The British started to tax colonists with the Tea Act.  Tea was very popular in the colonies, but much of it was smuggled from Holland.  On the evening of December 16, 1773, the colonists boarded three ships.  They disguised themselves a Native Americans.  They dumped 342 chests of tea into the Boston Harbor.  Patriots called the Sons of Liberty organized this rebellion.  This protest was referred to as the Boston Tea Party.  Parliament did not take this situation lightly.  They wanted all of the colonists to pay the money for the tea.  The loyalists, who believed in British rule, were disgusted because they did not want to pay for the destroyed tea.  King George III created laws called the Intolerable Acts.

In 1765, Parliament passed the Stamp Act.  This law required all legal and commercial documents to have an official stamp showing that a tax had been paid.  All diplomas, contracts, wills, and published materials, such as newspapers, had to be taxed also.  One of the boycotts was to refuse to buy stamps.   The Sons of Liberty staged protests against the act.  Some protests were not respectful.  The Sons of Liberty burned the stamped paper whenever they could find it.  They attacked custom officials and tarred and feathered them and paraded them in public.  It was very dangerous to be a custom official at that time.  The Stamp Act was a mistake and Parliament finally realized this and decided to repeal the act in 1766.

One of the most influential political documents in history was written by Thomas Paine. The document, Common Sense, helped convince many Americans that a complete break with Britain was necessary.  Common Sense was published in January 1776 and sold more than 100,000 copies in three months.  Thomas Paine also explained that being a part of Britain also had many difficulties.  One of them was going to war and a second was becoming involved in quarrels against European countries.  Europe was known as a market for trade not to be interfered with as explained by Thomas Paine in document three.

All in all, famous Patriots helped us overcome British rule.  The colonies protested against British taxes and acts.  The thirteen colonies became independent on July 4, 1776.  These colonies were the United States of America.  With help from the French and the Spanish, the colonies defeated those British lobsterbacks in the American Revolutionary War.

So why waste my time looking it all up, scouring the net for facts, and being a loyal, educated voter if in the end, a bunch of no it all politic geniuses are going sit around and decide I'm to stupid to make my own decision.

Besides, have you seen our candidates these past few years:

Bush: Wages war without clear expedition. Frankly, "Go get revenge." Isn't quite good enough for me. Sure there was the whole 9/11 scene but don't we need a plan of action before we go send our beloveds into a blood bath? We have one now ... Four years later.

Meanwhile back in the old U.S of A our economic community crumbles and the middle class begins to wither away. Oil prices rise and so therefore does everything else.

John McCain: Smart one that he is, can't remember how many houses he owns. Can you spell waste of nature? Or pushing global warming? Anyway fat cat has 7.

He thinks middle class is anyone earning under 5 MILLION dollars a year. Shows what he knows about today's economic world. How many of you make 4 million?

He supports Bush: Ha-ha enough said.

He plays way too many dirty angles, more than usual in campaigns. For instance he slangs this whole time about Obama's inexperience, and what kind of a VP does he elect? One no one knows and his most inexperienced choice possible.

Also the fact that she's a woman is very sneaky on his part. Hey I don't have nothing against her personally. I'm a woman. Anyway I figure He's only doing it because Obama's getting publicity for being African American so good old McCain goes and says, we'll look my VP, she's a woman. How's that for publicity. As a woman, I find t insulting because of why he is doing it.

Another thing: all those speeches of his and his followers'? Do they say ANYTHING and I mean ANYTHING about what the hell he's going to do about America? No. Just, "I'm a war hero this, I'm a war hero that, I'm an experienced geezer who can't count to seven, did I mention I'm a war hero?"

Obama: We'll now he's just plain sketchy. Something was said about him wanting to finish something in Iraq yet he apparently is getting our troops home ASAP.

He used to do drugs. Has he been like urine tested or something so we know we're not hiring a drug addict?

He made a big fuss over a lapel. IT'S JUST A PIN! GET OVER IT! He has but, jesus, he made a scene.

Hilary: Yeah, yeah no one cares anymore but still.

She was for abortion, no restrictions, just for it. That highly disturbs me, I mean according to her if two people get in a bed and go at it for mere pleasure and woops make a baby, they have no obligation to its life what so ever. Yeah I get that if they are really against the idea the kid and they won't get along so hot. But people there is life beyond age 18! Also, there is this wonderful elastic little creation, it makes you less likely to knock up your partner or get knocked up, it's called a C-O-N-D-O-M-N! Buy it. Wear it. Love it.

Yeah we'll she's gone anyway. HALILUEJEAH

So seriously, I wouldn't waste my time even if I was old enough. You want to go stand in a line for hours and choose between different idiots only to have your vote changed in an instance by our very own Electoral College, have it messed up in the machine, or have some dude pay his way in, you go ahead. I'll live MY life and make sure what I can effect, is affected.

I think it is simply about a principle of demonstrating strength in the face of attack. That is a simple schoolyard technique of dealing with a cowardly bully: when hit, hit back with devastating force so the bully will not strike again.

The radical Islamists who attacked the United States on 9/11 saw us as a soft target, especially when there was little or no response to the first attack on the towers, and the Clinton administration showed no interest in pursuing Bin Laden.

If President Bush had not responded with a massive display of military strength, I truly believe there would have been more, and more brutal attacks in our country no matter how much we strengthened our internal defenses. Personally, I would have preferred that he had taken his stand in Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban, but perhaps after studying the Soviet's failure there, Iraq seemed a better choice.

International intelligence agencies (Great Britain, Russia, the U.N. and Israel) all confirmed the presence of weapons of mass destruction, but because the attack was telegraphed the weapons were either shipped out or hidden. From Desert Storm, the international community already knew that Saddam Hussein had and was likely to again violate the sovereignty of his neighboring countries. Likewise, they knew that he had already used WMD's against the Kurds. Hussein was a genuine bad guy who had killed on both personal and genocidal levels. He was a "good" target.

One way or another, the U. S. had to back up its potential power to destroy our enemies with a demonstration that we had the courage and will to actually use it. As the Japanese who attacked Pearl Harbor learned that wrath of this country is a fearsome thing, so the attack on Iraq, whether the official reason was to eliminate WMDs or an evil dictator, has had the effect of causing our enemies to re-evaluate the cost of further attacks. Libya almost immediately in response to the U. S.' show of strength, backed down from its former stand as a supporter of terrorism.

And that, I believe, despite what the diplomats and politicians may say, is the real reason for the war in Iraq....it was and is a necessary show of force to slow down rage-blinded fanatics that want only to destroy us, by demonstrating that it will not be as easy as they thought.

There is, of course, the don't-ask-don't-tell policy. Which is better than outright witch hunts, but still decidedly suboptimal. First, it allows for vast inconsistency--someone with a big problem with homosexuality, or even just someone with a personal grudge, can probably manage to maneuver someone into "outing" themselves; while someone inclined to like their homosexual subordinate would probably ignore anything much short of a press release. Second, it rewards liars and punishes the honest--I'd be more inclined to trust someone openly living with a same-sex partner than someone nominally heterosexual who finds same-sex partners on the sly, but the first would be kicked out and the second would not be. Third, it makes any serving homosexuals vulnerable to blackmail--if you can get kicked out of the service for revealing your homosexuality, anyone who learns about it potentially has significant leverage.

Now, there is something to be said for the idea that combat is not the best place for social experiments. Other countries' militaries don't have a problem with allowing homosexuals to serve, but I understand that the core of the US military tends to come from socially conservative areas and groups. And I can see where adding potential sexual tension to the mix might possibly have a detrimental effect on unit cohesion (and related group social dynamics--for the purposes of this article, I'll refer to them all as unit cohesion, so I don't have a long explanation every time). But the only halfway reasonable arguments I have heard against allowing homosexuals to serve in the military involve this possible effect on unit cohesion.

So, the obvious first step is to allow homosexuals to serve in any post that can, at present, be held by someone of either gender--that is, non-combat positions. Any post held by both men and women is, presumably, not substantially adversely affected by any potential sexual interest. And I fail to see how the sexual preference of people not present in a combat situation could have any significant effect on unit cohesion in combat. There may need to be a few new fraternization rules in place, for situations where previously the single-gender nature of things like basic training precluded the possibility of sexual situations between heterosexuals, but that would be fairly easy to manage.

Women in combat is another interesting issue. The arguments here are, I must admit, somewhat more valid. Aside from the potentially complex social dynamics of mixed-gender groups, there are real physical differences between men and women, in terms of upper-body strength and the like. There are also some psychological differences which may have an effect on combat ability. However, almost all of these differences are averages rather than absolutes. This means that fewer women than men are physically and psychologically suited to combat, but it does not mean that all or almost all women are unsuitable.

Accepting for the moment the prior premise that sexual interest adversely affects unit cohesion, there's still an obvious solution: female-only combat units. Allow any female volunteer who can pass the physical tests--equivalent, if not necessarily strictly identical, to the limits for men in combat--to join a combat unit, as long as space is available in one of the female-only units. This would allow women in the military to get the combat experience that can be so helpful for promotions and the like, and it would give the United States armed forces greater flexibility in using its personnel, which might significantly ease the pressure on the (male) combat units currently shouldering so much of the burden in Iraq, Afghanistan, and whatever trouble spots flare up in the future.

Of course, to my mind, these are at best half measures based on overly conservative assumptions. I suspect that, with a modicum of awareness and flexibility, mixed-gender combat units, and/or units containing homosexuals, would eventually prove to have no worse effect on unit cohesion than the first mixed-race units did. As long as there are appropriately-enforced fraternization rules, and unit commanders have some authority to split up problem pairs or eject problem individuals from combat units, I anticipate no significant problems.

The cold war never really ended.

And for them to go and attack a small country that's smaller then one of our medium size states. This proves it if you'd ask me. They are bullies that are going to get themselves into a whole lot of trouble that they can't handle.

The Russian army size is well over a hundred times that of the defensive forces of Georgia. Why didn't they pick a fight with someone their own size? For the same reason they didn't before in the cold war; the cowards.

I just hope that they don't hurt anymore innocent people in the surrounding nations that broke off from the Soviets before. If Russia tries to reclaim what they lost Europe and the U.S will step in.

But my point is that I was right. I don't trust the Russian government. And I never will for that matter. People need to see that when the Soviet government collapsed that it just rebuild itself anew.

And will do so until it's rebuilt by another country. Maybe America, maybe not. But we need to do something about this military juggernaut before it gets out of hand. And it might very soon.

Well, not exactly. But she did serve in an international spy ring called the Office of Strategic Services, or OSS, for a few years during World War II. And she's not the only OSS agent who was or would later become famous for something completely unrelated. Other recruits include two of Theodore Roosevelt's sons, actor Sterling Hayden, and the father of Stewart Copeland, the drummer in The Police.

Is this a joke?

No, but it sounds like one. The reality of this is probably rather ordinary, important, but not particularly interesting. Julia Child's job at the OSS was more clerical than cloak and dagger. She was an employee more than an "agent." It's the idea of it that's entertaining. Julia Child, who died in 2004, was not French, her cooking was. Mrs. Child herself was as American as Apple Pie. After graduating from college and armed with a degree in History, she got a job in Advertising. She volunteered for the Red Cross, then joined the OSS. She couldn't get into the Navy because she was too tall.

But Americans will always remember her as The French Chef. She wrote cookbooks. She hosted TV cooking shows. Her unique manner of speech is more memorable to many than her cuisine. She was spoofed on Saturday Night Live. She's an icon.

And now we can say with a straight face, "Julia Child was a World War II Spy." Imagine what Dan Ackroyd could do with this.

Our French Chef took the secret of her OSS service to her grave. Surviving OSS agents can now finally admit, "Yes, I was an OSS agent." They were under a gag order for over 60 years. Can you imagine having to keep a secret like that? Especially when you end up with your own TV show. At times, in the middle of mixing sauces and explaining how to stir them correctly with the cameras rolling in her own home's kitchen, the urge to say, "You know, I was a spy during the war" surely must have welled up in Julia's throat. But we'll never know. She never said a word.

So now we have one more reason to admire Julia Child. And Kermit Roosevelt. And Stewart Copeland's father. But we can also laugh, a little, at the thought of it. Picture Julia Child as a character in a comedy spy movie. Or even a serious Hitchcock film, but her character would surely have had comedic undertones. On a day when the headlines included politically driven murder, turmoil in Eastern Europe, and police corruption, this headline was the one that made me smile.

The troops thoughts

Michel Brown said “ I have a child I havet seen yet and im waiting to go home. They've delayed me for the past year. The god *** goverment needs to let me go. The terriorist are gone anyway. We did them a favor of killing them but now they want us to build them air feilds and give them millions of dollers.”

Joe Ragner said “ My family has not seen me in 4 ******* years. I have seen things a man should ever see. Ive seen my best freind died in my arms. I want to go home to atleast attend his funral. He was killed by a road side bomb.”

Sanchez Remeraz said “I have killed people. Do you know what u feels like after you kill someone. Taking someones life is a sin. So that means the goverment is a sin. It is a sin to listen to the goverment.”

Many American's may not fully understand or even grasp the importance of our country and others who believe in the real potential for the peace we strive to obtain here in America, but unless we can get our own acts together here in America there won't be an America anymore. While we bicker and fight within our own country other countries like Russia and Cuba laugh as they plan our demise.

Many ask why did Christian's become involved in the government issues well I'll tell you honestly why we Christians have taken the mantle of politics; since the nineteen sixty's movements through today our world is filling with people that no longer put God first in their lives, people have become selfish and self-centered showing an indifference to their neighbor's sufferings, people no longer hold to the good and wholesome morals of our God nor our Forefathers. Is it a wonder why many of the other countries view us Americans and our culture as a waste or laugh at us? Our Judicial System that once stood for Justice in America has become as corrupt as our government officials through immorality, allowing the word of criminals in the courts to take precedence over the word of those with no criminal records and the greed and want of money over all that is good and righteous. Those are not the things of God!

You can be angry about the truth all you want but the truth is many nations view America as a demonist country because of our lack of morals today. The freedoms we were fighting for have taken a back seat to the immoral freedoms practiced and then some in this country today. As a woman myself I too am all for women having equal pay for equal work and for a woman to be allowed to vote but not to become vicious and vindictive monsters as many have become, demanding with no morals and no restrictions.

Teaching sex before marriage is acceptable, is not acceptable; handing our children condoms in school is not acceptable; teaching our children to disrespect their parents is not acceptable; teaching everyone that all males are perverted is not acceptable! If men have become perverted it's because women seem to mistakenly believe they should be allowed to dress in clothes that shows so much of their bodies one could argue they were in competition for the whore of the year award.

To teach our children gay and Lesbianism is acceptable should they want to live that way is completely against our God's teachings and needs to stop! We don't believe in hurting those that do live that way but it is truly against our ways and therefore our children are again being taught to disregard their parents. Therefore so long as the government insists upon taking this dark and very wrong path we Christians will indeed take up the mantle of politics and yell as loudly as we can until our country gets back on the right path. Until that day we can depend on being the object of attacks in any way shape and forms they can find. Teaching acceptance of differences does not mean one may live like them nor does it mean to hurt them. Teaching acceptance was suppose to be the freedoms we were fighting for not to imitate that which is against our beliefs. If we can not learn to accept the differences of peoples without doing what they do then this country is in grave danger.

Before you stand in condemnation of what I've said here keep in mind that many of the different beliefs in America are very similar by degrees and measures. Many complain about many of the problems we have world wide being called a Holy War, yes it is a Holy War whether we like it or not and to be viewed as a demonic country is a title we certainly don't want to have here, yet it is the title many are placing on us as a country because what we say and what we practice are two totally different things of late. You can not live selfishly and tell everyone you want to reach out and help them. If the only reason we reach out to other countries and the only countries we reach out to are those that can possibly benefit our country then we will be destroyed as a country because that was never the intent. One can not use the illusion of good deeds for purely selfish reasons.

We as a people had better begin worrying about our own Economic futures rather than your perfect views or how it will affect the price of your land. The cost of your land won't matter at all if you're not alive to reap your rewards of it, and you can't enjoy the view if you're in the hospital all the time instead of at home. If your land is worth more to you than your children and grandchildren or your neighbor may God have mercy on your soul for not doing the good for your fellow men that could have been done. The selfish greediness of many of the people of America is sickening. The lack of good morals of many of the people of America is horrifying. The many of you who expect those that possess very little to give up what little they have to begin with, such as smoking cigarettes for instance, but will place things worth monitory value, such as a view or price value of land above not only the health and needs of others but yourselves are in fact the greediest of all. You want things done but are unwilling to make sacrifices to get them done but you expect everyone else to make sacrifices for your whims and wishes.

Like most attorneys today, you talk a good talk about wanting things done but when push comes to shove you want it done only if you can get some kind of monetary value or grand recognition for your contributions whether you actually made the contribution or not. The oh-so common “what's in it for me” syndrome or to put it simply and bluntly, selfishness; this is the truth, and this is the truth all others who come to America see today.

We American people blame the big companies and corporations because they have lots of money while the majority of us don't, but the truth is they wouldn't be so big and have so much money if we the people didn't buy their products. It's a choice every individual makes when buying products as to where you are buying them from. Many American's doesn't even care where they bought their products from so long as they got the products, which is just as bad if not worse. Most of the money paid for those products just like our energy today goes to other countries and boosts their economy. Now we have a chance to make many changes in our government and in our economic stability so let us start using better judgment and make wiser decisions for the greater good of America as a whole and do what we know we have to do rather than to bicker, complain and place blame. Let America show ourselves to be the mighty country that truly does care about people and not just what we can get in the bargain.

I'm not going to lie to anyone about what we might be up against here, Russia wants us destroyed, there are other countries and groups that want us destroyed and most of them are countries that do not believe in a higher power of any type or are praying to someone not of a higher power but just as destructive and then there are groups that believe we are not a country with morals that would destroy us as well. Our next president will have to be very good with strategy and know our enemies well, because it will take a miracle to keep America from being destroyed this time. We can't expect our president to be bogged down with many of the matters we as a people can do ourselves while our president will be struggling to keep us safe. What may be coming our way today may be far worse than what we went through in 1963.

Once again, as they did during the Vietnam War, some anti-war demonstrators are trying to force our country to cut and run from something we started. Al-Qaida believes it's just a matter of time when Americans will show its lack of commitment and backbone.

Those American men, who fought in Vietnam and put their lives on the line for our country, did not deserve the horrific and disgraceful treatment that our country heaped upon them when they came home. Many years after the war, the effects still linger on in many forms, such as guilt, humiliation, anger and ruined lives due to mental and emotional problems.

There is no doubt that many anti-war demonstrators, back then, thoughtlessly, just wanted to be “part of the crowd.” Their actions and behavior ultimately caused our country to cut and run in heated battle - unthinkable behavior of our great country, the defender of freedom throughout the world!

The Vietnam War could have been won! We didn't lose; we simply allowed them to win! The purpose of the war is debatable, but our military was committed and should have been allowed to achieve its purpose. Not only did we abandon a country and its people who depended on us for their freedom, we also lost the respect of our Allies and countries throughout the world.

Almost 60,000 Americans were killed; more than 300,000 were physically maimed for life and tens of thousands were damaged in many other ways - all for naught - all in vain! Our military was not allowed to finish the job with dignity and purpose!

Think about it for a moment. These were young men who bravely committed their lives to their country. They pledged to willingly give up their lives if necessary to fight for America's interests. Most of them experienced conflict and fear beyond imagination. Many of them killed and maimed other human beings during the war and watched many of their friends in horrible pain and dying, something most American people have not experienced and seemingly cannot put into perspective. They returned home with these horrible experiences in their memories. These are not easy things for anyone to live with, but they will have to deal with these memories the rest of their lives. Our country should have helped them accept what they were forced to do, instead of humiliating them and causing them to feel guilty and alone.

It's too little and possibly too late, but our country is now realizing it made a huge mistake treating Vietnam Veterans as criminals and causing them unwarranted guilt. Americans are now trying to make amends by showing compassion for our current military personnel. Affection and admiration is being displayed in many ways, such as tying yellow ribbons around trees and such, and throwing parades when soldiers come home. We, in this great country, should be doing these things anytime our military personnel have put their lives in harms way to defend our freedom and interests.

If the American soldiers of today (who incidentally are all volunteers and knew what they were getting into) are not allowed to finish their job with respect and dignity, the results will be the same as those of the Vietnam War. The maiming and deaths of soldiers will have been without purpose.

Where is the grit, the spirit, the pride and strength of the American People? We must not make the same mistakes. Think of the potential damage to our country and its fighting soldiers and veterans if we cut and run from Iraq before the job is done!

But don't ask him if McCain was right about the surge, because he'll tell you his idea was better even though all of congress voted for it. No matter how you look at it, Obama is enjoying acting as our president. Shooting some baskets while the wife sits among selected soldiers does not make one the leader of the greatest free country in the world. I can tell you from experience that the Army only selected Obama supporters and desk jockeys to attend any get together. That's Army protocol.

He was against the surge in Iraq even though he is enjoying the results of it now by putting on his little sideshow. Since he was so much against it, why does he want to use it in Afghanistan? The real fighters in the military are afraid of this clown with the big ears. He wanted to pull them out of the war and admit defeat six months ago! And all of you hippie Obama types that have fallen for his great dream speeches should realize that he's going to copy McCain's ideas for Afghanistan if you elect him. So do you vote for the copier or the person that's the real innovator and leader?