisted on a distinct separation between church and state—with beliefs like the one mentioned above— my question is: Does Mitt Romney understand the Constitutional Separation of Church and State or is this the fulfillment of the Mormon apocalyptic end time "White Horse" prophecy*—and is this planet he intends to rule over as a exalted man-god, in a Mormon theocracy?

*

White Horse Prophecy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For further research I suggest the following sites:

Mormonism, LDS, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministr

Why I Left the Mormon Church

Deception: Legacy of Mormon Prophets

MormonInfo.org | We challenge you to question Mormonism.

THE, SECRET, MORMON, GENERAL, HANDBOOK, OF, INSTRUCTIONS

The fourteen fundamental articles or beliefs of Mormons | Recovery from Mormonism

Top 10 Bizarre Mormon Beliefs

Mormon teaching: there is nothing more pagan

Leaving the Mormon church after years of being a Mormon is difficult

“Enough cliches about faith. Mitt’s Mormonism matters” « Mitt Romney and Mormonism

Mormon bias still part of politics - USATODAY.com

PART 4 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 Im going to publish my response in nine parts under my:

"A Series of Letters from the Left to the Right: 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.

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 distain—my critique of Adam Smith Re-examined.

I have color coded my blog post that he critiqued in red—his critique in blue—and my response to his critique in black.

PART 4: Dear Mike, "A Series of Letters from the Left to the Right" is the last post defending against his attack on my "Thought for the Day"

They got “their NAFTA, CAFTA and SHAFTA” and “we” lost millions of manufacturing jobs to China. They got “their tax cuts” for “job creators” and “we” lost 9 million jobs. They got “their banking deregulation” and the banks collapsed. They got “their debt reduction” and the stock market tanked. Johnny B. and Tea Baggers got 98% of what they wanted and “we” got a credit down grade. What part of “they get what they want” and “we get the shaft” doesn’t America understand yet?

The goal of NAFTA, CAFTA and SHAFTA was to ship jobs overseas. Real conservatives (not neocons) were against them.

They were lobbied for by banks and passed by a majority Conservative Congress headed by the "Newtster" who is the current darling of the ultra conservatives. Newt was pre-neo-con. Get your history straight kid.

Banking deregulation & banking collapse is a case of Correlation Does Not Equal Causation. The banking industry actually constructed the current regulatory environment to allow banking collapse and to pass those losses on to the taxpayers.

As one of my old teachers would say: "I call Bullshit". You can spread manure but I won't eat it! Your ignorance or intellectual dishonesty is showing .

Wall Street and the Financial Crisis: Anatomy of a Financial Collapse, is a report issued on April 13, 2011 by the United States Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. The 639 page report was issued under the chairmanship of Senators Carl Levin and Tom Coburn, and is colloquially known as the Levin-Coburn Report.

It said: "After conducting “over 150 interviews and depositions, consulting with dozens of government, academic, and private sector experts” found that “the crisis was not a natural disaster, but the result of high risk, complex financial products, undisclosed conflicts of interest; and the failure of regulators, the credit rating agencies, and the market itself to rein in the excesses of Wall Street.” [1]

In an interview, Senator Levin noted that “The overwhelming evidence is that those institutions deceived their clients and deceived the public, and they were aided and abetted by deferential regulators and credit ratings agencies who had conflicts of interest.”[2]

By the end of their two year investigation, the staff amassed 56 million pages of memos, documents, prospectuses and e-mails.[3]

The report, which contains 2,800 footnotes and references thousands of internal documents [4] focused on four major areas of concern regarding the failure of the financial system: 1. high risk mortgage lending, 2. failure of regulators to stop such practices, 3. inflated credit ratings, and 3. abuses of the system by investment banks.

The Report also said:

"Critics argued that credit rating agencies and investors failed to accurately price the risk involved with mortgage-related financial products, and that governments did not adjust their regulatory practices to address 21st-century financial markets. The 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 effectively removed the separation that previously existed between Wall Street investment banks and depository banks."

"Both government failed regulation and deregulation contributed to the crisis. In testimony before Congress both the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Alan Greenspan conceded failure in allowing the self-regulation of investment banks."

"In 1982, Congress passed the Alternative Mortgage Transactions Parity Act (AMTPA), which allowed non-federally chartered housing creditors to write adjustable-rate mortgages. Among the new mortgage loan types created and gaining in popularity in the early 1980s were adjustable-rate, option adjustable-rate, balloon-payment and interest-only mortgages. These new loan types are credited with replacing the long standing practice of banks making conventional fixed-rate, amortizing mortgages.

"Among the criticisms of banking industry deregulation that contributed to the savings and loan crisis was that Congress failed to enact regulations that would have prevented exploitations by these loan types. Subsequent widespread abuses of predatory lending occurred with the use of adjustable-rate mortgages. Approximately 90% of subprime mortgages issued in 2006 were adjustable-rate mortgages." source Wikipedia

Republicans on the committee that signed the report are
Tom Coburn, Oklahoma, Ranking Member
Susan Collins, Maine
Scott Brown, Massachusetts
John McCain, Arizona
Rand Paul, Kentucky

Furthermore the claim that CRA, Freddie and Fannie were the primary source and cause of the failure—was fabricated by Peter Wallison an advisor to Ronald Reagan and a "scholar" for the right wing think tank American Enterprise Institute—where Dick Cheney is on the board of Directors along with a pantheon of Financial CEO's—and Wallison who has written a book called "Privatizing Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks" is hardly an honest broker for that point of view. AEI is littered with conservative capitalist and yet it claims to be unbiased, if you believe that—I have beach front property in Arizona I"ll sell you for a thousand dollars a front foot.

In a rebuttal to that big lie, Mike Simkovic, wrote a well researched paper called

"COMPETITION AND CRISIS IN MORTGAGE SECURITIZATION" in which he states:

"This article provides original evidence that when competition was less intense and securitizers had more market power, securitizers acted to monitor mortgage originators and to maintain prudent underwriting. However, securitizers’ ability to monitor originators and maintain high standards was undermined as competition shifted market power away from securitizers and toward originators. Although standards declined across the market, the largest and most powerful of the mortgage securitizers, the Government Sponsored Enterprises (“GSEs—Freddie and Fannie), remained more successful than other mortgage securitizers at maintaining prudent underwriting."

"Although a number of politicians, pundits, and financial industry-funded think tanks have claimed that government policies designed to promote affordable housing were an important cause of the financial crisis, detailed analyses of mortgage data by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, Federal Reserve Economists, and independent academic researchers suggest that this claim is incorrect.

Community Reinvestment Act loans outperformed other "subprime" mortgages, and GSE mortgages performed better than private label securitizations."

"U.S. policymakers often treat market competition as a panacea. However, in the case of mortgage securitization, policymakers’ faith in competition is misplaced. Competitive mortgage securitization has been tried three times in U.S. history - during the 1880s, the 1920s, and the 2000s - and every time it has failed. Most recently, competition between mortgage securitizers led to a race to the bottom on mortgage underwriting standards that ended in the late 2000s financial crisis."

Simkovic also states in a section titled:

D. Mortgage lenders lobbied against safe-lending regulations

"Additional evidence that market forces pushed toward greater risktaking

comes from lobbying activity of mortgage lenders."

"If government pressure were forcing lenders to lend imprudently against their wishes, one would expect the lenders who lobbied most aggressively on issues related to underwriting regulation to receive dispensation that would enable them to have more conservative underwriting practices. However, the opposite

appears to be true—the lenders who lobbied most aggressively had the

riskiest underwriting practices, and generally lobbied against substantive

limits on their ability to take risk."

"This suggests that government regulation was for the most part a restraining force that pushed toward more conservative underwriting." Source COMPETITION AND CRISIS IN MORTGAGE SECURITIZATION Michael Simkovic

Plus, there are plenty of extremely qualified economist who DO SEE—a direct cause and effect between deregulation and the bank failures.

The fact that these failures were aided by a bunch of spineless Democrats who were trying pander to the right for votes shows me how pervasive the effects of "unregulated" crony capitalism are.

Your claim of Correlation Does Not Equal Causation is absolute bullshit.

Finally—there is no law on the books that forces any bank to make bad loans, none. To argue otherwise is asinine.

Who knows what this guy means with the rest of the rant – it’s a bunch of unrelated events, and besides, the Tea Party has failed to deliver on any small-government promises. Heck the Tea Party candidates even helped renew the Patriot Act!

"The RANT" was in response to John Boners (misspelling intended) expressed delight over nearly bringing the country to a halt when he refused to pay the bills he and his CONservative crony capitalists ran up under GWB. HE said—"I got 98% of what I wanted" Shortly after that "victory"—US credit was downgraded which ironically raised the interest rate America has to pay which adds billions to the debt which he is so concerned about—did I mention—a debt he helped incur under Bush.

Regarding NAFTA, CAFTA and (SHAFTA—which is made up to drive home the point of their intended purpose)— the only person I remember who spoke out, clearly against those trade deals at the time was labeled a looney tune—Ross Perot—the fact that I supported his candidacy and was also against the trade deals and the undue influences of "special interests" (lobbyists) must make me a looney tune and "real" conservative. Whatever the hell that means.

I was outraged by the implementation of Patriot Act and the fact that it was not repealed. I was against gutting Glass-Steagall.

This is the end of PART 4

PART 3 Dear Mike, "A Series of Letters from the Left to the Right:

Commentary: On December 2, 2011 me and my blog were 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 Im going to publish my response in nine parts under my:

"A Series of Letters from the Left to the Right: 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.

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 distain—my critique of Adam Smith Re-examined.

I have color coded my blog post that he 'critiqued in red—his critique in blue—and my response to his critique in black.

PART 3 Dear Mike, "A Series of Letters from the Left to the Right:

Thought for the Day: If taxation of the rich is a “redistribution” of wealth?— What is cutting taxes on the wealthy with money borrowed from China?

I think Weber is really confused about what a tax cut is; he seems to have tax cuts confused with subsidies. Maybe it’s the terminology used: “giving a tax cut” sounds like you are giving something to someone, but what it actually means is gov’t is letting that entity keep what it already owns.

Dear Mike, Under the current monetary system which is corrupt and I believe unconstitutional the banks "own" the monetary system lock stock and barrel. Under the original Constitutional mandate—the Congress alone had control of the currency. Its printing and distribution. That money was and still is printed by the Treasury Dept. and is backed by the full faith and credit of government of the (taxpayers) people.

It is—NOT—backed by the full faith and credit of "the FED", and it is —NOT—backed any one particular individual citizen, or private bankers. The American dollar has value—solely because—it is—backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government—meaning the people.

Your assertion is that because an individual holds a dollar its his is absurd—without the collective power of America that dollar has no value to anyone you may as well wipe your butt with it.

Try putting your mug on a dollar and spend it, e pluribus unum, is on the dollar for a reason. The strength of the dollar lies in "One out Of Many" THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. The government should take back control of the monetary system like it did under Lincoln. *see "History of the Moneychangers"

Your rather simplistic assertion makes taxes sound like the government is stealing "your" money—when in fact—the government is loaning you their credit worthiness and on tax day is sending you a bill for services rendered.

Finally Smith made his position on taxation crystal clear when he said:

”The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expence of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expence of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate.” source Wealth of Nations Adam Smith

Which cuts the legs out from under your specious argument that the government is stealing from you—it can't steal what it is owed. No more than you billing for services rendered makes you a thief.

I've already said I advocate stopping ALL NON-ESSENTIAL CORPORATE SUBSIDES.

Finally, every dime taken out of the "system" must come from someone else—US Bonds—which are sold as debt instruments and are a promise to pay back the money lent plus interest, that money comes out of future tax revenue. Tax cuts for the wealthy are not revenue neutral—as you so smugly imply—they are real and they do come out of the pockets of the middle class to the benefit of the wealthy.

Or maybe you think the tooth fairy magical pays off those bonds.

This is the end of PART 3

PART 2 Dear Mike, "A Series of Letters from the Left to the Right"

Commentary: On December 2, 2011 me and my blog were 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 am going to publish my response in nine parts under my:

"A Series of Letters from the Left to the Right: 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 my blog post that he 'critiqued in red—his critique in blue—and my response to his critique in black.

On December 2, 2011, by Mike (last name unknown) responded to my blog

PART 2 Dear Mike, "A Series of Letters from the Left to the Right"

If Capitalism is the principle upon which we were founded— did our forefathers die for The United Corporations of America?

Not really, they died for a Constitutionally-limited federal government with specific enumerated powers that did not mandate which corporations you had to do business with, did not bail out businesses, and generally left everyone alone.

Dear Mike, At one point in your rebuttal you say: This guy can’t tell the difference between a free-market Capitalist and a crony capitalist, or monopolist. Not true, but, because there is not much difference between them—I choose to ignore the minuscule difference you find so compelling, but there is a glaring difference that you don't get—it's the difference between Capitalism and Representational Democracy which you seem to hate and are constantly attacking as the "government" the foundation of which, is the Constitution.

If you had stopped at "they died for a Constitutionally-limited federal government with specific enumerated powers" that's a rather dull but, acceptable answer, but then you add, "that did not mandate which corporations you had to do business with, did not bail out businesses" Your tortured logic aside. The Constitution doesn't say anything about capitalism being the economic model that had to be followed.

The point is there are many capitalists who equate Capitalism with Representational Democracy—treat them as though they are one and the same. When I have challenged capitalists and pointed out flaws of "unregulated" capitalism—I have been labeled anti-American, unpatriotic, a liberal, a socialist and a communist.

Nothing is further from the truth.

Its human nature to question the things we rely on the most, that's what always drives humans to reinvent everything that touches their lives and try to improve on them. That includes "unregulated" capitalism.

Because in the final analysis, all men are flawed in their thinking—and all products of their thinking are flawed. Therefore all ideologies of men are flawed. Scientific, spiritual, economic, and political. The human mind can not anticipate all the variables that surround him or all the variables that his mind cannot perceive—at best he can detect patterns from which he can extrapolate some but not all outcomes.

Scientific, economic, spiritual and political theory are at best—attempts to control the world of chaos that surrounds us—and eliminate as much of the uncertainty as we can. We attempt to "regulate" the chaos.

As a scientific theory E=MC2 is brilliant but, even it, explains only a small percentage of the known universe and when pushed to its extreme limits seems to fall apart.

Communism was deeply flawed an unsustainable theory which combined a unified economic and political theory. On the other hand, American Republicanism and Capitalism are two separate theories. One is—economic the other is political—they are ideologies that work in symbiosis, but under deeper analysis—are—at their extremes the antithesis of one another.

Democratic Republicanism guarantees the rights of individuals by choosing who represents "our" best interests and regulating the eventual conflict between competing interests. Unregulated Capitalism promotes self interests without regard for the interests of others.

Like Communism—Capitalism as a theory, when pressed to its ultimate logical conclusion—is unsustainable. It consumes everything and "conserves nothing." An obvious irony lost on the ultra right wing "conservatives."

Even more ironic, is that the "unregulated" consequences of both ideologies—in their final extremes, enslave the people and take away their liberties. One through brute force the other through economic enslavement. And both contain the seeds of demise for their political hosts. A critique of "Unregulated" Capitalism does not make me a socialist or communist.

I am an apologist for neither ideology. Only a critical observer of both—especially when they attack the foundation of "our government" and the Constitution".

So the real question is: Are Unregulated Capitalism and American Democratic Republicanism one and the same and therefore inseparable—as the ultra right unregulated free trading capitalists would have us believe?

The answer is no!

They are not inseparable! And a critique of one is not an attack on the other.

The real problem I have is between "regulated' and "unregulated" capitalism.

Ayn Rand styled, Darwinistic unregulated capitalism leads to economic anarchism—the recent history of the banking failure is proof. Which you dismissed as some kind of leap of logic—thereby glossing over the most devastating financial meltdown since the Great Depression by ignoring the preponderance of evidence to the contrary.

In another comment you called me a "statist"

In the Federalist #10 written by James Madison the second most brilliant of the founders, said:

"So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government."

To put it more succinctly—the prime function of government as stated—is the "regulation of factions" or in modern jargon "special interests"—if my agreement with James Madison about the necessity for regulation—makes me a "statist" I wear that label proudly, as a mark of distinction and a badge of honor.

Finally Madison's words fly in the face of your contrived cockamamy idea that the government should leave you alone and unregulated.

This is the end of PART 2