To succeed in a political cause among some circles, all you have to do is take a story from the founders and liken it to our present time. That is, phrase it terms to match your present dogmatic needs. Here's Sen. Lee's homage to his fantasies:
In 1773, Americans had simply had it with a London-based national government that had become too big, too expensive and far too intrusive. -Mike LeeThere has to be a better source for history! So, I went to the Library of Congress's website (Mikey may have lost his library card).
Parliament enacted the Tea Act to shore up the financially troubled East India Company. The Act actually placed no new tax on tea (this was still on the books from the Townshend Duties). Instead, it gave the East India Company a virtual monopoly on selling tea in the colonies. The British assumed that colonists would welcome the lower price of tea achieved by eliminating the merchant middleman. The Tea Act, however, angered influential merchants who feared the monopoly would affect them directly. For many more colonists, the Tea Act revived passions about taxation without representation. Soon the colonists again responded with a boycott of tea. Earlier protests had involved relatively few colonists, but the tea boycott mobilized a large segment of colonial society.
In late 1773, leaders in many colonies planned to prevent the East India Company from landing tea shipments. In Boston, however, the tea ships arrived in port but would not leave. On December 16, groups of 50 men each boarded three ships, broke open the tea chests, and threw them into the harbor. As news of the "tea party" spread, similar acts of resistance occurred in other ports.It's just not that hard. The LOC even has original documents:
Last night, the President did not engage in soaring rhetoric. Neither did anyone yell, "YOU LIE." Maybe the fever has broken.
Wait. The Utah legislature has convened. I think they may still have the flu bug.