Boston Tea Party

Dec. 16, 2012

On Dec. 16, 1773, “radicals” from Boston, members of a secret organization of American Patriots called the Sons of Liberty, boarded three East India Company ships and threw 342 chests of tea into Boston Harbor.

This iconic event, in protest of oppressive British taxation and tyrannical rule, became known as the Boston Tea Party.

Resistance to the Crown had been mounting over enforcement of the 1764 Sugar Act, 1765 Stamp Act and 1767 Townshend Act, which led to the Boston Massacre and gave rise to the slogan, “No taxation without representation.”

The 1773 Tea Act and resulting Tea Party protest galvanized the Colonial movement opposing British parliamentary acts, which violated the natural, charter and constitutional rights of the colonists.

Three years later, this rebellion had grown to such extent that our Founders were willing to give up their fortunes and lives, attaching their signatures to a document that declared, “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. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

For more on our nation's founding and the role the Tea Party played, see Mark Alexander's column, “Essential Liberty.”


Robert John in Lebanon, PA said:

We all grieve for the heartbreaking loss of young lives in Newtown, Connecticut.

The tragedy reminds us of how precious our loved ones are. These awful events have already renewed discussions, often passionate, about gun control and will likely dominate the news media and politics for months or years to come.

Many of us would likely be open to [reasonable] gun control legislation (i.e., more stringent background checks, mental status investigations on gun purchasers, and assault weapons sales to responsible individuals, etc.).

But many Americans are rightly fearful, and should be, of laws that limit 2nd Amendment Rights as guaranteed by the constitution.

These fears are frequently grounded in the greatest expansion of Federal Government powers: those increasing losses of individual freedoms, attacks on individual rights, illegitimate federal mandates, radical and often unlawful constitutional manipulations, and the overbearing and unlawful overreaches of federal government powers, rightfully fuel fears that are both rationale and historically well-grounded.

Yes we should have a national discussion on reasonable gun control legislation, but that should only be done with equal discussions on limiting the federal government’s invasive extent into freedom loving American’s everyday lives.

The 2nd amendment had a purpose, still does today, and will for the foreseeable future – that is, to act as a buffer against an overbearing and autocratic government. Without this greatest constitutional guarantee, there would be no line of defense against an even greater expansion of federal powers far beyond the constitutional bounds they have already expanded.

Hypocritically, progressives have no problem manipulating and expanding, as they see fit, every other constitutional amendment if it fits their designs, but disparage and relegate the 2nd amendment to a mere mistake of period legislation.

Yes let’s have a national discussion about gun control, but let’s do it with a national discussion on the federal government’s continued unconstitutional overreach into everyday American’s lives.

May God Bless the families affected by this tragic incident and may God give our country the prudence to deliberate, without sensationalism, these difficulties facing our nation.

Sunday, December 16, 2012 at 1:21 PM

Wayne in Hinesville, GA said:

My wife and I went to the altar in our church today and prayed for the families and for their lost loved ones. Our pastor said their was no explaining this senseless tradegy because it it beyond the socpe of our minds to comprehend how anyone could do such a thing. As far as gun control is concerned, if a person is intent on killing someone they will find a way gun or no gun, Prime example is the stabbing of school children in China. Outlawing guns will only make criminals more bold. The state of Illiinois is a perfect example for gun control not working. 22 murders in one week in Chi-Town which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. The Progressives never fail to use a tragedy to push their agenda. Despicical use of families suffering to whine about guns.

Sunday, December 16, 2012 at 4:42 PM

hommer in bottom of the sea replied:

ya but that was in the black part of town ...

Monday, December 17, 2012 at 1:21 AM

hommer in bottom of the sea said:

ya a 3% sales tax . and ya'll get all the representations you pay for now .. how much more than 3% are you at on sales tax alone???????

Monday, December 17, 2012 at 1:19 AM

Dioneikes in Colorado said:

"The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons." - Ceasar Beccaria an eminent Milan jurist in the 1600's made this statement.

If he could understand this back then, why is it that it's so hard to grasp this now?

Monday, December 17, 2012 at 9:22 AM

MNIce in Minnesota said:

"No taxation without representation." There are a number of ways the present regime violates this principle. The first is inflationary money policy. Not only does it cheat our debtors, but it taxes away the value of US dollars in the several nations who use dollars instead of their own currency. Among these are Ecuador, Panama and the Philippines. We are stealing from the people of these countries when we permit the dollar to be devalued.

The second is entailment of debt. We obligate those who are too young to vote to pay taxes for debt they never agreed to take through their representatives. This, too, is theft.

The third is through the mandatory Social Security and Medicare entitlement schemes. Once again, future generations are locked into paying for something for which they never voluntarily contracted.

This is why every major law should have a definite sunset date, and all unapportioned direct taxes should once again be prohibited. Failing the latter, at least basing taxes on income on anything other than the amount of income should be recognized as illegal. Current code levies FICA and Medicare taxes on income based on a percentage of wages - a lie intended to evade the constitutional prohibition on the direct taxes of wages. Obamacare levies a tax on income based on whether one has a "qualified health insurance plan" - whatever that means. That is also an improper evasion of the prohibition of direct taxes.

Monday, December 17, 2012 at 1:33 PM