I know, that article is decades late...

@SpikeTalon

Decades? How about centuries?

To the citizens of the United States by Thomas Paine
November 15, 1802

"But a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the people as hereditary property. It is, therefore, no wonder that the "Rights of Man" was attacked by that faction, and its author continually abused. But let them go on; give them rope enough and they will put an end to their own insignificance. There is too much common sense and independence in America to be long the dupe of any faction, foreign or domestic.

"But, in the midst of the freedom we enjoy, the licentiousness of the papers called Federal (and I know not why they are called so, for they are in their principles anti-federal and despotic), is a dishonor to the character of the country, and an injury to its reputation and importance abroad. They represent the whole people of America as destitute of public principle and private manners."

The "Federalist Papers" were the "corporate (limited liability) media" ramming despotism down the throats of ignorant and apathetic Americans in 1779.
.

@Josf-Kelley Fair point, then centuries.

@Josf-Kelley It was the nature of the Founders that they were all 'businessmen', although not necessarily merchantile - which is the place Paine had issues. And yea, he was seriously abused by the US after 1789. I like 'Rights of Man', even if there were pieces I had issues with. I think Paine was moving in the direction of 'common man' vs capitalism...

@tracycoyle

The nature of the businessmen called Founders is such that there were at least 2 opposing groups divided along moral lines.

"Federalists" Party members were treasonous frauds, they counterfeited the word Federalist so as to impose their Nationalist Dictatorial Tyranny, Monopoly of Profit and Power, subsidize slavery, enforce a Central Bank Fraud, extort the means to fund a perpetual war that always manages to move power and profit to the warmongers, and over-rule the common law.

Those founders included:

1. George Washington
2. Alexander Hamilton
3. John Adams

They were in the criminal business of covering up their crimes with lies, such as the lie that they are authorities on government.

The other founders were the actual federalists, and they were named "anti" by the criminal "founders."

The moral (not absolute but moral in comparison to the others) founders included:

George Mason
Patrick Henry
Richard Henry Lee

Grouping all the "founders" in one group is like placing Jesus Christ in the same "great leaders" group are Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and FDR.

@Josf-Kelley Tell me how you REALLY feel! I'm no fan of Hamilton and if I were to name a Founder that I liked it would be Madison. That said, I would not use your last analogy. There were certainly differences of opinion about how the Federal system should work - and I think that the arguing between them got us closer to a beneficial system than we might have otherwise. Given I am Austrian as far as my economic philosophy is concerned, and a Nationalist, in the CL mode, I am not a good arguer for a particular point of view. I also have problems with Burke and Russel Kirk, so...there is that too.

@tracycoyle

From the Austrian School:

"His primary aim was to crush the individualistic and democratic spirit of the American forces. For one thing, the officers of the militia were elected by their own men, and the discipline of repeated elections kept the officers from forming an aristocratic ruling caste typical of European armies of the period. The officers often drew little more pay than their men, and there were no hierarchical distinctions of rank imposed between officers and men. As a consequence, officers could not enforce their wills coercively on the soldiery. This New England equality horrified Washington's conservative and highly aristocratic soul.
To introduce a hierarchy of ruling caste, Washington insisted on distinctive decorations of dress in accordance with minute gradations of rank. As one observer phrased it: "New lords, new laws. … The strictest government is taking place, and great distinction is made between officers and soldier. Everyone is made to know his place and keep it." Despite the great expense involved, he also tried to stamp out individuality in the army by forcing uniforms upon them; but the scarcity of cloth made this plan unfeasible.
At least as important as distinctions in decoration was the introduction of extensive inequality in pay. Led by Washington and the other aristocratic southern delegates, and over the objections of Massachusetts, the Congress insisted on fixing a pay scale for generals and other officers considerably higher than that of the rank and file.
In addition to imposing a web of hierarchy on the Continental Army, Washington crushed liberty within by replacing individual responsibility by iron despotism and coercion. Severe and brutal punishments were imposed upon those soldiers whose sense of altruism failed to override their instinct for self-preservation. Furloughs were curtailed and girlfriends of soldiers were expelled from camp; above all, lengthy floggings were introduced for all practices that Washington considered esthetically or morally offensive. He even had the temerity to urge Congress to raise the maximum number of strikes of the lash from 39 to the enormous number of 500; fortunately, Congress refused."
[mises.org]

From Thomas Paine:

To the citizens of the United States by Thomas Paine
November 15, 1802

"But a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the people as hereditary property. It is, therefore, no wonder that the "Rights of Man" was attacked by that faction, and its author continually abused. But let them go on; give them rope enough and they will put an end to their own insignificance. There is too much common sense and independence in America to be long the dupe of any faction, foreign or domestic.

"But, in the midst of the freedom we enjoy, the licentiousness of the papers called Federal (and I know not why they are called so, for they are in their principles anti-federal and despotic), is a dishonor to the character of the country, and an injury to its reputation and importance abroad. They represent the whole people of America as destitute of public principle and private manners.

"As to any injury they can do at home to those whom they abuse, or service they can render to those who employ them, it is to be set down to the account of noisy nothingness. It is on themselves the disgrace recoils, for the reflection easily presents itself to every thinking mind, that those who abuse liberty when they possess it would abuse power could they obtain it; and, therefore, they may as well take as a general motto, for all such papers, we and our patrons are not fit to be trusted with power.

"There is in America, more than in any other country, a large body of people who attend quietly to their farms, or follow their several occupations; who pay no regard to the clamors of anonymous scribblers, who think for themselves, and judge of government, not by the fury of newspaper writers, but by the prudent frugality of its measures, and the encouragement it gives to the improvement and prosperity of the country; and who, acting on their own judgment, never come forward in an election but on some important occasion.

"When this body moves, all the little barkings of scribbling and witless curs pass for nothing. To say to this independent description of men, "You must turn out such and such persons at the next election, for they have taken off a great many taxes, and lessened the expenses of government, they have dismissed my son, or my brother, or myself, from a lucrative office, in which there was nothing to do"-is to show the cloven foot of faction, and preach the language of ill-disguised mortification.

"In every part of the Union, this faction is in the agonies of death, and in proportion as its fate approaches, gnashes its teeth and struggles. My arrival has struck it as with an hydrophobia, it is like the sight of water to canine madness."

AND

"When the plan of the Federal Government, formed by this convention, was proposed and submitted to the consideration of the several States, it was strongly objected to in each of them. But the objections were not on anti-Federal grounds, but on constitutional points. Many were shocked at the idea of placing what is called executive power in the hands of a single individual. To them it had too much the form and appearance of a military government, or a despotic one.

"Others objected that the powers given to a President were too great, and that in the hands of an ambitious and designing man it might grow into tyranny as it did in England under Oliver Cromwell, and as it has since done in France. A republic must not only be so in its principles, but in its forms.

"The executive part of the Federal Government was made for a man, and those who consented, against their judgment, to place executive power in the hands of a single individual, reposed more on the supposed moderation of the person they had in view, than on the wisdom of the measure itself.

"Two considerations, however, overcame all objections. The one was the absolute necessity of a Federal Government.
The other, the rational reflections, that as government in America is founded on the representative system any error in the first essay could be reformed by the same quiet and rational process by which the Constitution was formed, and that either by the generation then living, or by those who were to succeed.

"If ever America lose sight of this principle, she will no longer be the land of liberty. The father will become the assassin of the rights of the son, and his descendants be a race of slaves.

"As many thousands who were minors are grown up to manhood since the name of Federalist began, it became necessary, for their information, to go back and show the origin of the name, which is now no longer what it originally was; but it was the more necessary to do this, in order to bring forward, in the open face of day, the apostasy of those who first called themselves Federalists.

"To them it served as a cloak for treason, a mask for tyranny. Scarcely were they placed in the seat of power and office, than federalism was to be destroyed, and the representative system of government, the pride and glory of America, and the palladium of her liberties, was to be over- thrown and abolished. The next generation was not to be free. The son was to bend his neck beneath the father's foot, and live, deprived of his rights, under hereditary control.

"Among the men of this apostate description, is to be ranked the ex-President John Adams. It has been the political career of this man to begin with hypocrisy, proceed with arrogance, and finish in contempt. May such be the fate of all such characters.

And of course, there was Hamilton:

"But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.

"To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter."
Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and their Legacy
by William Watkins

As to Madison, he was fake Federalist, then anti (renamed Democratic Republican) after the Alien and Sedition Acts. So...Madison aided and abetted the criminals, but then changed his coat. I think Madison also changed his coat back to "Aristocrat" (businessman) before giving up the gost.

And then there are the "antis."

@Josf-Kelley I appreciate the detailed quotes. I won't argue against them, or for them, or pick them apart, or offer a counter to them. I know my own philosophies have flowed from point to point over troubled ground and I accept that while adhering to a principle, over time, I have come to different positions. I am not sure where your stance leaves you with regard to the Country and our economic system today? I stand by the previous comment that the tension (personal vendetta/wars) that existed in the beginning probably gained us a better founding than if either side has prevailed without assault.

They were not simple men, nor were they without significant fault. Hard to find any such men at the beginning of any such endeavor. I will stand by the Austrian economic model, for in Churchhill's terms: it is the worst, except for all the others out there.

I hold a similar opinion of the United States as a whole - and yes, I consider it better than any other out there..

@tracycoyle

I am daily adding to the data that proves beyond doubt that government has always been a voluntary mutual defense association that works as advertised for the volunteers. The criminals know this and therefore they know that in order to make crime pay despite government, they have to couterfeit government, to replace it with the opposite means to opposite goals, and in order to do that they rely heavily upon those criminal means that bond all criminals into the same group of people who employ these same criminal means: deception (libel, fraud), threat of aggressive harm (extortion, terror), and aggressive harm (assault, torture, murder, and mass murder).

Those aggressive means to those ends (subsidized slavery of all, or Monopoly of Power and Profit and People are Hereditary Property) is treason when used by those counterfeiting government, making those serious crimes more serious by the additional crime of counterfeiting government.

"I am not sure where your stance leaves you with regard to the Country and our economic system today?"

2 things are known to be required for government to be government, those who are volunteering must know what they are volunteering to accomplish, and they must know how to take each step along the way.

Examples:

14th of October, 1774

"On the same day, Congress unanimously resolved, “that the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage according to the course of that law.” They further resolved, “that they were entitled to the benefit of such of the English statutes as existed at the time of their colonization, and which they have, by experience, respectively found to be applicable to their several and local circumstances.” They also resolved, that their ancestors, at the time of their immigration, were “entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities, of free and natural-born subjects within the realms of England.”

That is the founding of the American Federation of Independent States under the common law.

If you do not know what the common law is, you may be deceived into thinking the common law is the opposite of the common law.

Here is the common law:

"Farther, though it be said here, that the king hath given and granted these liberties, yet it must not be understood that they were meer emanations of Royal favour, or new bounties granted, which the people could not justly challenge, or had not a right unto before; for as lord Coke in divers places asserts, and as is well known to every gentleman professing the law, this charter is, for the most part, only declaratory of the principal grounds of the fundamental laws and liberties of England. Not any new freedom is hereby granted, but a restitution of such as the subject lawfully had before, and to free them from the usurpations and incroachments of every power whatever. It is worthy observation, that this charter often mentions sua jura, their rights, and libertates suas, their liberties, which shews they were before intitled to and possessed them, and that those rights and liberties were by this charter not granted as before unknown, but confirmed, and that in the stile of liberties and privileges long before well known.” Henry Care, English Liberties, Or The Free-Born Subject’s Inheritance: Containing Magna Charta, 1721

We are born, naturally, with the common law, it is our common moral conscience employed for our voluntary mutual defense. The opposite is always put in place to force us to enslave ourselves.

Voluntary Mutual Defense can be forced by criminals into the opposite as noted here:

"That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:
That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:
That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:"
First Congress of the forming United States (plural) deliberating on the need to publish a Declaration of Independence.

Further historical precedent:
"That this right of resistance was recognized as a common law right, when the ancient and genuine trial by jury was in force, is not only proved by nature of the trial itself, but is acknowledged by history."

"Hallam says, “The relation established between a lord and his vassal by the feudal tenure, far from containing principles of any servile and implicit obedience, permitted the compact to be dissolved in case of its violation by either party. This extended as much to the sovereign as to inferior lords. If a vassal was aggrieved, and if justice was denied him, he sent a defiance, that is, a renunciation of fealty to the king, and was entitled to enforce redress at the point of his sword. It then became a contest of strength as between two independent potentates and was terminated by treaty, advantageous or otherwise, according to the fortune of war. There remained the original principle, that allegiance depended conditionally upon good treatment, and that an appeal might be lawfully made to arms against an oppressive government. Nor was this, we may be sure, left for extreme necessity, or thought to require a long enduring forbearance. In modern times, a king, compelled by his subjects’ swords to abandon any pretension, would be supposed to have ceased to reign; and the express recognition of such a right as that of insurrection has been justly deemed inconsistent with the majesty of law. But ruder ages had ruder sentiments. Force was necessary to repel force; and men accustomed to see the king’s authority defied by a private riot, were not much shocked when it was resisted in defence of public freedom.”
That is from Lysander Spooner's Essay on The Trial by Jury, 1852

There is much more to this, but more specifically to the actual Federal concept as starkly compared to the false one, see:

Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy
by William Watkins

"Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.

"Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely."

So clearly (at least to me) the actual founders (falsely labeled "anti" ) worked to establish and defend Free Market Government Services for all, as all are on an equal footing morally, legally, lawfully, rightfully by nature. The criminal versions of founders wanted their Profitable Monopoly of Power where they own the slaves.

That was shown immediately in the Whiskey Rebellion case (1794) as compared to the earlier Shays's Rebellion case occurring under the Federal association. And then there were the Alien and Sedition Acts. But more importantly, were the moves to create and maintain a National Central Bank Fraud.

None of that "Nationalism" (Aristocracy) could work if the common law remained above, not below, the government agent's exclusive authority.

"There has, probably, never been a legal jury, nor a legal trial by jury, in a single court of the United States, since the adoption of the constitution.
These facts show how much reliance can be placed in written constitutions, to control the action of the government, and preserve the liberties of the people.
If the real trial by jury had been preserved in the courts of the United States - that is, if we had had legal juries, and the jurors had known their rights - it is hardly probable that one tenth of the past legislation of Congress would ever have been enacted, or, at least, that, if enacted, it could have been enforced."
Spooner, Trial by Jury, 1852

"The judiciary of the United States is so constructed and extended, as to absorb and destroy the judiciaries of the several states; thereby rendering laws as tedious, intricate, and expensive, and justice as unattainable by a great part of the community, as in England; and enabling the rich to oppress and ruin the poor."
George Mason, 1787

Not only was the "Founding" moved by criminals to Despotism in 1789, with the Criminal Slave Trading Constitution, they also closed the "proposed" door to leave it open by "enacting" the Judiciary Act of 1789, doing so before "amending" their Criminal Document with the Bill of Rights.

The same reasons why the original treasonous usurpers can't be indicted and tried in a Court of Law then, is the reasons they can't today: they say so.

I'm not surprised at such, just thought it was an interesting read. I think it goes back further than 30 years even...

There is a big difference between the left and the radical left.

@Xtra time....

@Xtra I would say far less than in the past....say prior to 2008

Somehow, had a feeling if I posted this most members would have said that...

No, thanks for posting it. It’s important and maybe someone learned something

I didn't write the article...