Liberty Tree wrote:
In 1776 there was King George III who thought he was above laws and used his power and that of his minions to try and suppress any opposition. He thought he was accountable to no one.
It takes a tremendous about of ignorance to actually believe that. Have you never heard of Parliament? Parliament is the equivalent to our congress and even in 1776, it had far more power than the king did. The banks were the real power because they had influence in the Parliament. In fact, the king wasn't even allowed to set foot in the City of London, because the banks that were headquartered there did not want any influence from the monarch.
Liberty Tree wrote:
We now have one who has the same beliefs and thinks he is King Obama
drama-rama.
Liberty Tree wrote:
I. In 1776 there were the Tories who were blindly loyal to the King and hated the TEA Party and the Sons Of Liberty.
There was no TEA Party back then... Dugh! And the Tories were loyal not because they were blind, they were loyal because they had vested interests in being part of the British colonial economic system. Same reason why 5 of the 18 colonies in North America decided not to join the revolution and why almost half the leaders in the remaining 13 colonies didn't want to join either.
Liberty Tree wrote:
THey had no objections to whatever steps the King took to achieve his goals because his goals were their goals. They have been replaced by today's Democrats and liberals who hate today's TEA Party as much as the forerunners hated the TEA Party of 1776 and the Sons of Liberty.
You have it all backwards. Again, there was no TEA Party in 1776... There was no TEA Party until a black man became president of the United States hundreds of years later. There WERE the Sons of Liberty but they have absolutely nothing in common with Tea Party, in fact they are total opposites.
The Sons of Liberty were opposed to the British colonial economic system because in this system, they were all owned by London-chartered corporations like the Virginia Company and the Plymouth Company and these powerful corporations used their influence on Parliament (House of Commons) to pass unfair laws such as forbidding the colonists to manufacture their own finished products and forcing them to sell raw materials for controlled prices instead. These laws gave enormous unfair advantage to the London-based corporations, but when the colonists complained, the corporate interests in Parliament demanded enforcement and so the king deployed his military (that which wasn't busy fighting the French) and so it came to force.
America has since developed into an almost perfect carbon-copy... only instead of a Constitutional Monarchy we have a Constitutional Republic, so the king is replaced with a president and the parliament is replaced with a congress. Almost everything else remains the same. U.S. corporations influence Congress, getting them to pass laws to give these corporations unfair trade advantages - (same). These advantages are applied to trade agreements which in today's world is the new form of imperialism. Back in the early days colonies were developed because there was no preexisting commercial systems in these places. Today, such primitive states don't exist so colonies are no longer needed... all that's left is to control the systems that already exists.
The TEA Party today is subordinate to these corporations and in direct opposition to the movements, that like the Sons of Liberty, think democracy can provide the fairness that private ownership sometimes denies.
In other words, it's the liberals that have more in common with the Sons of Liberty and the Tea Party is fundamentally opposed to everything the Sons of Liberty stood for. Now, I'm talking about the Tea Party here not their blind followers. Their blind followers mostly lack the education to know any better.
Liberty Tree wrote:
In 1776 there was a group who wanted no conflict, had no courage to take a stand and tried to pacify both sides. They have been replaced by today's RINOS. They could not be trusted then and they cannot be trusted now because they will switch sides to suit themselves.
As I've explained the group that remained loyal to the crown had economic reasons for it. A revolution never guarantees anything so a successful business owner may want to be more conservative and try to keep things the way they are. That's what conservatism is. The RINOs are true conservatives that are being excluded by extremists that don't even have a clue where they're headed.
Liberty Tree wrote:
In 1776 there was the TEA Party group
No there wasn't. In 1776 the closest thing to the Tea Party was the loyalist Tories.
Liberty Tree wrote:
and the Sons of Liberty who knew the danger of too much power in the King and his followers.
...and in the corporations and the banks that controlled them. Read some Jefferson it might educate you.
Liberty Tree wrote:
They knew that basic rights came from the Creator and not the government. They believed in personal responsibility
LOL - they never mentioned anything about personal responsibility. You're getting your propaganda channels mixed.
Liberty Tree wrote:
and were those who forged the Declaration of Independence and later the Constitution.
Not everyone who helped forge the DOI signed or even supported the Constitution. Jefferson penned the DOI - but he refused to sign the Constitution because it prescribed too much central control for his taste. He was an Anti-Federalist.
Liberty Tree wrote:
Today they have been replaced by the current TEA Party and true conservatives who know this country is headed for great harm unless it returns to the founding principles.
Which "they" are you talking about? Are you also completely unaware of the factions among them? Well, it doesn't matter anyway... The Tea Party doesn't play the role that ANY of the revolutionists did. They are not like the Federalists that insisted on a federal government because the Tea Party hates the federal government - their only action in congress so far is to shut the federal government down, not create it. They are certainly NOTHING like the Sons of Liberty - indeed they are the opposite... They are the useful idiots for corporate power opposed to democracy. The Sons of Liberty where the champions of democracy opposed to corporate power.
Liberty Tree wrote:
Those who hate the TEA Party and similar groups would have made great Tories in 1776.
Again - you have it totally ass-backward. It's the Tea Party itself that stands for everything the Sons of Liberty fought against while it's supporters continue this romantic illusion that they are the same. Well, I'm sorry to disappoint you but you can't be the same as the Sons of Liberty by simply stealing their flag. You have to actually believe in the same things and act in the same way, and NONE of that is happening.