YOU DON'T HAVE TO LIVE IN WISCONSIN...

You don't have to live in Wisconsin to appreciate the financial and physical dangers of forced union membership, which is what Wisconsinites are faced with today - and what the entire nation may be faced with tomorrow.

American labor unions outlived their usefulness decades ago. The original intent of organized labor was good, even though their objectives in those "formative years" were achieved primarily through violence. Employers weren't, as a general rule, paying workers a decent living wage. Some companies did provide "company housing" (substandard), and a company-owned version of a general store which carried basic necessities. But, both were provided at a premium price. By the time the company extracted the employees "rent", and items charged at the store each week, the worker's take-home pay was approximately the equivalent of one of today's dollars.

Today, labor unions function primarily through leveraged "negotiations" - using the implied threat of a production-ending strike to achieve their goals. A strike is essentially a variation on your basic blackmail scheme - "If you don't give us what we want, we will ruin you (financially) by shutting down your business until we get what we want."

In the most recent skirmish in the battle over the right to work in Wisconsin, a Dane County Circuit Court judge ruled in favor of the unions, saying the state legislature violated the state's

open meeting law. Apparently the unions own some judges in Wisconsin. The media are reporting the Wisconsin law as an "anti-union" law, when the proper way to look at it is as a pro-worker law.

The United States Declaration of Independence proclaims "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Nowhere in the Declaration is forced union membership mentioned! Nor is the payment of union dues by non-union workers, which is another desire of the union bosses! True liberty includes the liberty to perform labor under conditions to which the individual freely agrees - not under conditions of coercion by way of threats or acts of violence.

The man you made President of The United States - Barack Obama - during his campaign in 2008, made promises to the big unions that he must keep - or risk losing their support in the 2012 election. Among those promises was the unionization of all government workers, and the implied elimination of those unnecessary right to work laws... which the unions find to be bothersome.

How do the unions benefit their members? Not nearly so well as they benefit the union leadership. Granted, the members are making a "living wage" (and then some), but their wages are paltry compared to the salaries of their bosses. As an example, let's look at just the upper upper-echelon (the top ten officers) of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU - which is also the world's largest union):

Officers and Employees

• Average Total Compensation: $62,170.21

• Total Employees: 1,030

• Employees Making more than $75,000: 321

Top Ten Highest Paid Leaders

Name	Title	Total Compensation
Andrew Stern	International President	$306,388.00
David Regan	Executive Vice President	$265,488.00
Dennis Rivera	Vice President	$265,216.00
Anna Burger	International Sec-Treas	$252,724.00
Eliseo Medina	Executive Vice President	$242,286.00
Mary Kay Henry	Executive Vice President	$231,348.00
Gerald Hudson	Executive Vice President	$230,671.00
Thomas Woodruff	Executive Vice President	$218,723.00
Scott Courtney	Organizing Dir	$204,750.00
Kirk Adams	Executive Board Member	$197,939.00

The total compensation of the top ten SEIU officers costs the membership: $2,415,533 per annum

BUT... they have 1,031 employees whose average salary is $62,170.21p/a and that works out to a dues-paying membership cost of $64,035,316p/a just for the big shots. And 32% - almost 1/3 - of those officials make in excess of $75,000 per annum. The total compensation package of the "International President" of the SEIU is 65% (plus what he can steal from the membership) of that of the US President ($469,000 - plus what he can steal from the taxpayers)!

Since the big brouhaha over restricting union organization efforts in Wisconsin began, several months ago, and WI Governor Walker's attempt to keep Wisconsin a right to work state, there have been these developments...

"We will hunt you down . . . slit your throats . . . drink your blood. I will have your decapitated head on a pike in the Madison town square." Those are the words of a union militant aimed directly at a Wisconsin state legislator for daring to vote to restrict Big Labor's forced dues control over Wisconsin state workers.

There were literally dozens of similar death threats, along with acts of vandalism leveled against Wisconsin state legislators and Governor Scott Walker for not toeing the union boss line.

After reporting a timesheet-padding scheme, one of the whistle blowers was beaten so severely by union thugs he suffered two herniated discs and had to undergo knee surgery.

Another whistle blower found a dead rat in his locker, along with a note which said he would, "be taken care of." And another stated he was told: "If I continue to complain about their finances, they would have me killed."

Union bosses consider themselves to be above the law because -- they are -- thanks to the Supreme Court's infamous 1973 Emmons decision, granting union bosses immunity from prosecution for acts of violence and vandalism they orchestrate in the so-called "pursuit of legitimate union objectives." How stupid was that? Essentially it says that union bosses can instruct their minions to go forth and commit mayhem and murder so long as it is in pursuit of legitimate union objectives, and that the bosses themselves cannot be prosecuted for the directed actions of their subordinates.

Organized labor - on an interstate scale - has been with us since 1866, when the "National Labor Union" was formed. But, organized labor had little impact upon society-at-large until 1914, and the passage of the Clayton Anti-trust Act, which limited the use of injunctions in labor disputes and provided that picketing and other union activities are not illegal conspiracies or trusts.

In the mid-to-late 1800's secondary education and literacy among the working class were much less common than today. Perhaps there was a genuine need for organizing the workers back then. Maybe they were just too dumb to form their own independent groups to insure fairness in the workplace. But, in my mind anyway, 150 years later those conditions no longer exist. By comparison today's worker is highly educated, more aware of what constitutes fair working conditions and compensation, and what options are available to him/her should he feel the entity for which he toils is being less than equitable.

Forcing workers to either join a union, or pay dues to a union which one does not belong, makes about as much sense as going to the supermarket and being charged for all the groceries you didn't want!

Thomas Jefferson, the great American statesman, once said, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." We ALL need to be more vigilant in our observations of the processes of the government... before its unabated appetites allow it to completely consume our beloved Republic.

I'm Gil, (and you're not - be thankful!) and I approve this blog. I am an equal opportunity cynic and iconoclast.

INSURRECTION 101 - HOW TO PROVOKE AN INSURRECTION

Insurrection has been defined as:
"The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government.", and as synonymous with "rebellion", which is defined thus:
"rebellion: a rebellion against the government or rulers of a country, often involving armed conflict."

Insurrection has been described as not only necessary, but as a virtual obligation - "When the government violates the people's rights, insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of the rights and the most indispensible of duties." -- Marquis de Lafayette
(For those of you who may not remember the finer details of our early-American history, the Marquis de Lafayette was a French noble who served in the Continental Army, as a Major General, during the American Revolution, 1777-1779 .)

"The late rebellion in Massachusetts has given more alarm than I think it should have done. Calculate that one rebellion in thirteen states in the course of eleven years, is but one for each state in a century and a half. No country should be so long without one. Nor will any degree of power in the hands of government prevent insurrections." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787.

How did we reach a point in these United States, 145 years after the "Civil War", that the word insurrection would be mentioned in any sentence relating to our internal affairs? The Civil War as also known as the War Between The States, which is more accurate, inasmuch as there is no record of any of the combatants requesting permission from an opponent to shoot at him, or apologizing after the fact for his termination. The war wasn't the least bit "civil".

Perhaps the Marquis de Lafayette and Jefferson were correct. The will of a free people can only be ignored by their elected government for so long, before there are grumblings of anger and resentment against that government. But, as they say, "talk is cheap" (unless it's a 60 second Super Bowl commercial on TV). Actually, according to our Constitution, talk costs nothing as it falls under the First Amendment's "freedom of speech". Of course we know that it means we are free to say that which is on our mind, but nobody has any obligation to provide us with a free venue for presenting those thoughts. But, I digress...

Insurrection could be very loosely interpreted as any expressed disagreement with the government or other ruling body. However, the word "insurrection" has historically been used to describe an armed and violent expression of such disagreement. Are we on the verge of such an expression? I still slightly doubt that we are. Are the dangerous TEA Party participants ready to usurp authority of their government? The question itself is ludicrous. The only acts of violence involving TEA Parties have been brought to the party by outside influences - such as the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) egging vehicles at the recent Searchlight, NV TEA Party. SEIU members have also been filmed invading the "personal space" (the space between colleagues during a normal conversation, is usually about 20 to 36 inches. If the person is not well known to us,we will stand from 2 to 4 feet away during a conversation.) of others and "getting in their face" in an attempt to provoke a physical reaction. So far these tactics have been unsuccessful, but... sooner or later the liberal, government-sponsored union thugs will get just what they want from somebody. And when they do, it will be plastered all over the media for days! Who are the people threatening violence and name-calling in Arizona over their new immigration law? Is it the conservative right (who are supporting their Governor's efforts to enhance their safety) or the liberal socialist left (who believe that anybody should be allowed into our country at any time without any documentation)? And which side has the President's support? Those who would like to see the federal government live up to it's Constitutional obligation to secure our borders, or those would would like "open borders" - which is the equivalent of NO BORDERS at all?

Here's the bottom line - governments provoke an insurrection by thumbing their nose at the expressed will of the people, and/or instigating confrontations between government agents (official registered agents, like law enforcement - or unofficial government sponsored thugs, like the SEIU) and normally non-confrontational groups (like the TEA Party participants).

The worst abuse of government power thus far within our borders was undoubtedly the use of the United States Army against the "Bonus Army". In 1924, a grateful Congress voted to give a bonus to World War I veterans - $1.25 for each day served overseas, $1.00 for each day served in the States. The catch was that payment would not be made until 1945 (the obvious hope being that many of those veterans would die before they could receive that which they had been promised). However, by 1932 the nation had slipped into the dark days of the Depression and the unemployed veterans wanted their money immediately.

The Bonus Army was composed of 10,000-15,000 American veterans of World War 1, most of whom were conscripted (drafted) into service. Their cause during the summer of 1932 was to pressure the government into living up to its promise of "adjusted compensation" for their lost earnings during their service. These men did nothing violent - they were simply an embarrassment to the government. Insurrection at a more controlled level. But violence was brought upon them by the Hoover administration (see accompanying video).

The big surprise for me was the name of the Army officer who led the cavalry charges into those veterans... Major George S. Patton Jr. The lesson to be learned from this encounter is that our government is not above using our military to control civilian dissent.

An insurrection is provoked in the same manner as a barroom brawl. Somebody pushes somebody else, either physically or emotionally, until the "pushee" responds in some manner. The response could be verbal: "You #$@!&**#!", but it provides the pusher with enough justification to retaliate and not immediately be seen as the jerk he is by onlookers. A response of physical force ameliorates the pushers culpability even further: "He swung first, so he deserved to be crippled when I hit him with that bar stool!"

In an ideological insurrection it becomes more difficult to determine which party is the provocateur. To my way of thinking though, the responsibility should always lay upon the shoulders of the provocateur. The provocateur is the one doing the "baiting"... similar in most respects to what the law now refers to as "entrapment" by law enforcement personnel. If you don't call a black man by the feared and awesome "N" word, he probably won't beat the hell out of you with the first handy object he finds. And if you do use the feared and awesome "N" word, when he does beat the hell out of you, he - and most witnesses to the event - will feel he was completely justified in doing so. (Whatever happened to the legal concept of "sticks and stones"?)

So, if you are ever faced with legitimate opposition, and you feel motivated to squelch that opposition:
First - make sure you label the aggrieved party(ies) as "right-wing nuts", "loonies", "Nazis" and/or "racists". That makes you the "good guy"... and you get to wear the white hat. Your opponents immediately get to wear the fools cap and the idiot mittens.
Second - insure that your mirrors are all polished to a high luster and that your smoke machines are fully loaded.
Justify, justify, justify - No matter how idiotic your position might be, justify it! There are copious numbers of dullards in the world who will believe you if you are charismatic! (Almost three decades ago an unusual series of events led to the deaths of more than 900 people, led by the Rev. Jim Jones of "Jonestown" infamy, in the middle of a South American jungle. After relocating to California in 1965, the church continued to grow in membership and began advocating their left-wing political ideals more actively. In November 1978, California Congressman Leo Ryan arrived in Guyana to survey Jonestown and interview its inhabitants. After reportedly having his life threatened by a Temple member during the first day of his visit, Ryan decided to cut his trip short and return to the U.S. with some Jonestown residents who wished to leave. As they boarded their plane, a group of Jones's guards opened fire on them, killing Ryan and four others. Jones told his followers that Ryan's murder would make it impossible for their commune to continue functioning. Rather than return to the United States, the People's Temple would preserve their church by making the ultimate sacrifice: their own lives. Jones's 912 followers were given a deadly concoction of a purple drink mixed with cyanide, sedatives, and tranquilizers. Jones apparently shot himself in the head.)

As you can see, even a lunatic can generate charisma. Jim Jones, Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, Nathan Bedford Forrest (founder of the KKK), George Lincoln Rockwell (founder of the American Nazi Party).. the list goes on and on. Charismatic leadership is nothing more than "a rare personal quality attributed to leaders who arouse fervent popular devotion and enthusiasm." They do not have to be honorable, well-intentioned, or even particularly intelligent people to be charismatic. They can however, focus the wills of like-minded individuals on the accomplishment of a single goal... for example national health care, or government control over critical industries such as manufacturing and finance... or the elimination of Jews from the face of the Earth.

Charisma is no substitute for honor, but "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is King."

OPEN YOUR EYES AMERICA!

VIOLENCE AND SEDITION - What Will The Left Think Of Next?

Interestingly, the left-wing, Marxist, socialist-progressive Democrats in government have labeled those of us who attend TEA Parties as "inciting violence" and "seditionists". Obama finds us "amusing"... your President finds concerned Americans who disagree with the direction in which he is sailing our "ship of state" to be "amusing"!

I have attended two Tea Parties locally, and have yet to witness any acts of violence, and have not yet heard a call to commit acts of violence. In fact, the only acts of violence I have even heard of are those committed against the TEA Party attendees by supporters and sympathizers of the left-wing, Marxist, socialist-progressive Democrats. A cowardly demonstration of attempting to provoke peaceful TEA Party attendees into acts of physical violence against the socialist turncoats.

Sedition is defined thus - "Conduct which is directed against a government and which tends toward insurrection but does not amount to treason." I don't know that there have been any acts of sedition associated with the TEA Party movement. If so, they were not sponsored or condoned by the TEA Party movement. But, the First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees us freedom of speech, in spite of the fact that the left-wing, Marxist, socialist-progressive Democrats wish to deny that Constitutionally protected right to those who voice disagreement with them.
Perhaps they have an understandable guilt created by diverting our government from its intended course, and an attendant fear that they will someday be held accountable for their treasonous acts by We the People.

The last statistic I heard regarding the Constitution dealt with the Tenth Amendment (States Rights), which states in plain English - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.". The statistic I refer to reported that 33 states had reaffirmed their sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. Now that may just be "window dressing" - like a couple reaffirming their marriage vows -, or it may be a precursor to secession. Could secession be considered an act of sedition? I suppose it could be if it were left up to some radical left-winger to define. But the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of the English Language defines secession to be - " 1 : withdrawal into privacy or solitude 2 : formal withdrawal from an organization." In other words, it's a simple statement saying, "I refuse to play your game any more because you want to change the rules the game was established with." If you can understand that then you have a grasp of the meaning of secession. It means a state - or states - chooses to remove itself from the Union of States.

Washington has turned a deaf ear to the conservative voices in this country... and THAT is the worst possible action the government could take. George III failed to hear the voices of the American colonists until December 16, 1773 - the night of the original Boston Tea Party. The rebellion against tyranny is not only expected of free men, it is required of them when rebellion becomes necessary to maintain that freedom. As Thomas Jefferson said, "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
Jefferson was also - by today's definition - a "seditionist", condemned to be so by his own words. Read carefully and thoughtfully... "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.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the 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." He suggested that the people take arms against any tyrannical ruler. Along that same line, his view of the Second Amendment (Keep and Bear Arms) was quite elegant - "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." And - "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Attempts to erode and subvert the intent of the United States Constitution. Seditious speech? It would only considered as such by those who fear a free people.

Surprisingly, Jefferson also had views on government bailouts, stimulus packages, welfare and national health care, even though he had no exposure to such things -
"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits."
"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it. "
"Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now."
"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

The seeds of violence and sedition have been sown by those who thought it wise to blame the conservative right for such actions on nationwide television and radio. There were no such acts supported, coordinated, or condoned by the conservative right prior to April 18, 2010. There may be random acts of individuals here and there, but violence and sediton is not the goal of the conservatives. On the other hand, I once saw a bumper sticker that read "WHEN REASON FAILS, FORCE PREVAILS", which seems to be the motto of all international negotiators.

I wonder how "amusing" Obama will find the TEA Party movement in November...

What Will It Take To Return The USA To Its Intended Course?

We are on the banks of the Rubicon - that "point of no return" at which the Republic can be lost for the foreseeable future, if not lost forever! Should the current administration be permitted by We the People to continue on its present course, it will be a future of darkness, decline, and despair for our children and grandchildren. What can we as individuals do to redirect our government?

In a nutshell we must CHANGE THE SYSTEM FROM THAT WHICH IT HAS BECOME. And just how do we do that?

1. November 2nd, 2010 is election day. About half our national House of "Representatives" and 30-odd national Senators are up for re-election. DO NOT VOTE FOR ANY INCUMBENTS! They apparently have not understood our written requests, made using the English language, nor have they paid any attention to the poll results regarding Obamacare, or to the Tea Party activities, or the Town Hall Meetings. It is crucial that we communicate with them in a way they will understand - at the voting booth. Remove all the incumbents from office, and perhaps the remainder will finally understand our message.
2. TALK IS CHEAP! As we have known for decades - or perhaps centuries - the vast majority of politicians are professional liars. Lies, untruths, mistruths and technical omissions are their stock-in-trade. They will tell each audience addressed during their campaign, tailor-made lies designed to garner the majority of votes from that group of voters. For one group it may be "White is the new black!", and for another "Black is the new white!". Adapt the message to suit the desires of the audience. In order for our intended system of governance to be resurrected we must replace the incumbents with proven conservatives. And not just those who claim to be conservatives. We must replace them with politicians with documented, consistently conservative records. If there are none running in your district then it becomes a "best guess" situation, but do not re-elect incumbents! This is primarily those Democrats who sold their votes (Nebraska's Ben Nelson, Ohio's Kucinich - a really CHEAP date, etc.) and those Republicans who sold out the American people (Louisiana's Anh "Joseph" Cao, etc.). They have proven by their actions that they are not representing the will of the majority of voters. Also, see how many working-class candidates you can vote into office (see paragraph 5, below).

3. Procedural Changes in Congress. Bills may be written by anybody - as is obvious in so much of our legislation, which makes so little sense. But a bill must be introduced into the legislative process by a member of Congress. From the time of introduction the bill then follows a rather circuitous route within Congress to committees, hearings, debates, etc., in both the House and the Senate. That's all fair enough, I suppose... insuring that the bill is (ostensibly) properly reviewed prior to acceptance or rejection. But there is a problem in the procedure - one that is known but never acknowledged within that legislative body. If a bill passes the hearing stage it then goes for "markup", and this is where the problem lies... markup is where the AMENDMENTS are placed in the bill. The problem is that amendments that are totally unrelated to the issue(s) addressed (I call them "hitchhikers") by the bill are - more often than not - attached to the bill. When was the last time a bill establishing a military budget passed that only included things related to the military? Hitchhikers for education, welfare, bridges to nowhere, and aircraft that the military neither requested, nor wants, nor needs are attached to the bill! A bill should pass or fail on its own merits, or be rejected in the next step of the process and returned for reconsideration if it contains requests that are unrelated to the basic intent of that bill. Bills should also be of reasonable readability in both language and length. If it takes more than 50 pages to say what you want then there is something terribly wrong. If it takes more than 100 pages somebody is trying to pull a fast one. More than 200 pages, and the sponsor should be required to defend the bill in open session, and be subject to censure and a fine for wasting the time of our legislature. When it takes more than 50 pages to ask for something that is truly needed, then the bill is rife with smoke, mirrors and earmarks. Congress should follow the KISS rule - Keep It Simple, Stupid - and NO HITCHHIKERS!
4. Eliminate access to Congress by professional lobbyists and special interest groups. One team of no more than three entity-employed volunteer representatives PER INDUSTRY or UNION would be acceptable, with no budget allowance other than employer provided transportation and lodging reservations, and reimbursable food expenses not to exceed $50 per day. Such restrictions would certainly impede, if not eliminate, the buying of Congressional favors.

5. Take the government back from Big Money. It should be obvious - to anybody that is not comatose (or already deceased) - that our elected officials are incapable of representing the working-class in a responsible manner. Would you spend millions of dollars to get a job that pays $174,000 per year? Not if you had any sense. Perhaps campaign spending limits of $350,000 for State legislators would level the playing field, and make it possible for a working-class candidate to actually get elected. If one couldn't raise that kind of money for their campaign then they probably shouldn't be running for office. After all, it's just $2,000 more than the job pays in 2 years, and would only be an average of a $5 contribution from 70,000 people.

Once upon a time, our Congress was composed of volunteers. These volunteers were men who so believed in our Republic that they worked to establish it without pay. (In 1813 they granted themselves a pay of $8 per day... paid only for the days which they actually attended to the business of the government.) Originally they were men of some learning, but mostly men of native intelligence, common sense, honor and the courage of their convictions. Open and vigorous disagreement and debate was commonplace. There was no strict party affiliation at the outset, rather, separation among Americans was primarily along philosophical lines, rather than party loyalties. Most were what we would call "Independents" today. (The earliest American political parties were the Federalists and the Republicans. George Washington declined labels, but was philosophically aligned with the Federalists, as was John Adams, Washington's VP and his successor as the 2nd President of the United States of America. The Republicans became the Democratic Party in 1828, with the Federalists becoming the Whigs in 1840 [having consumed the supporters of the Anti-Masonic Party in 1838] and finally morphing into the Republican Party in 1856. Yes, it did become a bit confusing back then.)
Our government has become an all-consuming Behemoth, that repeatedly ignores the expressed will of We the People. Government is nothing more - or anything less - than a necessary evil, of which WE are - Constitutionally - the masters... yet the government ignores our commands and turns upon us. The Obama regime goes so far as to label those citizens who would have the government follow the Constitution - upon which our nation was founded - as "terrorists" and "anarchists". Perhaps no government is better than unresponsive government, and perhaps those labeled as "terrorists" by the liberal left "progressives" are recognized as "patriots" by the conservative right.
OUR NATION WAS NOT FOUNDED ON A PHILOSOPHY OF "REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH" OR "SOCIALIZED" ANYTHING. IT WAS FOUNDED UNDER THE CONCEPT OF GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS - INCLUDING THE RIGHT OF ALL CITIZENS TO REAP THE BENEFITS OF THEIR OWN LABORS -

INDIVIDUALLY!

In the words of Thomas Jefferson: "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. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the 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."
Manure is what Washington has been feeding us for decades. Let us tell them we're full - and we will have no more of it!