Thomas Paine's ad hominem against John Adams, and his painting of all religious beliefs with the same broad brush as though all of them are equivalent (they are not) neither refutes nor negate's the truth of Adams's above statement. If the individual citizens of the United States abandon the moral core around which the nation was founded (which many have), the Constitution will do us no good, because unscrupulous people in power will ignore it and the protections it extends to every citizen (which they currently are).
Quote what you will, the true statement above is still true.

@Wordmage

"Thomas Paine's ad hominem against John Adams..."

That is ad hominem against Thomas Paine.

Books by Thomas Paine on any subject can be quoted from as I did, and the context from which those quotes are taken from stand on their own merit, with or without someone making a claim about Thomas Paine's published words.

John Adams was in POWER when the National Regime under John Adams was enforcing The Alien and Sedition Acts.

That is one aspect of the context of Thomas Paine's so-called "ad hominem against John Adams."

"Thomas Paine's ad hominem against John Adams, and his painting of all religious beliefs with the same broad brush as though all of them are equivalent..."

Wrong.

The actual quote from Thomas Paine is taken from the context of a larger work titled Age of Reason and the specific words include the word "National" in the quote now under scrutiny:

Age of Reason, Thomas Paine
"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."

National institutions of anything, including churches, tend toward monopoly, and that is something known and recorded in many ways, including in the published works of Thomas Paine as quoted.

National institutions are nationalized monopolies as a rule.

The Nationalist RULE is to Monopolize Power and Profit.

National Institutionalized Churches are not exempt from the Nationalist Rule to monopolize Power and Profit.

What is the Christian maxim concerning two paths to chose from for those who follow Christ?

A. Nationalized and Institutionalized Churches
B. Christ

Which one leads to a monopoly of power and PROFIT?

"...neither refutes nor negate's the truth of Adams's above statement."

Many deceivers tell half truths to get into power, and once in power they dictate orders to be obeyed without question, such as, for example, The Alien and Sedition Acts.

"Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other."
— John Adams, 2nd President of the United States

Abigail Adams to John Adams Braintree, Mass., March 31, 1776
"I have sometimes been ready to think that the passion for liberty cannot be equally strong in the breasts of those who have been accustomed to deprive their fellow creatures of theirs. Of this I am certain that it is not founded upon that generous and Christian principle of doing to others as we would that others should do unto us. . . . "

June 17, 1788
George Mason:
"Mr. Chairman, this is a fatal section, which has created more dangers than any other. The first clause allows the importation of slaves for twenty years. Under the royal government, this evil was looked upon as a great oppression, and many attempts were made to prevent it; but the interest of the African merchants prevented its prohibition. No sooner did the revolution take place, than it was thought of. It was one of the great causes of our separation from Great Britain. Its exclusion has been a principal object of this state, and most of the states in the Union. The augmentation of slaves weakens the states; and such a trade is diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind; yet, by this Constitution, it is continued for twenty years. As much as I value a union of all the states, I would not admit the Southern States into the Union unless they agree to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade, because it would bring weakness, and not strength, to the Union."

Whose "Constitution" is "ours"?

What about those other persons?

Perhaps "we" can all agree to NOT call them slaves.

Thomas Jefferson
Declaration of Independence
"he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."

In the Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. I. p. 10
"The clause, too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still wished to continue it. Our northern brethren also, I believe felt a little tender under those censures; for, though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others."

Of course, of course, "we" cannot call those other persons the S word! That would be impolitic, right? That might damage the good name of "our" Constitution.

George Mason Speech Virginia Ratifying Convention
June 04, 1788
"Mr. Chairman—Whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers, that it is a National Government, and no longer a confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the General Government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes, does of itself, entirely change the confederation of the States into one consolidated Government. This power being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of controul, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly confederation, to a consolidated Government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the State Governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harrassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: The General Government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than, the State governments, the latter must give way to the former."

Quote what YOU refuse to acknowledge?

"If the individual citizens of the United States abandon the moral core around which the nation was founded (which many have), the Constitution will do us no good, because unscrupulous people in power will ignore it and the protections it extends to every citizen (which they currently are)."

John Adams was a member of the Nationalist Party. The Nationalist Party were for "annihilating" the existing constitutional federation of republics. The Nationalist Party were for Consolidating all the slaves into one Monopoly of Power and Profit under one purse, one National Debt based Central Bank Fraud Money Laundering currency.

The Nationalist Party, with their Monopoly Constitution, were for Subsidized Slavery overtly and covertly, but even the overt Subsidized Slavery clause, also known as the Dirty Compromise, also known as the Three Fifths Clause, was COVERT to a point at which the Nationalist Party members, with THEIR Nationalist Constitution, could NOT admit that they were Human Traffickers paying themselves out of the Public FUND to enforce THEIR Slavery of their Slaves.

"Quote what you will, the true statement above is still true."

Roughly, very roughly, half.

@Josf-Kelley, I can see that you are dead set on being "right" about something, but I still see nothing in any of the lengthy, verbose, & heavily quoted material you responded with that refutes the truth of the Adams quote I posted.

You wrote that when Adams was in power he supported the Alien and Sedition Act. Okay, that's a historical fact. So what? It has nothing to do with the above quote, which is about the Constitution itself and how it was designed to protect the rights of principled & upright people.

Pointing out that someone has made an ad hominem is not an ad hominem. Your logic fails, there. However, I may have mis-read and placed my accusation of ad hominem against the wrong person. I'm not going to reread your entire volume, but where you end with "fat boy was a monarchist/nationalist" — that's an ad hominem. If you're going to refute anything anyone says with Reason, then "fat boy" is not the way to do it. So, I may stand corrected (although I'm not going all the way back through that lengthy post to make sure Thomas Paine didn't say the same thing). YOUR ad hominem against John Adams neither refutes nor negates the truth of Adams' above statement.

I appreciate your calling my attention to Paine's specific wording, "All NATIONAL institutions," because I didn't read the quote initially with the Church of England in mind. The fact is, however, that we DON'T have a national church in the United States, nor did we in Adams' time. So, that detail is irrelevant and inapplicable to the quote I posted at the top of this thread. It makes no mention of any national institution, and it's not posted in support of creating one. It merely observes that, if citizens are without a moral core, the Constitution as written is going to be ineffectual (probably useless) for governing them and their passions.

As for your allusion to slavery and the compromise that fallible men made in order to achieve a union (without which this nation would not of been founded), that's a red herring. It has nothing to do with the truth or applicability of the Adams quote I posted above.

Thanks for your reply, but, if you want to discuss this further (I don't see any reason to), please try to be more concise. I don't have time to be reading half a history textbook of quotes that ultimately have no bearing on the truth of something I've posted.

@Wordmage

"I can see that you are dead set on being "right" about something,..."

False. The data offered stands on its own for any reasoned discussion as to what is or is not right, wrong, false, true, good, bad, leading to productivity and dense, or misleading people to misery and death.

"I still see nothing in any of the lengthy, verbose, & heavily quoted material you responded with that refutes the truth of the Adams quote I posted."

That is a non-sequitur and a leading misstatement leading to condemnation of me personally.

My viewpoint is that any criminal can make a half true statement so as to disarm people into a weak minded forgetful ignorance of the facts that matter in the case of the speaker, as the speaker makes half-true statements to get in power, and then once in power the speaker no longer has any use for the false flag, or costume, mask, or disguise that attempts to coverup the true color of the actual facts that matter in the case where the speaker speaks with half truths.

You for example, have an obvious intention to turn the subject of a message from John Adams, a known criminal, into me being somehow guilty of something due to some nebulous personality faults that you create and attach to me with your messages published publicly.

"I still see nothing in any of the lengthy, verbose, & heavily quoted material you responded with that refutes the truth of the Adams quote I posted."

How can anyone "refute" anything that someone else refuses to acknowledge as a fact?

John Adams was a known treasonous fraud, that was my point. If you need to point out something else, then you do not need me to agree with whatever it is that you want to point out, and no matter how many times you suggest that I need to do whatever it is you think I need to so, "refute" or whatever, that does not make me see any need for me to do as you think I should.

I have no cause to "refute" what anyone says. My point is pointing out that John Adams, no matter what his words may suggest to anyone, was a criminal.

"You wrote that when Adams was in power he supported the Alien and Sedition Act. Okay, that's a historical fact. So what? It has nothing to do with the above quote, which is about the Constitution itself and how it was designed to protect the rights of principled & upright people."

That is again, a non-sequitur. There is no connection between whoever wrote and signed document A and document B unless there is one. Did John Adams sign the National (not federal) Constitution of 1789? Did John Adams sign the National Alien and Sedition Acts?

If so, then there is THAT specified connection between Document A and Document B, but that does not address your non-sequitur.

Whatever was specifically in the minds of those who crafted the Alien and Sedition Acts and the National Slave Trade Subsidizing Constitution of 1789, were two separate, distinctly different, documents separated by a number of years and numbers of people involved in the crafting of each separate document.

If you claim that someone has connected both documents by some method of connected both documents, then who has done so, other than you?

If there is something in common with the National Human Trafficking Subsidizing, aiding, abetting, promoting, document of 1789 and the National Infringing of basic human rights Alien and Sedition Acts document, that those connects that connect those two documents would stand on their own and would not need anyone to make such a connection by any power someone living today would have and employ on their own authority to do so.

"Pointing out that someone has made an ad hominem is not an ad hominem. Your logic fails, there."

A failure to see the meaning of a message that reports how a euphemism is a euphemism is someone's problem other than mine, I see it clearly.

"I'm not going to reread your entire volume, but where you end with "fat boy was a monarchist/nationalist" — that's an ad hominem."

It was my attempt to lead into a link that I have on deck. The link I have on deck is a lecture by a current judge on the subject of documents pertaining to criminals like John Adams. In this link the professor professing specific concepts pertaining to the subject matter we are avoiding discussing, used the words "his rotundity" in a specific case involving an ad-hominem contention surrounding the fatness of fat boy.

Thanks for playing along in the project to expose fat boy. It is hopeful when I get help.

"If you're going to refute anything anyone says with Reason, then "fat boy" is not the way to do it."

If it is true, then one can still be kidnapped and taken to a witch court and tried for witchcraft, notwithstanding the facts that matter in a case were the boy is actually fat.

"YOUR ad hominem against John Adams neither refutes nor negates the truth of Adams' above statement."

Not my job.

"The fact is, however, that we DON'T have a national church in the United States, nor did we in Adams' time."

Case in point. The words you craft might sound like the whole truth, but that is a nebulous cover for such things as The Salem Witch Hunts.

Caveat Emptor.

I can correct your message, so long as I have license to do so.

"...the Constitution as written is..."

That National Constitution, as written and signed, is evidence in a case of Treasonous Fraud.

Now I feel much better, thanks for this opportunity to correct your errors and omissions.

Pro bono editor cleanup on isle 5:

"...that fallible men made in..."

Treasonous Frauds confessed their treason when they signed their fraudulent document.

The weight is miraculously lifting off my shoulders, as I volunteer as a public servant, like a janitor.

No need to compensate me, I do this out of a moral sense of charity.

(without which this nation would not of been founded)

The federated republics were working under common law principles to the turn of driving out the British Nationalist Criminal Army, so what exactly was the motive for annihilating those federated republics?

I have it on good authority that the motive was to consolidate power and profit for inhuman beings that consider human beings as their exclusive property to do with as they please, when the please, with impunity.

"Thanks for your reply, but, if you want to discuss this further (I don't see any reason to), please try to be more concise."

The only way to please dictators is to have dictators authorize messages that dictators want their subjects to parrot when their subjects are told to parrot the dictates of dictators.

Just write what you want me to say, and I can sign at the bottom, how will that work for you during "our" attempt to avoid discussing the topic?

"I don't have time to be reading half a history textbook of quotes that ultimately have no bearing on the truth of something I've posted."

Those who spread half truths, as a rule, do not spread the other half, for that would be much too wholesome, no?

@Josf-Kelley, I just told you that I don't have time to read all of your verbosity, and you replied with the A-H volumes of the encyclopedia. So you know, I haven't bothered to read your last response, and I'm not going to have time to try to schedule an attempt to read the first quarter of it. If you have a TL;DR summation, feel free to send that, and I will try again. However, nothing that you posted so far refutes the truth of the John Adams quote I posted at the top of this thread. So I don't hold high hopes that you're going to convince me otherwise.

@Wordmage

Confessions of a participant in non-discussion NOT on topic:

"I haven't bothered to read your last response."

I do not know of anyone on this planet that expected YOU to do something uncharacteristic for YOU.

"However, nothing that you posted so far refutes the truth of the John Adams quote I posted at the top of this thread."

The half-truth from John Adams includes basic common sense facts, which are easy to parrot, or place in a song, or use as a hook, or catch phrase, in an attempt to sell snake oil.

"Adams quote I posted at the top of this thread. So I don't hold high hopes that you're going to convince me otherwise."

I write Public Notices for The Public, also known as Respublica, the Public Thing in Latin.

On rare occasions my writing involves discussion, on topic, with other people, NOT you, but other people.

If other people catch may Public Notices, then they may benefit from them, or NOT, and that is entirely up to them in whatever remains of Liberty.

@Josf-Kelley, Okay, I get it. You're a self-important defender of the Republic, the only one, and none of the rest of us are good enough for you, especially if we quote a simple statement from John Adams. Which, by the way, is completely true, and you did nothing to refute it.

Since you are so much more important than I am, and officious enough to inform me on the origin of the word "Republic" as though I didn't already know it, how about taking your extremely important and obtusely verbose Public Notices and posting them on your own wall rather than hijacking one of my threads? Sound fair enough? It does to me.

@Wordmage

"Okay, I get it. You're a self-important defender of the Republic, the only one, and none of the rest of us are good enough for you, especially if we quote a simple statement from John Adams."

You get into ad-hominem personal attack when the subject matter inspires data flow that triggers your need to resort to libel as a means of communication.

"Which, by the way, is completely true, and you did nothing to refute it."

The Subject Matter as Initiated:

"Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other."
— John Adams, 2nd President of the United States

The Nationalists in the North made a deal with the Nationalists in the South and their product became a so-called "Constitution" and it was theirs, it was their product, it was, from their Nationalist perspective: "Our Constitution," and it was designed by Nationalists only for National versions of morality and National versions of religion.

That is not news, by the way:

Age of Reason, Thomas Paine
"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."

"Which, by the way, is completely true, and you did nothing to refute it."

It is half true that "our constitution" is anyone's constitution. The 1789 Constitution referred to in the quote from the Nationalists John Adams is a National Constitution made to order for Nationalists, which is the half-true part, the false part is that those Nationalists hid behind a false Federalists Flag in order to get their Nationalist Constitution into operation to then annihilate the federated republics.

Papers of Dr. James McHenry on the Federal Convention of 1787:
"Mr. E. Gerry. Does not rise to speak to the merits of the question before the Committee but to the mode.
A distinction has been made between a federal and national government. We ought not to determine that there is this distinction for if we do, it is questionable not only whether this convention can propose an government totally different or whether Congress itself would have a right to pass such a resolution as that before the house. The commission from Massachusets empowers the deputies to proceed agreeably to the recommendation of Congress. This the foundation of the convention. If we have a right to pass this resolution we have a right to annihilate the confederation."

The False Federalist Party were Nationalists fraudulently using the Federal name just like RINOS today falsely use the Republican name.

Those frauds were called out by more than one proponent and representative of federated republics:

June 14, 1788
Patrick Henry:
"Mr. Chairman, it is now confessed that this is a national government. There is not a single federal feature in it. It has been alleged, within these walls, during the debates, to be national and federal, as it suited the arguments of gentlemen.
But now, when we have heard the definition of it, it is purely national."

FRIDAY, June 20, 1788
Melancton Smith
"He was pleased that, thus early in debate, the honorable gentleman had himself shown that the intent of the Constitution was not a confederacy, but a reduction of all the states into a consolidated government. He hoped the gentleman would be complaisant enough to exchange names with those who disliked the Constitution, as it appeared from his own concessions, that they were federalists, and those who advocated it were anti-federalists."

"Since you are so much more important than I am..."

That is a non-sequitur addition to the ad-hominem and Man-of-Straw Character Assassination Libelous attack that emits from YOU. The currency (the money) when traced back, traces back to YOU.

The data that constitutes an attempted personal attack up me personally, traces back to you, personally: individually responsible and individually accurately accountable for attempted Libel.

"...how about taking your extremely important and obtusely verbose Public Notices and posting them on your own wall rather than hijacking one of my threads?"

Subjective opinions stated as if subjective opinions were factual and accurate accounts of facts that matter in any case, are classic "bait and switch" dogma. The evidence that was published by me remains published, for all to see, judge, accept, acknowledge, or reject, in whatever way pleases each individual who may encounter the data accountable to me personally.

My published comments exist factually.

Your versions of my published comments exist factually.

You claiming that your subjective opinion of my published comments are factual and not subjective, you doing that in public, you publishing that "bait and switch," is more evidence you create when you attempt, yet again, to assassinate my character, as the data I publish sends you into Character Assassination mode.

"Sound fair enough? It does to me."

What may sound like "obtusely verbose Public Notices" to you, may not "sound" the same to any number of other people armed with their own independent capacity to judge what is or is not "obtusely verbose Public Notices."

If you attempt to start a topic on a Public Forum, then you can get more than that which you may want to get, and if you do get more than what you want to get, then you can jerk your knee and launch into verbal assault against another forum member.

What is fair about that, to you?

@Josf-Kelley, TL;DR. Stop wasting my time by arguing with a simple true statement. If you don't like my quote, ignore it and go elsewhere.

@Wordmage

I do not take orders from known disorder.

Insisting upon defending a known Nationalist for a known Nationalist Constitution, which subsidized the Human Trafficking markets with National Extortion Rackets, National Central Banking Fraud, National Standing Armies, and National Legal Fiction Debt Collection Courts, is what you disorderly do factually.

The facts are what they are, and the Nationalist Constitution was warned about by the republicans who were for federation under common law.

Federation under common law maintains the equal footing at law for each functioning, independent, republic.

If a federated republic goes disorderly, the other federated republics can offer sanctuary to any runaway slaves running from the disorderly former republic.

That is not news.

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."

The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were political reactions to the Alien and Sedition treasonous Acts enforced by the John Adams Nationalist Empire enforcers, which included National Debt Collection Summary Justice Witch Hunt Witch Court Witch Trials, much like the current Jan 6 Witch Hunt Witch Court Witch Trials.

The Monday Night Quarterbacking done by those against the Nation-State Empire that was created in 1789 by the Nationalists flying the False Federalist Flag is added to the prescient warnings publicized by the true federated republican proponents before the Majority Rule treasonous "vote" that annihilated the existing federation of republics that lasted from roughly 1774 to 1789 under the common law with equal footing for each independent republic.

New Constitution Creates A National Government; Will Not Abate Foreign Influence; Dangers Of Civil War And Despotism

Like the nome de plume "Publius" used by pro Constitution writers in the Federalist Papers, several Anti-Federalists signed their writings "A FARMER. " While the occupation of the writers may not have coincided with the name given, the arguments against consolidating power in the hands of a central government were widely read. The following was published in the Maryland Gazette and Baltimore Advertiser, March 7, 1788. The true identity of the author is unknown.

"There are but two modes by which men are connected in society, the one which operates on individuals, this always has been, and ought still to be called, national government; the other which binds States and governments together (not corporations, for there is no considerable nation on earth, despotic, monarchical, or republican, that does not contain many subordinate corporations with various constitutions) this last has heretofore been denominated a league or confederacy. The term federalists is therefore improperly applied to themselves, by the friends and supporters of the proposed constitution. This abuse of language does not help the cause; every degree of imposition serves only to irritate, but can never convince. They are national men, and their opponents, or at least a great majority of them, are federal, in the only true and strict sense of the word.

"Whether any form of national government is preferable for the Americans, to a league or confederacy, is a previous question we must first make up our minds upon. . . .

"That a national government will add to the dignity and increase the splendor of the United States abroad, can admit of no doubt: it is essentially requisite for both. That it will render government, and officers of government, more dignified at home is equally certain. That these objects are more suited to the manners, if not [the] genius and disposition of our people is, I fear, also true. That it is requisite in order to keep us at peace among ourselves, is doubtful. That it is necessary, to prevent foreigners from dividing us, or interfering in our government, I deny positively; and, after all, I have strong doubts whether all its advantages are not more specious than solid. We are vain, like other nations. We wish to make a noise in the world; and feel hurt that Europeans are not so attentive to America in peace, as they were to America in war. We are also, no doubt, desirous of cutting a figure in history. Should we not reflect, that quiet is happiness? That content and pomp are incompatible? I have either read or heard this truth, which the Americans should never forget: That the silence of historians is the surest record of the happiness of a people. The Swiss have been four hundred years the envy of mankind, and there is yet scarcely an history of their nation. What is history, but a disgusting and painful detail of the butcheries of conquerors, and the woeful calamities of the conquered? Many of us are proud, and are frequently disappointed that office confers neither respect nor difference. No man of merit can ever be disgraced by office. A rogue in office may be feared in some governments - he will be respected in none. After all, what we call respect and difference only arise from contrast of situation, as most of our ideas come by comparison and relation. Where the people are free there can be no great contrast or distinction among honest citizens in or out of office. In proportion as the people lose their freedom, every gradation of distinction, between the Governors and governed obtains, until the former become masters, and the latter become slaves. In all governments virtue will command reverence. The divine Cato knew every Roman citizen by name, and never assumed any preeminence; yet Cato found, and his memory will find, respect and reverence in the bosoms of mankind, until this world returns into that nothing, from whence Omnipotence called it.

"That the people are not at present disposed for, and are actually incapable of, governments of simplicity and equal rights, I can no longer doubt. But whose fault is it? We make them bad, by bad governments, and then abuse and despise them for being so. Our people are capable of being made anything that human nature was or is capable of, if we would only have a little patience and give them good and wholesome institutions; but I see none such and very little prospect of such. Alas! I see nothing in my fellow-citizens, that will permit my still fostering the delusion, that they are now capable of sustaining the weight of SELF-GOVERNMENT: a burden to which Greek and Roman shoulders proved unequal. The honor of supporting the dignity of the human character, seems reserved to the hardy Helvetians alone.

"If the body of the people will not govern themselves, and govern themselves well too, the consequence is unavoidable - a FEW will, and must govern them. Then it is that government becomes truly a government by force only, where men relinquish part of their natural rights to secure the rest, instead of an union of will and force, to protect all their natural rights, which ought to be the foundation of every rightful social compact.

"Whether national government will be productive of internal peace, is too uncertain to admit of decided opinion. I only hazard a conjecture when I say, that our state disputes, in a confederacy, would be disputes of levity and passion, which would subside before injury. The people being free, government having no right to them, but they to government, they would separate and divide as interest or inclination prompted - as they do at this day, and always have done, in Switzerland. In a national government, unless cautiously and fortunately administered, the disputes will be the deep-rooted differences of interest, where part of the empire must be injured by the operation of general law; and then should the sword of government be once drawn (which Heaven avert) I fear it will not be sheathed, until we have waded through that series of desolation, which France, Spain, and the other great kingdoms of the world have suffered, in order to bring so many separate States into uniformity, of government and law; in which event the legislative power can only be entrusted to one man (as it is with them) who can have no local attachments, partial interests, or private views to gratify.

"That a national government will prevent the influence or danger of foreign intrigue, or secure us from invasion, is in my judgment directly the reverse of the truth. The only foreign, or at least evil foreign influence, must be obtained through corruption. Where the government is lodged in the body of the people, as in Switzerland, they can never be corrupted; for no prince, or people, can have resources enough to corrupt the majority of a nation; and if they could, the play is not worth the candle. The facility of corruption is increased in proportion as power tends by representation or delegation, to a concentration in the hands of a few. . . .

"As to any nation attacking a number of confederated independent republics . . . it is not to be expected, more especially as the wealth of the empire is there universally diffused, and will not be collected into any one overgrown, luxurious and effeminate capital to become a lure to the enterprizing ambitious.

"That extensive empire is a misfortune to be deprecated, will not now be disputed. The balance of power has long engaged the attention of all the European world, in order to avoid the horrid evils of a general government. The same government pervading a vast extent of territory, terrifies the minds of individuals into meanness and submission. All human authority, however organized, must have confined limits, or insolence and oppression will prove the offspring of its grandeur, and the difficulty or rather impossibility of escape prevents resistance. Gibbon relates that some Roman Knights who had offended government in Rome were taken up in Asia, in a very few days after. It was the extensive territory of the Roman republic that produced a Sylla, a Marius, a Caligula, a Nero, and an Elagabalus. In small independent States contiguous to each other, the people run away and leave despotism to reek its vengeance on itself; and thus it is that moderation becomes with them, the law of self-preservation. These and such reasons founded on the eternal and immutable nature of things have long caused and will continue to cause much difference of sentiment throughout our wide extensive territories. From our divided and dispersed situation, and from the natural moderation of the American character, it has hitherto proved a warfare of argument and reason."
A FARMER

Those writing Public Notices in 1788 against the treasonous annihilation of the existing federation of republics were likely to meet the same resistance from those who cannot or will not question their programming that programs them to just follow orders so long as the orders issued are no longer than one word commands that do not take too long to read.

OBEY

"TL;DR. Stop wasting my time by arguing with a simple true statement. If you don't like my quote, ignore it and go elsewhere."

"That the people are not at present disposed for, and are actually incapable of, governments of simplicity and equal rights, I can no longer doubt. But whose fault is it? We make them bad, by bad governments, and then abuse and despise them for being so. Our people are capable of being made anything that human nature was or is capable of, if we would only have a little patience and give them good and wholesome institutions; but I see none such and very little prospect of such. Alas! I see nothing in my fellow-citizens, that will permit my still fostering the delusion, that they are now capable of sustaining the weight of SELF-GOVERNMENT: a burden to which Greek and Roman shoulders proved unequal. The honor of supporting the dignity of the human character, seems reserved to the hardy Helvetians alone.

"If the body of the people will not govern themselves, and govern themselves well too, the consequence is unavoidable - a FEW will, and must govern them. Then it is that government becomes truly a government by force only, where men relinquish part of their natural rights to secure the rest, instead of an union of will and force, to protect all their natural rights, which ought to be the foundation of every rightful social compact."

Of course the Treasonous Fraud Predator Cartel members know this, use this, exploit this, and in so doing the annihilation of existing federated republics under common laws of free people defending perishable liberty is facilitated by the slaves enslaved within blind obedience.

Once a member of the Cult each member will fight tooth and nail, without moral limits, to preserve and protect their enslavement under their blindingly obedient programming.

@Josf-Kelley Re-: "I do not take orders from known disorder."

yawn
So you know, you're only wasting your own time, because I'm not wasting my time reading your blather. Not just because it's blather, and not just because now you're resorting to incoherent ad hominem's, but because your opening sentence fails to adhere to any semblance of grammatical order, hence is unintelligible.
I hope you enjoy talking to yourself. You may do it here, if you must, but I'd prefer you do it somewhere else.

@Wordmage

A statement is published about me in the following words:

"So you know, you're only wasting your own time..."

That statement is arranged as if that statement was someone greater telling someone lesser what the lesser ought to know factually, as if the greater author of the arranged words is teaching the lesser being something the lesser being ought to know, which assumes that the lesser being targeted with the unsolicited teaching is ignorant, and therefore lesser.

The great one has spoken:

"So you know, you're only wasting your own time..."

The lesser ignorant being, the swine, receives those pearls of wisdom from The Great One!

Oh, thank you, thank you, thank you, for blessing me with your pearls of wisdom, I am mere swine in the presence of your Great Wisdom and Authority!

"So you know, you're only wasting your own time..."

You are a fraud, caught in the act, as you do not know me, you have no authority to publicly characterize me in any way other than actual evidence of me factually found by you, and published by you as you publish the factual evidence you found that proves my character as my character because that evidence actually traces back to me personally.

"So you know, you're only wasting your own time..."

That is called trolling, or attempted flame war ignition, or what? It is also called Libel, and it is published, and it traces back to you personally.

Anyone with a working brain can see that I write comments that address words written by other people when they actually read what I write, when they do not, they do not, and since I keep on writing, from my view, I am not wasting my time, for if I were wasting my time, in my view, I would do something that was not wasting my time, as a rule, a rule followed by me, even if no one can see me, by choice, or by reading my comments that trace back to me, affording someone the capacity to see me by my comments.

People, therefore, see me, by my comments, but that is not why I write, if I ever thought that thought, it would be gone immediately, and instead of me thinking that I can get people to see me, if I make comments, instead of that waste of my time, my thinking moves rapidly toward defensive thoughts, as my thinking has been trained over 30 years of working on training my thinking, my thinking turns toward defensive Public Notices.

I post defensive Public Notices because I do not want to waste my time, instead I want to write better Public Notices, and I want to avoid writing worse Public Notices, and the only way I have found to do so, is to keep on writing whenever I find a comment, and over time I am able to see clearly the routines routinely resorted to by Internet trolls.

Now I can spot an internet troll sooner than I was able to spot one decades ago, back in the day when the internet was infantile with newgroups. I could spot them then also, but now I am better at it.

I read books too, and I find other people with the same ability to spot internet trolls, and their comments help, while internet troll comments merely parrot the same old routines.

Some people who also want to publish defensive Public Notices, and I know there are many now, compared to 30 years ago, those people may actually read, as I actually have read in my past, exchanges between internet trolls and defenders who publish defensive Public Notices, so to that type of person, that type of character, these responses of mine are not wastes of time to us, and I know, because it takes one to know one sometimes, other times one can know what another one is doing by what they do factually, such as an internet troll publishing false statements about the character of someone they do not know.

"Not just because it's blather, and not just because now you're resorting to incoherent ad hominem's, but because your opening sentence fails to adhere to any semblance of grammatical order, hence is unintelligible."

Sometimes, the occasional internet troll offers pro-bono unsolicited editorial help, and it is not a waste of my time to comment on those products just as it is not a waste of my time to comment on the routine libelous statements of opinion routinely stated as if an opinion can become a fact if repeated a sufficient number of times.

So what is this "opening sentence" that in and of itself "fails"?

No quote, which leaves me to assume that the subject of the pro-bono unsolicited editorial help is going to be a correct choice that I can make on my own authority as a factually proven lesser being.

Why does the Greater Being who has proven my status as a lesser being failed to give to me the precise evidence of my status as a lesser being, how is it that the Greater Being can assume that I would be able to figure out what I've done so wrong without having before me the pile of shit I made, there is is under my nose, and I must have my nose rubbed in it?

I am a pig, right, your Pearls of Wisdom failed to place my pile of shit under my nose, and now I am chasing the bone you threw, scampering off to find it and bring it back to you, but what if I pick up the stick and not the pile of shit I left on your carpet?

Ok, let me scamper off, not wasting my time, since I love playing fetch like a good dog, or pig.

"I do not take orders from known disorder."

Please, please, please, I beg of you, please, please, please, rewrite that for me, please, please, oh, oh, oh, my tail is almost flying off my ass, please, OH GREAT ONE!

Please!

"I hope you enjoy talking to yourself."

I guy I knew, someone who helped me immeasurably, survived the Bataan Death March, and he would say "Shit in one hand, wish in the other, see which fills up first."

Internet trolls, as a rule, contradict themselves.

"So you know, you're only wasting your own time, because I'm not wasting my time reading your blather."

Yes, of course, you know that I know that you know that I know, that defense is made easier when the offender sets their own trap!

"I hope you enjoy talking to yourself."

So what is it?

Wasting my time, or potentially having fun wasting my time?

Reading well or caught not reading so well?

Go fetch!

@Josf-Kelley — Wow — you seem convinced that typing the great volumes of words is somehow going to induce me to read more than the great volumes of words I've already told you I don't have time to bother with …
In scanning, I did notice you use the word "swine." So, I suppose I ought to congratulate you for misconstruing something (or projecting) on a level I hadn't anticipated.
Go be a troll somewhere else. You're not even amusing anymore.

Well said!

Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention
1788 Elliot 3:89, 430--36, 439--42
[6 June]

George Mason:
Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws. Now, suppose oppressions should arise under this government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of those powers; could not Congress, under the idea of providing for the general welfare, and under their own construction, say that this was destroying the general peace, encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press? Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square, when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury?