Replies

Lets keep the apples and oranges separate. At that time, America was a colony ruled by a Monarch (England). So, yes, discourse with leaders of the few was more real then.

No. First, you likely meant discontent, rather than discourse. And you're wrong about the timing of the piece, Jefferson penned the Tree of Liberty comment after we had successfully established our political independence from England. Jefferson was commenting on the inevitability of restive populations... here is his more of the quote to give you some context:

God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.
Letter to William Stevens Smith (November 13, 1787), quoted in Padover's Jefferson On Democracy

But today, America's leaders and officials are elected, appointed and confirmed. If you don't like em, there's always election day. There's always protest, there's always media, newspaper, etc.

As there were then. But still, as Jefferson alludes...there was need for government to remember who was sovereign. We the People. Which is the foundational premise of our system, our theory of limited government, and our experiment as a Republic to ensure individual liberty.

So with Paulson, like Reagan firing the air traffic controllers, not every decision he makes will be popular with a certain percentage of the population.

Reagan, unlike Paulson, was deeply concerned for the continuing welfare of the country as a whole...not the import lobby. Paulson can be classified as strictly an enemy of the country. Along with his fellow-travellers in the RAT party . Both colluding...preventing a real choice. Hence we will recapture the GOP. And oust the corrupt and their enablers.

Your government is busy abetting corruption, wherever it operates...from the Xlintons, to the Panamanians. Whether direct bribes, coercions, or somewhat indirect...they all are designed to keep the popular will from prevailing in lands that are being preyed upon by the Communist government. It was predictable that they would eventually find amongst a corrupt group of businessmen and politicians (of both parties) allies who profiteer at the expense of their countrymen. It is not just a political sickness, but a media illness. If the MSM was doing its job of muck-raking thoroughly and fairly across the spectrum...these rascals would have been turned out of office.

To give you an idea how unrepresentative your little troop of back-stabbers are...here are recent numbers on the collapse of popular support for your free ride masquerading as Free Trade:

| |

Poll: Free trade loses backers

By Peronet Despeignes, USA TODAY

High-income Americans have lost much of their enthusiasm for free trade as they perceive their own jobs threatened by white-collar workers in China, India and other countries, according to data from a survey of views on trade. (Related item: Read the entire study)

The survey by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes is one of the most comprehensive U.S. polls on trade issues. It found that support for free trade fell in most income groups from 1999 to 2004, but dropped most rapidly among high-income respondents — the very group that registered the strongest support for free trade in the past. "Free trade" means the removal of barriers such as tariffs that restrict international trade. (Related story: Income confers no immunity as jobs migrate)

The PIPA poll shows that among Americans making more than $100,000 a year, support for actively promoting more free trade collapsed from 57% to less than half that, 28%. There were smaller drops, averaging less than 7 percentage points, in income brackets below $70,000, where support for free trade was already weaker.

The same poll found the share of Americans making more than $100,000 who want the push toward free trade slowed down or stopped altogether nearly doubled from 17% to 33%.

Rising anxiety about free trade could intensify an already fierce political battle this election year.

In the fight for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., has gained some ground on front-runner Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., by hitting Kerry's support for free-trade agreements that critics say have cost American jobs. The Democratic nominee is expected to use the trade issue against President Bush, whose administration has generally been supportive of free trade.

The PIPA 2004 poll was released last month, but breakdowns by income level were performed at the request of USA TODAY. The results are based on responses from more than 1,800 U.S. residents with a margin of error of +/ —— 2.3-4 percentage points.

The findings suggest that anxieties about free trade long held by lower-income Americans and blue-collar workers — who have been losing jobs to cheaper labor markets abroad — have spread up the income ladder.

The findings come as the U.S. job market remains sluggish and accounting, computer programming, radiology and other high-end service jobs are being lost to workers abroad.

"This is huge," says Steven Kull, director of the Maryland polling unit. "What's most dramatic is what's happened to support among those making more than $70,000 a year. ... These include those who've most avidly supported trade and globalization, who've taken the lead in pushing the free-trade agenda forward."

First, you likely meant discontent, rather than

Yes, discontent.

And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

By bringing this up, you are suggesting that an armed resistence to the federal government is an option.

The PIPA poll shows that among Americans making more than $100,000 a year, support for actively promoting more free trade collapsed from 57% to less than half that, 28%

Trade isn't the only issue that is no longer popular with the American people. The war in Iraq no longer enjoys majority support either. But there are still troops there. By your logic, if the American people no longer want troops in a certain country (Iraq) and government persistently continues to maintain troops there, then the people should be able to protest to a point of taking up arms against the federal government. To preserve liberty.

Then those who protest the war are the true patriots.

It must not be enough discontent, there is sufficient support to keep free trade expanding.