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.

Ron Paul isn’t just another lying politician willing to do anything to win votes.  Modern Americans have come to accept the fact that politicians lie, spend millions of dollars, discredit their competitors, and use many other underhanded methods in order to become president.  This is why reporters and many others don’t understand the fervor surrounding Ron Paul’s cause: they don’t actually think that a presidential candidate would tell the whole and complete truth.  Nor do they realize that the truth is exactly what the American people are thirsting for.

Ron Paul’s true aim, more compelling than his bid for presidency, is his desire to spread the truth about the real state of the Union and the fundamental principles that will save America, and to see those principles in action.  In his effort to inform the American people, he has discovered that liberty is still a popular topic among the American people.  There are many who are fed up with the pile of lies they have been fed by self-serving, power-mongering government officials.  They have been searching for a voice of reason.  Ron Paul is simply the voice of truth.  The message is an age-old one that strikes the very center of truth-seekers.

Currently, presidential candidacies are vying for Ron Paul’s support.  They want the enthusiasm propelling his supporters to shift to them, so they can fill their own self-serving agendas.  But that will never happen.  This movement has become much bigger than Ron Paul.  If he were to suddenly change his mind and denounce everything he has said, the movement would go on without him.  The voice of truth has been proclaimed.  The people have heard it and recognized it.  Nothing can stop it from going forward.

Ron Paul’s message is nothing less or more than a call for peaceful change; a return to a government centered on the liberties of the individuals.  Today’s distorted view of government makes his message seem radical; yet, those who take an open-minded look at it find that it is basic and eternally true.  It calls a person to action—to be better than they are.  It stirs the very soul.  It frees the captive mind from ignorance and apathy.  It brings the light of hope in dim circumstances.  It is quite simply the truth.

There has been much talk of restoring of the Islamic Caliphate which once stretched from the Atlantic Ocean to the heart of Asia. This issue is often treated as if central to the cause of the modern movement of true Islam. It is implied that as these lands were once under the guidance of the perfect justice of Islam, they should fall under its guidance again. However, such an approach is limiting to the Islamic movement; it excludes the possibility of a foundation of a global Caliphate free from the despotism of the rule of men and their false systems of belief, free from the oppression that typifies all that is not Islam. For once a Caliphate such as that which is hearkened for by many is restored, a tension will exist between the true equality and justice of the lands under the dominion of Islam and the false equality and justice that reside without its borders. This is not a situation which can be tolerated. Not only will this perpetuate the underserved suffering resulting from the oppressive nature of the ignorant barbarism of the world of infidels, but it will perpetuate the existence of the possibility of the dilution of the perfect Islamic system with non-Islamic ideas.

Neither of these factors can be ignored. The former - that of the suffering caused by servitude of some men to others - is ably demonstrated by the capitalist West, whilst the latter is able demonstrated by the collapse of the original Caliphate, under the influence of that which existed outside its borders. Therefore, if a situation were to arise where only as part of the world were to fall under truly Islamic rule, the suffering caused by “servitude to men” would only be eliminated in certain areas, and wouldn't necessarily be eliminated permanently. It is therefore necessary to ensure that there is nothing that resides outside the borders of the Islamic world; in other words, there must be no borders to the Islamic world, as it must encompass the entire world. However, it is not realistic to assume that the entire world can at once be brought under the just dominion of Islam; a Caliphate similar to that which existed in the past must be established as a vanguard for the establishment of the global Caliphate. The key difference between the new Caliphate (in its incomplete state, i.e. before it encompasses the world) and the old is that is must be recognised as a means to an end, and not the final limit to the propagation of Islamic justice in the world. Thus will the world be permanently free from the suffering caused by “servitude to men.”

Islam is perfectly suited to acting as a vanguard for establishing a global system, as it is natural for Islam to play the role of leaders of mankind. This is evident from the society formed by the Prophet Muhammad, upon whom be peace, and his Companions, which was unequalled by its contemporaries in terms of social justice and geopolitical expansion. There are great parallels between the situation of Muhammad, upon whom be peace, and the situation of true Islam in the modern world; the greatest of these is that between the worlds of then and now. Before Muhammad, upon whom be peace, revealed the true word of God, there existed nothing but ignorance and primitive barbarism; there was no system comparable to Islam in terms if its perfect social justice. Now, there is no truly Islamic society (although truly Islamic ideas and movements do exist) and nothing exists but ignorant barbarism. This is because no society lives under Shariah law whilst truly venerating God. In other words, those societies which cite God as constitutionally sovereign and claim to abide by His law are not truly Islamic as they allow some individuals to wield power over others. In the words of ash-shaheed Sayyid Qutb, any society that “transfers to man one of the greatest attribute of God, namely sovereignty, and makes some men lords over others” cannot be described as anything but barbaric. As it was the duty of the Prophet to lead the world out of this abhorrent state, it must be the duty of modern Islam to lead the world out of its decadence and into a state where every individual can be truly equal before God. This is the Golden Path to Justice.

In order to do this, ash-shaheed Sayyid Qutb compelled us thus: “Islamic belief should at once materialise into a practical movement.” As it currently stands, this movement is employing a single and largely ineffective tactic, which is generally labelled as “terrorism.” The acts of terror tend to be aimed against separate institutions and governments, against small groups of individuals rather than the masses; they may be indirectly aimed at the masses, but the indirect results of acts of terror are counterproductive for the movement, Islam is regularly misrepresented; qualifying the label “terrorist” with the description “Islamic” is now perceived as tautological. Although the Crusader-Zionist Alliance claims to be waging a “war on terror,” pre-emptive strikes have been aimed at Islamic “terrorists” and civilians alike, but not, for example, at ETA or the pIRA. The character of Islam has hence been transformed in the opinion of the masses to a distinctly negative one; they are now perceived as “the enemy.” If the movement aims to propagate the Islamic faith throughout the world of barbarism it is making its task harder by giving the West cause to promote a negative image of Islam. The use of terror is highly unsuitable as a tactic; if the masses fear Islam, they will not be in a position to rationally accept its perfect justness. Therefore, another strategy must be employed if the Golden Path to the establishment of a global Islamic Caliphate is to be negotiated.

The efforts of the global struggle must be concentrated in one area; instead of undertaking a number of smaller strikes over a large area, a single massive strike must be made at the heart of the world of the ignorant barbarians. The dissipation of the previous attacks has limited their effect in reducing the dominance of barbarism; the attacks on New York, London and Madrid have not weakened the grip of the barbarian systems upon these States, nor of the barbarian grip on the West. The attitude of these victim states has been to treat these acts of terror as temporary setbacks in their onward march. This cannot be allowed to occur if the modern Islamic movement is to succeed in its goal. The setback must be a permanent one; an institution must be destroyed; a State must be overthrown; a direct strike must be carried out against the way of life of the ignorant barbarians.

The question of against which State or institution this strike should be levelled revolves around the factors of the potential ease of victory, logistics and the effect of a successful strike on the world of the infidels. It would be easy, for example, to overthrow a sub-Saharan republic and establish a truly Islamic society. However, there may be little local support for this; a widespread lack of education may prevent the perfect justice of Islam from being accepted as the most rational solution; the greatest problem in this case, however, is that it would not be a strike at the very heart of the ignorant barbarism of the infidels. In terms of this factor, the greatest possible strike would be the removal of the US government and the creation of an Islamic society within its lands, but this would prove logistically impossible in the immediate future. The UK government is a perfect target for an Islamic coup d'état. It is a key part of the Crusader-Zionist Alliance, meaning that its defeat will be a strike at the very heart of the infidels. The movement has already carried out two attacks in London, and there is much support for the movement's cause in the UK. The combination with the existent support already in place, with the human and material resources currently at the disposal of the global movement, provides the greatest chance for success. This will be the first step on the Golden Path to justice.

The overthrowing of a corrupt infidel power which seeks only to maintain its position as lord over the people - a position to which it has no right - and its replacement with perfect justice and equality will demonstrate the power of the Islamic faith and its social manifestation. In the words of ash-shaheed Qutb, “the growth of the Muslim community, including its ideas, morals, education and training was due to its belief…[which] derives its power from the simple and clear truth on which it stands.” There will be automatic comparison between the State which exploited, alienated and impeded the freedom of its people, and the Islamic one, where no individual is forced to submit to another, where no individual may be exploited by another for personal material gain. If an infidel were to make this comparison, their rationality would lead them to the Islamic faith, with its just and equal society based upon God's perfect law. The potential for the Islamic faith to inspire others is evident from the current strategy of terrorism, with acts of martyrdom inspiring further acts of martyrdom. The power of faith must be utilised to guide the world on the Golden Path to the establishment of a global Caliphate; once a strike has been levelled against the world of the infidel, the expansion of the Caliphate is inevitable.

The time has come for the true Muslims of the world to unite and, God willing, launch a deadly strike against the infidel.

China has long been the principal ally of the Burmese generals, shielding them from censure at the UN Permanent Security Council by judicious use of the veto and sending thousands of Chinese workers to build the infrastructure that might just help transform the Burmese economy from its disastrously ramshackle state of affairs. China has also contributed a hydroelectric power station which has made possible the extraordinary relocation of the capital to Naypidaw from Rangoon (Yangon). When it was first announced that the capital had suddenly been moved, there was widespread amazement across the region. Very few people have been permitted to visit the site of the new capital, which initially appeared to be just a few buildings in what had once been them idle of the jungle. Naypidaw now has accommodation blocks for civil servants and more impressive apartment buildings for senior officials. Ministry buildings have been completed on a standard basis, with Burmese motifs enhancing the architecture. There are precious few facilities for the civil servants who have been forced to uproot themselves and move halfway across the country. There are certainly very few opportunities for the notoriously poorly-paid junior civil servants to find ways to supplement their meagre incomes. No embassies have yet to move to the new capital and no businesses have been willing or, indeed permitted, to establish representative offices there. In terms of efficiency of governance, the move is as debilitating as it is mystifying. There is still speculation that paranoid Than Shwe feared invasion by sea from US forces, although that seems a remote possibility. Others have noted that Naypidaw is close to the location of one of the historical imperial capital sites and speculated that Rangoon is too much under the influence of the British colonialists. Others again talk about moving to a location closer to the centre of the country to be closer to all regions. In any case, the enormous expenditure of resources seems to be a wholly wasteful disaster.

The movement of the capital also means that the generals are far removed from the centres of protest in Rangoon, Mandalay and other important towns and cities in the country. Whether Than Shwe is still capable of being swayed by the sight of military goons attacking unarmed monks with batons and guns remains to be seen, although surely there are some among the junta who would be. However, they are not there. Even the UN Emissary, Ibrahim Gambari, is finding it difficult to gain access to the generals, although he has apparently been able to speak to democratically-elected prime minister Aung San Suu Kyi, who has been held under house arrest for years and who has never been permitted to take up her legal right to rule the country. Indeed, Than Shwe took over the country after a series of struggles among the military in 1993, when a more hard-line attitude towards the democratic process became evident. Now the military is trying to lock down the country, apparently having turned off internet and mobile phone connections and, according to its editor, launched a denial-of-service attack against the pro-democracy magazine The Irrawaddy (Irrawaddy). However, modern information technology has become so prevalent and the technical abilities of the Burmese military so ham-fisted compared to the nimble young people able to outwit them that it is almost impossible to prevent news leaking out these days. The atrocities that are being committed will become known and, at least so it is to be hoped, perpetrators will one day be punished.

Rumours are swirling around the expatriates in Thailand and the media that hundreds of monks were dragged out of their monasteries are placed in detention. People fear the real death toll is enormously higher than the nine or ten variously reported as having been acknowledged by the junta. International condemnation of the acts of violence has been patchy: US President George W Bush has been commendably vocal but his credibility is at a very low ebb after his various foreign and domestic policy escapades; European leaders are firm but compromised by the businessmen perfectly happy to come and do business where they can. India has been silent. It is China to which we look for a lead in these trying times.

Utterly bored, and expecting the usual political blithering and double-talk akin to over-produced political debates, the 19-year old student heard one of the men say something delightfully provocative, without agenda, that seemed pure to his ears. The man spoke of small government, legalizing the constitution, and unabashedly denouncing the IRS.

That man was Republican presidential candidate Dr. Ron Paul, and from that moment, Dexter has been one of the hundreds of foot soldiers in Murfreesboro who help to spread the ideas of the Ron Paul revolution.

“As soon as the debate ended, I spoke with my cousin Reed, (Johnson) and asked him if he had heard of Ron Paul… he knew more than I did, and since then we have gone to rallies, written articles and begun having political conversations with friends,” reports Dexter. However, Dexter has had trouble spreading the word to others who haven't previously heard of Paul.

“… When I make comments in class, (about Paul) people just laugh. People don't see his message, they just see him as another Ralph Nader,” Dexter tells me.

Yet, those who have been exposed to Paul's message of personal liberty and freedom take the 10-term congressman very seriously.

Murfreesboro Ron Paul meet-up coordinator John Freeman wrote on his profile page, "I've never been so excited about a political candidate, and I want to be actively involved in what is truly a modern revolution. I am hoping to meet a vast and diverse group of people who share the same interests in personal liberty and (want) to support Ron Paul!"

So what is creating the disconnect between those who hear Paul's ideas and those who don't feel as if Paul deserves to have his ideas considered and heard on a legitimate, visible platform?

Walking around campus you see “Ron Paul 2008, Hope For America” bumper stickers on trashcans, walls, doors, and message boards about every 100 feet, however, if you watch the news on major media outlets like CNN, Fox News and MSNBC you wouldn't know Paul was running for office.

This fervent support for Paul is consistent off campus as well where you can drive down seemingly any street in Murfreesboro and see the signs of Ron Paul supporters. Yet all the grassroots attention Paul seems to receive has not translated into mainstream media attention.

Is this a sign that the support Paul receives is less than imagined, or that his message is so threatening to the status quo that his ideas are being black balled by mainstream media?

After all, where are all the Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Mitt Romney, or Barack Obama signs and bumper stickers? How were the frontrunners in each party getting votes without the rabid support that Paul backers have exerted?

The answer, Dexter believes, lies in the lack of media support locally and nationally for Paul, and the constant barrage of media coverage the frontrunners receive on a daily basis.

“Most people (my age) either don't care to vote or will just vote for the most popular candidate, the one with the most (media) coverage,” he says.

Could Dexter be right? Are we being conditioned by mainstream media to choose the candidate that the businessmen working at CNN, Fox News and MSNBC want us to support?

The facts make for an interesting case: Paul has broken the presidential campaign fundraising record for a single-day with $6.3 million raised online, has more than 17,000 precinct leaders, is the most searched candidate on the internet and out-raised all other Republicans in the third quarter with more than $22 million.Yet, when Paul took second place in the Nevada primary, Fox News failed to report it, instead choosing to focus on third place finisher John McCain.

Currently, three candidates remain in the presidential race for the republican nomination: John McCain, Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. Of the before mentioned candidates, Ron Paul has nearly $8 million of campaign funds on hand, $5 million more than the closest candidate, John McCain. Again, and without surprise this fact is strangely absent from mainstream media coverage.

Ron Paul's presidential bid has aroused many grassroots supporters in Murfreesboro and across the country, and continues to raise money from many individuals each day, you might wonder if the popularity of the Ron Paul campaign is about Ron Paul at all, or rather the seemingly new idea of freedom and personal liberties.

“You see a guy like (Paul), who has fought for these principles for 30 years, and you say (to yourself) I need to do this too… it's my civil duty to do this,” explained Brian Comer, MTSU graduate and Ron Paul meet-up member.

Brian jumped at the opportunity to reply to the implication that the Ron Paul presidential campaign was simply the flavor of the month, rather than a legitimate movement.

“It's more so a revolution than a presidential campaign. The people who support Paul see him as a cog on the wheel… Ron Paul has a great message, don't get me wrong, he just has a hard time saying it… people are not worshipping the man, they're worshipping the message.”

Ron Paul's campaign has received contributions from more than 400, 000 individuals and the numbers are growing everyday, so it seems support is growing and the revolution is real and here to stay. As it stands currently, Paul's presidential bid is in doubt, but has clearly been effective in spring boarding the minds and passion of young people across the nation.

When asked why this particular message is so popular, Brian exclaimed, “ (Ron) Paul is concerned with his constituents, the people. Other candidates are concerned with their constituents as well, except their constituents are corporations and lobbyists. (Paul) actually votes for conservative issues, while McCain just flip-flopped on water boarding. I plan on fighting for this message everyday of my life… teaching my children this message, after all, freedom is popular.”

Recently, Ron Paul has caused a bit of a stir due to speculations that he is, in fact, a racist. Here are apparent quotes from his “Freedom Watch” newsletter:

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teenage male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e., support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."

"Politically sensible blacks are outnumbered as decent people... I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city (Washington, D.C.) are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

Recently, the Paul campaign has accepted money from Stormfront, a well-known hate site. He is also heavily endorsed by many white-supremacist groups.

However, let's not forget the following:

• Ron Paul is very anti-war and has been from the beginning.
• Ron Paul is the only candidate addressing the issues concerning the Federal Reserve

What concerns me the most is that neither Ron Paul nor has his campaign issued any kind of statement regarding these racist accusations that have been circulating. At least, not to my knowledge. One would imagine that the circulating of this information be it true or false would be an issue of concern for Ron Paul, and something he would want to address right away. However, I have yet to find anything of the sort. This article is not an attempt to bash Ron Paul, but to merely put some questions out there that should be answered… The results, as of right now, are still inconclusive.

After the Revolution my direct ancestor and his family, along with 30,000 other like-minded loyalists, were literally shipped out to what is now New Brunswick, Canada. The British designated New Brunswick as a Loyalist enclave, making room for these folks to start their lives over again. You have to wonder if any kind of temporary physical torture can be as cruel as stripping a man and his family of their identity, home, livelihood and citizenship.

It may seem a stretch, but this realization helps put the current conflict in Iraq in better perspective. It was ¬¬¬¬12 years of confusion, and we must assume some bloodletting, before the U.S. Constitution was ratified by the disparate states to try working together as a nation. It is hard today to appreciate the difficulties trying to bring these strongly independent people together under one agreement. States Rights advocates in the American South still claim these differences were never really resolved, and the South eventually felt it necessary to split from the Union completely to get out from under the “economic tyranny” of the northern states. Southern sympathizers still call the Civil War the “War of Northern Aggression,” probably not the way it was seen by the victors.

What is currently happening in Iraq has similarities to both wars necessary to create our nation, with the added complication of centuries of absolute religious hatred between the adversaries. The sectarian violence between Iraqi’s is not that much different than the emotion that fueled many of the battles of our Civil War. Battles like Spotsylvania Court House in Virginia, where lines of opposing soldiers stood face-to-face for hours swinging rifle butts and bayonets, while standing on the bodies of their fallen comrades, some of whom drowned in their own blood. We don’t like to think about it, but the freedoms citizens of this nation enjoy were born out of the same kind of bloody conflicts we now see everyday in our media.

The men and women we call heroes of Revolutionary War times, were considered radicals of their time, much like those we called radicals in the late 1960s, who demonstrated for social, political and economic reform in the U.S. All the law enforcement resources in the country were mobilized to put down that “uprising” of the nation’s young people. Nothing illustrated this better than to see rows and rows of riot police line the long flight of stairs at the back of the U.S. Capitol building in the Spring of 1970, protecting this symbol of democratic freedom from its’ own children.

The side which wins the war usually writes the history of the conflict and determines the implications of the victory. Most U.S. history books give little space to the Loyalists, or go into depth on the motivations for the confused loyalties. It seems though, that these “conservatives” of the day were interested in protecting their families, their property, their business interests and simply were not yet prepared to risk everything on what must have seemed to many to be the idealistic whims of a bunch of “hotheads.” We have the advantage of over 200-plus years of hindsight to see that the experiment worked. (Now there is a case for reparations, to the descendants of the American Loyalists.)

The Iraqi’s of course don’t have that historical perspective, and quite frankly the U.S. government doesn’t have that great a track record for supporting its’ friends. How many South Vietnamese “loyalists” were thrown into slavery or lost their lives when we pulled out? We left Somalia with a whimper. Many in the U.S. are currently demanding a premature pullout? The worse part of this mentality is that the Democrats are trying to capitalize on the unpopularity of the war to embarrass the Republicans and President Bush and ride into the White House on the backs of those soldiers already killed in the conflict.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has already declared defeat for the Americans/Iraqi’s, and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi has agreed, doing all she can to undermine the U.S. war effort. It isn’t politically correct, but these statements and actions border on treason and should be dealt with appropriately. The American Revolution was not won with a mighty defeat, buy rather by cornering General Cornwallis in Hampton Roads and allowing him to give up. General Washington had to hurry down from the north or he would have missed the ceremony. Cornwallis wasn’t defeated he just gave up (cut-and-ran). The U.S. cannot afford to do the same in Iraq, we must learn from history.

If the defeatists get their way, millions of Iraqi “loyalists” who put their faith in the U.S. and a democratic way of life, may lose everything they have, not to mention their lives and lives of their families. History can be a great teacher, but who is listening.

These two ladies have done many realisations trying to help their husbands to build a world where intellectuals and peasants work together. They were very interested in health and nature. October is the month which has also been called literay in French Red October.

The colour red is the color of blood. In Russia where the red revolution of Lenin originated, families where often the size of four children and the father and mother. That is an excellent family size just like the Tsar Nicholas Romanov who had one son and three daughters.

His son was Prince Alexei and his daughters were archiduchesses Olga, Tatiana and Anastatia. The movie Anastasia was inspired by the story of Romanov. Empress Elizabeth became Empress and royal because of her husband Emperor Franz-Joseph with her they created the Roman German Empire. So, it is time to reflect on the work of these two ladies who have made an interesting contribution to humanity and science.